Elena Kagan's nonreaction to Heller

Well. Okay then.

I think her answers on Heller were pretty clear.

Answer: The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Court granted this right the same status as other individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as those protected in the First Amendment. Like other nominees to the Solicitor General position, I have refrained from providing my personal opinions of constitutional law (except in areas where I previously have stated opinions), both because those opinions will play no part in my official decisions and because such statements of opinion might be used to undermine the interests of the United States in litigation. I can say, however, that I understand the Solicitor General’s obligations to include deep respect for Supreme Court precedents like Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally. There is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees Americans “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

If you are confirmed, will you commit to protect an individual’s right to possess a firearm? Answer: If I am confirmed, I will commit to show Heller and the principles articulated in it the full measure of respect that is due to all constitutional decisions of the Court. Only highly unusual circumstances can justify the Solicitor General’s office in asking the Court to reconsider a decision, especially one as thoroughly considered as Heller. Once again, there is no question, after Heller, that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms and that this right, like others in the Constitution, provides strong although not unlimited protection against governmental regulation.

Answer: The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008), that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. In light of this right, the Court invalidated a ban on handgun possession in the home. At the same time, the Court stated that “some measures regulating” firearms would comport with this constitutional right. Essentially, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should be treated like any other constitutional right – the Court, for example, offered an analogy to the First Amendment – providing strong but not unlimited protection. As I indicated at my confirmation hearing, my concept of the Solicitor General’s role includes respect for Supreme Court precedents such as Heller and for the principle of stare decisis generally.

She won't vote on MacDonald. How would she feel about invalidating Slaughter-House? Or does she thing gerrymandering the P&I clause out of the Constitution was a good thing?

If it's OK, how would she feel about torturing the definition of "reasonable regulation" to the same extent that Kelo did with "property rights"?

And does she really think Heller upheld the "bear" part of "keep and bear" or just the the "keep" part?

Honestly, I think this woman is as good as we'll get from a liberal president.

As good as we'll get? We know nothing about her, good or bad.