« The Empire Strikes Back | Main | Reaction to McDonald v. Chicago »
Dave Kopel's testimony on the Kagan nomination
Video on Youtube, here.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
he is right, we are right, we will lose and Kagan will be the next justice seated on the USSC. Here is something I wrote on another site on this issue that addresses Kopel's statement that there are apspects that have not been "litgated". This was written prior to hearing Kopel's testimony, but it certainly applies.:
No matter how many lawsuits are filed and even won against crap like this, the Daleys of the nation will replace the defeated law with another just as egregious, requiring another lawsuit. In this way they can extend this fight for centuries. No! That is not hyperbole, centuries.
This will only be settled when there are unpleasant ramifications are visited upon the abusers. Since we have no expectations, realistic or fanciful, of these ramifications being supplied by the justice system we have only one way to settle this issue peacefully. That is surrender. Let them have their way. That is the only avenue to peaceful resolution.
If you find that to be anathema to your rights and our nation then the only way to settle this to its proper conclusion is force.
Anything less will not work, because the tyrants lose nothing, even when they lose. Force will change the solution to that equation and as things now stand, it is the only thing that will.
Someone needs to tell Senator Schumer how to pronounce Kopel. :)
His conclusion in this testimony is absolutely fantastic (start at about 4:15 in the YouTube link):
"The Second Amendment cannot long endure without a robust First Amendment. Based on Ms. Kagan's scholarly works, it is clear that not since Robert Bork has the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on a Supreme Court nominee
with such a well-established record in favor of substantially constricting First Amendment rights.
Ms. Kagan was a great dean at Harvard, and her testimony has shown you that she is expert on Constitutional law, highly intelligent, and has a fine sense of humor. Neither her testimony, nor her professional record, have given you plausible reasons to believe that she would protect the Second Amendment rights of the American people."
Very well put, accessible language.