Fox News reports:
Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan told her confirmation panel Tuesday that the landmark decision extending gun rights to all 50 states is “binding precedent,” despite a senator’s suggestion that the 5-4 ruling was on shaky ground. . .
The nominee said that unless the circumstances that led to a decision change or some other significant grounds can be found to challenge, “the operating presumption of our legal system is that a judge respects precedent. … You assume that it’s right and that it’s valid going forward.” . . .
Such answers could help to assuage Republicans’ concerns that Kagan would advance her political views, which they claim to be liberal, on the high court.
Well, it could assuage those concerns, but it shouldn’t. Sotomayor said the same thing at her confirmation hearing, then reneged the first chance she got:
The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
Contrast that with her Senate testimony: “I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” And, “I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.”
Yet her McDonald opinion shows her “understanding” that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.
To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is “settled law.” The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, “said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases.”
So by “settled,” she apparently meant “not settled; should be overturned immediately.”
Sotomayor lied. Why should we believe Kagan is any different?