Balkinization: Where are the Kagan Confirmation Hearing Transcripts?

Comments:

Maybe somebody on Journolist suggested that posting the transcripts would be counter-productive? ;)

Seriously, though, and in response to the post below; Doesn't a 'conversation' generally involve people responding to what other people are saying, rather than just making set piece statements of their views and going away? I don't see any conversation there.

It was kind of interesting to hear from Cornell again; Haven't seen much of his output since Joyce defunded his propaganda mill.

# posted by

Brett : 6:43 AM

Brett, in his customary "missing link" role, fails to provide any of the requested links. As to Brett's continuing attack on legal historian Saul Cornell, perhaps he might "enjoy" Alison LaCroix's 6/29/10 post at:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/the-thick-edge-of-the-wedge/print/

on the misuse of history in McDonald.

By the way, is there a right to self defense (with guns, of course) under the Golden Arches per Heller and McDonald, or are these precedents only at home (on the range).

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:49 AM

Jack:

Seriously, does it really matter?

Last year, while doing her best Nino Scalia imitation to get confirmed, Sotomayor lied that she considered Heller to be settled law and the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, once safely ensconced on the bench with a lifetime tenure, the Wise Latina shifted to form and joined the McDonald dissent proclaiming: "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

Does anyone seriously believe Kagan, an acolyte of Justice Thurgood Marshall and Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice Aharon Barak, when she claimed this week to enforce the law as written?

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 10:03 AM

CQ has them.

# posted by

Chief Justice Franco-Malone : 10:18 AM

Baghdad, I fully believe that she will enforce the law as written, just not how nutcases like you and Brett believe it's written.

# posted by

Bartbuster : 10:36 AM

I am so uninterested in the whining of a bunch of losers who wouldn't recognize accurate 2nd amendment history if Tenche Coxe rose from his grave to beat them with a copy of Storey's commentaries.

To be sure, the majority's history wasn't exactly very good, either. Couldn't be, when they didn't want to uphold anything but a watered down, PC version of the 2nd amendment.

# posted by

Brett : 9:05 PM

Brett continues with his "missing link" role selecting Trenche Coxe as his primary historical source and loading him posthumously with Storey's Commentaries written after Coxe's demise to explain the real meaning of the Second Amendment.

Brett shows his disdain even for the majority in McDonald with his reference to its faulty history resulting in "but a watered down, PC version of the 2nd amendment."

Fear not, Brett, there are activist absolutist gun yahoos like you out there, seeking to expand gun rights beyond the home. Cheryl Corley"s "Gun Activists Gear Up To Challenge Local Gun Laws" post of July 1, 2010 is available on NPR. But does self-defense really, really require an arsenal? A gun a month is not enough?

And Brett, speaking of whining, are you still on your rant with the Commerce Clause?

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 6:06 AM

"But does self-defense really, really require an arsenal? A gun a month is not enough?"

By that reasoning, the government could ban my Webster's unabridged dictionary, because nobody needs that big a vocabulary to speak freely. They could work out the minimum vocabulary needed to communicate under the most common circumstances, (I believe it's probably on the order of 1,500 words or so...) require licensing to exceed it, and ban outright the words with more than three syllables.

And it would be illegal to complain that you weren't permitted to speak polysyllabic words. ;)

Why do you want to prevent me from having an arsenal? I've only got two trigger fingers. The most I could shoot at once is two of them, no matter how many I own. What's the freaking POINT of loosing it when somebody has more than two guns?

Can you explain that to me?

And, yeah, I'm still pissed about the commerce clause, too. As long as the Constitution says one thing, and jurisprudence says something completely different, people who actually value having a constitution will be pissed off.

# posted by

Brett : 6:36 AM

Arsenals of guns don't kill people but Webster's Unabridged might? I suppose the First Amendment would provide some protection to an arsenal of books, including dictionaries of all kinds, and yes, subversive texts as well. But what in the world of self-defense in the home justifies an arsenal of guns? Perhaps Brett is providing the "missing link" between the First and Second Amendments, with guns (and their use) as a form of protected speech. Of course the gun-rights yahoos won't rest with handguns and rifles, seeking to extend the interpretation/construction of arms that can be kept and borne. And keep in mind, Brett, that technology does not limit pulling the trigger to two trigger fingers per person at one time. Alas, our Brett yearns to be home on the range with all kinds of targets to aim at, in self-defense, of course. But someone else may be of similar mind on that range. I grew up playing cowboys and indians, well knowing that it was make believe. But these gun rights yahoos seem to have gone well beyond make believe, fantasizing cowardly conduct that guns empower them with. Maybe the Nobel Committee will come up with a prize for them.

# posted by

Shag from Brookline : 7:59 AM

Honestly, both sides on the Court advance this talking past each other on the issue of gun rights.

Senators Leahy and Feingold spoke about their support of Heller during the Kagan hearings, but apparently not one "liberal" on the Court could even accept it for precedential value on the narrow question of incorporation.

[the "settled law" stuff is cant that neither side takes totally seriously ... as to Sotomayor, she noted it existed and all, but didn't say she would always follow it, or expand on it ... ditto Kagan]

Meanwhile, Scalia and Alito basically think history stops circa 1868 ... except when citing modern incorporation doctrine that precedent requires ...

Stevens thinks selective incorporation is important. Does this mean that he accepts non-unanimous juries? Other than that and civil juries, what is left? Are we going to rest on the need for some exception for Grand Juries? Need we be that anal? BTW, a ruling a few years ago said the Excessive Fines Clause WAS incorporated. Make up your mind SC!

Like the ACLU supporting Citizens United, there is room for getting past the same old parties taking the same sides. If Kennedy wrote the opinion -- the exceptions allowed have his fingerprints on them -- we very well might have got some talk of modern experience, including how most state constitutions protect the right. But, instead, we get law office history, though Thomas' concurrence was pretty good.

# posted by

Joe : 11:24 AM

BTW, since this same question (about finding transcripts) was posted at least three places, why just open comments for that?

Dellinger/Clement/Lithwick talk about the term ending over at Slate, e.g., and comments and even a "fray" for extended remarks is readily available. I don't know how much they pay attention, but it's appreciated.

I thought Coburn was refreshing, even if I find some of his views misguided. Coburn noted that he respects Feingold, even though he feels the same way about some of his liberal views. Ah, the power of actual back/forth, limited as it might be!

# posted by

Joe : 11:27 AM