Supreme Court Backs Second Amendment

By Rob Sanna - Talk Radio News Service

The Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment with a 5-4 vote in the McDonald vs. The City of Chicago case. The court ruled that the right to keep and bear arms be extended to state and local governments declared it unconstitutional for cities and states to ban guns.

Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre called the decision a "landmark case that makes the second amendment a real part of constitutional law." He said this case is a real victory because it defends the constitutional rights Americans have.

Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the decision did not come as a surprise because arguments against gun laws were very similar to arguments made in the District of Columbia vs. Heller case in 2008, where the court also struck down gun bans. He also noted that the decision will have little direct impact, given Chicago and D.C. are the only cities with gun bans, and it is likely the cities will rewrite these laws and continue to limit gun ownership.

Helmke said that the definition of the Second Amendment is still very narrow and the right to bear arms is not unlimited. Laws that limit gun possession such as registration are still constitutional and are likely to remain law even if challenged in future lawsuits, he added.

The lead attorney who argued against gun bans in the Heller case and the McDonald case, Alan Gura said that he will continue litigation with the Chicago until public policy complies with the Bill of Rights. The city will not challenge registration laws, but Gura said they intend to focus on removing "unbelievable bureaucracy" which makes it very difficult for citizens to own guns.

Kagan Nomination Sure To Spark Predictable Rhetoric

Late yesterday afternoon I started hearing rumors that President Obama had settled on his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. Later, just before I went to bed, my BlackBerry started buzzing with reports that indeed, the President had made his choice, and that he would be publicly announcing it early Monday morning. Well, as luck would have it, I had already booked a tour of the Pentagon for this morning at 10:00 am, the exact time the President would be unveiling his nomination.

When you tour the Pentagon, there are a few rules. Among them: no carrying any weapons of mass destruction. Check. No chewing gum. Check. And most importantly, no cell phone use (the guide makes everyone turn them off). Not wanting to cause a stir, I politely obeyed that last rule. But my obedience came with a price, I would not be able to read all the breaking news and Tweets from reporters covering the major announcement.

My tour ended around 11:00 am. Naturally, the first thing I did was turn my phone on and check Twitter to see what had been written about the announcement. As I had expected, based on numerous reports both yesterday and earlier this morning, the President had nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace the retiring Justice John Paul Stevens at the end of the summer. The next thing I did was check my inbox for press releases. Not surprisingly, I had already received more than a few.

Now, I don't pretend to be a Supreme Court expert -- I'll leave that to my colleague -- so I'll spare you my misguided opinions on whether or not Ms. Kagan is qualified to serve on the High Court. However, as someone who covers Congress, I plan on paying close attention to the forthcoming nomination process because I am interested in seeing how it plays out in a political context.

It's no secret that the divide between the two major parties has only grown larger over the past few years. Now, thanks to one-party control of both Houses, the rise of the anti-big government Tea Party movement and a monumental healthcare reform bill that re-ignited a once politically doormant legion of voters nationwide, that divide is arguably at an all-time high.

The first email I read was a lengthy statement on the nomination from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, a sure-to-be VIP in the months to follow. Near the end of his statement, Leahy said the following:

"Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to the Senate is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. Americans are looking to Washington to cast aside the political rancor and partisanship that has fueled so many recent debates."

Indeed, driven by such partisan rancor, the battle lines have been definitively drawn on every single substantive issue Congress has worked on lately. From health care, to extending unemployment benefits, to Wall Street reform, the debate has become fairly predictable. In a nutshell it's this: if you're a 'D', you're probably with the President and his administration. If you're an 'R', you're opposed.

Case in point, the following three statements were sent to my inbox from Democrats this morning:

"President Obama has chosen a candidate who will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Solicitor General Kagan's outstanding service as a lawyer, professor, public servant, and administrator prepares her for this challenge, and she will come to the bench with a deep knowledge of the law and respect for all individuals."

"Elena Kagan has won the respect and admiration of colleagues on both the left and the right for her legal and policy knowledge and for her success in working with advocates of a wide range of viewpoints. I have no doubt that she will bring the same skills to the Supreme Court, as its unprecedented third female justice, where I know that she will be mindful of the impact of the law on the lives of ordinary Americans."

"It appears that Elena Kagan would bring a great deal of knowledge and real-world experience to the Supreme Court...Elena Kagan’s experience outside courtrooms should not be held against her."

Which three Democrats issued those statements, you ask? I say, does it matter? To me, anyone with a D after their name could've written them. 100% of Democrats (at least in the Senate) will do anything the current President asks or demands of them. During last year's confirmation battle over Sonia Sotomayor, Democrats often chided Republicans, saying they wouldn't even vote to confirm Moses if he had been nominated to serve (they're still using that talking point, by the way). I don't know about that, but let's suppose the President had chosen a candidate completely lacking in qualification. I am willing to bet that most Democrats would have uniformly supported a quick confirmation.

To be fair, when it comes to solidarity, the same can be said of the other side as well. Here are some excerpts of a few emails I received this morning from Republicans.

“President Obama's decision to nominate Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court demonstrates his willingness to sacrifice experience and judicial impartiality for political activism. Despite Ms. Kagen's lack of judicial experience and limited legal practice, it is clear  that she will use her position to push her personal and political agenda."

 “We know that several areas warrant close scrutiny. Ms. Kagan’s lack of judicial experience and short time as Solicitor General, arguing just six cases before the Court, is troubling."

“There is nothing that requires the President to replace a liberal Justice with a liberal; but unfortunately it appears President Obama is doing just that.  Though Kagan has no prior judicial record for the Senate to review, her role as an Obama-insider and senior official in the Administration indicates that she shares the same liberal judicial philosophy as the President and his top advisors."

Again, I'd reveal the names of the Republicans that released these statements, but it's a moot issue. They are Republicans, they CAN'T support anything this administration attempts to do. Especially with mid-terms coming up.

Listen, if you're still not convinced that this is about anything more than D versus R, consider Arlen Specter. As a Republican last year, he voted against confirming Ms. Kagan as Solicitor General. Now, as a Democrat, he says he is open to supporting her confirmation to the Supreme Court. Really? Did she change that much over the past 12 months? Hmmmmmm.

The bottom line is this: In the end, Elena Kagan will be sworn in as our nation's next Supreme Court Justice, probably sometime before the Fall. The question is, will her confirmation process go smoothly? That all depends on whether or not the divide between parties diminishes or grows larger. And based on what I'm seeing so far, I'd say it's safe to expect bumpy conditions this summer.

Obama Nominates Elena Kagan To Supreme Court

President Obama today announced that he will be nominating Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. Kagan would be the fourth woman ever to serve on the high court, and her confirmation would mark the first time three women had served at the same time.

Kagan has been the Solicitor General since last March, and in that position she has argued several cases before the Supreme Court. Prior to her appointment, Kagan served as Dean of Harvard Law School. She has also worked in the Clinton White House and taught law at Harvard Law and the University of Chicago, where she met the president.

Kagan has no prior judicial experience other than arguing a few cases before the Supreme Court this term.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will likely take up the nomination before the July 4 recess.

Supreme Court Asks For Nearly $4 Million More Than Previous Year

By Chingyu Wang-Talk Radio News Service

The Supreme Court needs nearly $4 million more than it has the previous year, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas told members of the House Appropriations Committee Thursday.

"We have, as in previous years, been very serious about our responsibility to review our budget needs," Thomas said, addressing the Court's $77 million budget request. "I emphasize the word 'needs.' We do not look at this as wants or a wish list."

Thomas said the increase of $3,724,000 from the last budget request was an unavoidable adjustment.

"70% of that increase is non-discretionary, it's mandatory. It is basically what is required to continue operating at our current level."

Thomas noted that a $122 million modernization project started in 2003 for the Court's iconic building will be completed soon.

"It's expected to be done this summer, with the closed off activities drifting into the early part of next year," said Thomas.

Somali Torture Victims Try To Overcome Prime Minister's Immunity Claim

Bashe Abdi Yousuf and four other former Somalis claim they were tortured or had family members murdered by the Somali government in the 1980s. They sued Mohamed Ali Samatar, a former Somali Prime Minister, in US federal court after discovering that Samatar was living in Virginia. In the Supreme Court today, Samatar's lawyers argued that his actions were taken while he was a government official, and thus Samatar should have immunity under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).

The FSIA says that foreign governments cannot be sued in US courts (with the exception of countries listed by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism), and Samatar's argument is that, while the statute's terms don't protect government officials from suit, the law would be ineffective if a plaintiff could sue the top officials in that government. The rationale behind the immunity is that US courts should not pass judgment on foreign governments, but that immunity would be worthless if foreign government officials could be threatened with lawsuits over official acts they carried out in their home country.

Justice Stephen Breyer seemed the most receptive to this argument in court today, at one point telling Yousuf's lawyer that if the law doesn't protect officials, "this act is only good as against the bad lawyer." Any clever lawyer, Breyer said, would just sue the officials directly.

The lawyers for the Somalis argued that there were still teeth in FSIA, even if it does not protect officials individually, since any suit that asked for a change in government policy, return of land, or other remedies against a foreign government would be thrown out under FSIA. Further, some actions taken by government officials would still be protected under common-law immunity principles.

The argument that seemed to gain the most support, though, was based on the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA), passed by Congress in 1991. If government officials have immunity, and the TVPA did not change that, then the TVPA served no purpose, several Justices suggested. Lawyers for the Somalis replied that, in some cases, governments waive immunity protection for their officials, so torture prosecutions can proceed.

Overall, the stance of the Justices was unclear, since they were faced with seemingly contradictory statutory language. The case, Samantar v. Yousuf, will be decided by this summer.