If she didn't believe we have the right to defend ourselves then she should admit that we don't have the right to have a standing army. Her answers are pathetic for a human being. The basis of laws stem from inalienable rights. Maybe some school child can explain it to her.
It should be impossible to deny the basic tenet of what he's saying, but to do so would be disastrous to a standing position of wanting to ban gun rights.
What an idiot. What she believes should not be relevant - she is a judge, she protects and defends the law, who cares what her personal beliefs are, that is not her job description. How unprofessional of Coburn.
Progressives use possitive law in place of natural rights to advance their cause, the living constitution. This woman isn't fit to read the constitution.
3) Elana Kagan is correct. A SC justice's job is to apply to the Constitution, not inform his or her decisions with Enlightenment nonsense. Robert H. Bork would have responded the same way to this line of questioning.
Kagan says: "The 2nd Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) conferred that right...."
The 2nd amendment says: "right....shall not be infringed" (it does not say that the Constitution confers the right. It merely says that it shall not be infringed.)
Kagan: I don't have a view of what are natural rights INDEPENDENT of the Constitution.
The 9th amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
@nothosaur YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! Kagen thinks the Constituion gives us rights - which is totally backwards - the Constitution clearly STOPS the GOV from enfocing various restrictions.
If she didn't believe we have the right to defend ourselves then she should admit that we don't have the right to have a standing army. Her answers are pathetic for a human being. The basis of laws stem from inalienable rights. Maybe some school child can explain it to her.
nemo227 4 months ago
Dodge, weave. Dodge, avoid & evade.
It should be impossible to deny the basic tenet of what he's saying, but to do so would be disastrous to a standing position of wanting to ban gun rights.
JFrazer4303 9 months ago
Comment removed
sprocketutube22 10 months ago
Yeah she tells people what they want to hear and then decides to do go against gun rights. Stupid cunt bitch. Looks like a bulldyke if you ask me.
hogger129 1 year ago
WELL, She lied didn't she! As soon as she was in, she voted AGAINST gun rights the first time it came up!!!
LIAR!
sirjames45 1 year ago
What an idiot. What she believes should not be relevant - she is a judge, she protects and defends the law, who cares what her personal beliefs are, that is not her job description. How unprofessional of Coburn.
lachylolHamish 1 year ago
@lachylolHamish - She is supposed to interpret the Constitution as a Supreme Court Justice. Not to make or enforce the law.
hogger129 1 year ago
/watch?v=1DJWOhGaoKc
all is for the best, eh? believe in what we're told?
TheBrilliantGeniuses 1 year ago
Progressives use possitive law in place of natural rights to advance their cause, the living constitution. This woman isn't fit to read the constitution.
MrWashingTea 1 year ago
this bitch knows how to side step a question doesn't she.
Kiddeth 1 year ago 2
1) Mr. Coburn is an idiot.
2) John Locke is an idiot.
3) Elana Kagan is correct. A SC justice's job is to apply to the Constitution, not inform his or her decisions with Enlightenment nonsense. Robert H. Bork would have responded the same way to this line of questioning.
kenp3L 1 year ago
Jeez she looks frighteningly like Mike Myers!
bdculli 1 year ago
answer the question
Sonnedude 1 year ago
Well shes in now. This is how liberty dies.
molanlabexm15 1 year ago
What a dumb whore!
SolutionSpill 1 year ago
that's a man baby......
h2omanz 1 year ago
Audio's working for me
SiftedNewsTube 1 year ago
theres no audio. fix.
acdc1332 1 year ago
Kagan says: "The 2nd Amendment (of the U.S. Constitution) conferred that right...."
The 2nd amendment says: "right....shall not be infringed" (it does not say that the Constitution confers the right. It merely says that it shall not be infringed.)
Kagan: I don't have a view of what are natural rights INDEPENDENT of the Constitution.
The 9th amendment says: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
nothosaur 1 year ago
@nothosaur YOU ARE EXACTLY RIGHT! Kagen thinks the Constituion gives us rights - which is totally backwards - the Constitution clearly STOPS the GOV from enfocing various restrictions.
FreeAgain2 1 year ago