Kagan "favors the introduction of Shariah law" in Constitution"

The Senate should not confirm Elena Kagan, because her views render her the first Supreme Court Justice who actively favors the introduction of Shariah law into national Constitutions and legal systems. To excuse themselves for voting for her confirmation, Senators of both parties have told themselves this vote for Kagan’s confirmation will result in a harmless swap: the substitution of one liberal justice for another.

The reality is far more threatening and unprecedented in American history. A vote to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination will bring a liberal, pro-Shariah justice to our highest Court. And if she is confirmed, her behavior as Obama’s Solicitor General indicates she will refuse to recuse herself on any Shariah-related decision but instead will lead the charge to legitimate Shariah law in America.

Senators have told themselves they have little evidence on which to evaluate Kagan, because other than her work as Obama’s Solicitor General, she has no judicial experience.

But Kagan has made repeated and very public decisions about a judicial system – Shariah – and Senators should be obligated to take into account those decisions when they vote for her. Her 2003-2009 career as Dean of Harvard Law School is a history of those decisions, and every one of them shows her “deep appreciation” of Shariah law.

Every vote for Kagan is a vote to bring a pro-Shariah view to the Supreme Court. Here are five reasons to vote against Kagan’s nomination:

(snip)

When Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $10 million to New York City’s Rudy Guiliani on October 11, 2001, Guiliani refused to accept it, because the prince insisted that U.S. policies in the middle east were responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack. Guiliani stated flatly, “There is no moral equivalent for this act.” But – when Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal offered $20 million to the Islamic Legal Studies Program in December 2005 – Kagan accepted it; after all, the Saudi royal family had funded the program since its inception, to establish the moral and legal equivalency between Shariah law and U.S. Constitutional law. As Newt Gingrich has noted, Harvard Law School currently has three chairs endowed by Saudi Arabia, including one dedicated to the study of Islamic sharia law.

At Harvard, Elena Kagan introduced Sharia-compliant finance

Most major banks in the U.S. and Europe have established Shariah Compliant Funds, and they had almost $1 trillion under management by 2007 -- and likely more today.

At Harvard, Elena Kagan "proceeded to forge the law school's 'Islamic Finance Project."" It's purpose, according to McCarthy, was "to promote Shariah compliance in the U.S. financial sector."

Indeed, when Harvard President Larry Summers -- now in the Obama administration -- accepted a $20 million donation for the creation of a program of studies of Islam's history and Shariah Law, Kagan raised no objection. The donation came from Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a billionaire investor whose contribution of $10 million to the Twin Towers fund was refused by New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani because bin Talal had blamed the 9-11 attack on American foreign policy. Harvard Law School now has three Saudi-funded institutions devoted to the study of Shariah.

Kagan, as a Supreme Court justice, will be required to rule frequently on possible applications of Shariah law in the United States. She has already noted that she welcomes "good ideas wherever they originate" and is open to applications of foreign law to the interpretation of U.S. statutes and common law. In fact, a lawsuit seeking to ban Shariah Compliance Funds in banks that accepted TARP money (as violating the First Amendment separation of church and state) is now making its way up to the Supreme Court. Kagan cannot be trusted to rule dispassionately on this case, nor can we rely on her to exclude Shariah law from American jurisprudence.

For this reason -- if for no other -- senators should vote no on her confirmation.

This may be more than you want to know about Elena kagan

Here's a highly detailed account of Elena Kagan's career, which has had many ups and downs, but not as many ups as one would expect for a candidate for the Supreme Court::

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/07/elena-kagan-barack-obama-and-the-american-establishment

A veteran of Iraq takes apart Elena Kagan's DADT posture

On Kagan, Lindsey Graham decides to follow the lead of Obama's voters because, you know, elections have consequences

"Elections have consequences," insists South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, announcing he will vote to put liberal Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.

Really?

Are there any South Carolinians who thought in voting for Lindsey Graham they were electing someone who would stand fast for conservative principle? By opposing liberal Court nominees? Because, well, elections have consequences? And, you know, you vote for a conservative Senator because you expect him or her to uphold the principles on which they campaigned?

The consequence of voting for Graham, obviously, is that he will not do as promised.

Sheer, utter dishonesty is always an amazing sight to behold.

Senate Judiciary postpones vote on Kagan, who isn't polling well

The Senate Judiciary Committee is postponing by one week its vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan after objections from the panel's top Republican.

The committee had planned to vote on Kagan's nomination Tuesday, but Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions invoked his privilege and was granted a one-week delay. The vote will be held July 20.

"I think we are cooperating in a fair way to move this nominee forward," Sessions said in asking for the automatic postponement.

Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said he thinks "everybody's made up their mind" on how to vote."

Kagan's nomination is not polling well. According to the latest numbers from Rasmussen:  ...voters are almost evenly divided over whether Kagan should be confirmed by the full Senate: 39% say yes; 40% say no, and 20% are undecided.

By comparison, at this stage of the process last year, 41% supported the confirmation of the president's first Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and 37% opposed it.

A delay may not be in Kagan's interest. In a we won't be fooled again moment after Justice's Sotomayor's vote in MacDonald v Chicago the NRA has come out against the Kagan nomination.

Will gender benders soon have a voice on the Supreme Court?

I'm not easily shocked. I've been a therapist for a couple of decades not just anywhere, but in the leftist place around. But still, when I received a flyer in the mail last week, it absolutely stunned me.

The flyer announced a conference for children and teens, age 13 to l8, by a group called Gender Spectrum. The advertisement reads as following:

Come join other transgender, gender bending, gender nonconforming teens, children and families for three days of celebrating individuality, making new friends, and having fun. Meet other trans and gender nonconforming teens and adults, hang out, and explore different topics on gender: school, making friends, dating.

The slogan of Gender Spectrum? Be Yourself. Change the World.

Now, the phrase "gender nonconformity" isn't new to me. There are some grade schools out here that permit kids to alter their genders whenever the spirit moves them. Schools provide coed bathrooms so the kids don't have the stress of making a permanent commitment.

I once attributed crazes like gender bending to "only in Berkeley." But now that the Left has seized control, it would be a mistake to dismiss groups like Gender Spectrum as harmless.

Obama has already appointed transexuals to high positions. And then there's Elena Kagan, about to become a SCOTUS. While she presents as unassuming, at Harvard she was a firebrand.

There, Kagan reportedly strong armed Harvard's health insurer to pay for sex change operations for staff and students. So an l8 year old who wasn't sure about his career choice could, without parental knowledge or approval, reconfigure his private parts.

Kagan also spearheaded a campaign to make bathrooms unisex. Apparently, she considers gender-neutral johns to be a Constitutional right, more compelling than the First and Second Amendments.

Kagan and Obama and all the President's Czars are secular fundamentalists. They are trying to force feed a radical agenda on this country. And they're doing it, in part, by recruiting impressionable children.

Most youth have no interest in taking up arms for the revolution, Weatherman-style. So they're being conditioned to become a different kind of soldier: sexual rebels.

Kagan would allow people to sue over environmental damage

Environmental issues dominated the last portion of the questioning, with Feinstein asking about the reach of the Environmental Protection Agency and the ability of citizens to sue companies for contributing to pollution and global warming. Normally, citizens can only bring cases if they have been personally “injured,” but environmental injury is a gray area.

“Do you believe it’s possible for citizens to demonstrate that environmental harms have injured them for constitutional purposes?” Feinstein asked.

“The answer is yes, much depending on what Congress does,” Kagan replied.

As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan accepted money from Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by death

Capt. Pete Hegseth, who testified during the Kagan hearings today as a witness for the Republicans, told HUMAN EVENTS that Kagan in many ways reminds him of Barack Obama. Hegseth is chairman of the organization Vets for Freedom and is currently in graduate school at Harvard.

“In some sense, she’s very similar to President Obama -- very careful track record in elite institutions where everybody looks at her as credible and smart and a thinker,” Hegseth said. “[She] has been very careful not to talk too much about what she actually thinks things on really contentious [issues].”

Hegseth said it’s almost like she voted “present.”

But one red flag he’s noticed is her decision to keep the military from the Harvard campus recruiting office because the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy violates the school’s one of anti-discrimination. Hegseth said he’s been paying close attention to Kagan’s testimony over the past few days regarding the military recruitment issue and thought she glazed over her actions.

He told HUMAN EVENTS that he didn’t have any more confidence in Kagan as a Supreme Court justice after her testimony.

During his testimony, Hegseth detailed several of Kagan’s actions or non-actions that seem inconsistent with her decision to keep the military out of Harvard’s recruitment office because of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. He pointed out that Kagan welcomed to Harvard many congressman who voted for the law, and that the law school took money from Saudi Arabia, where being a homosexual is punishable by death.

“Rather than confront the Congressional source of the policy – or take a stand against a country that executes homosexuals – Ms. Kagan zeroed in on military recruiters for a policy they neither authored, nor emphasized,” Hegseth said in his testimony.

It's time to end on-the-job training for the inept in lofty posts

Last week's flap involving Gen. Stanley McChrystal was notable for many things, but what stands out most in my opinion was how it reflects the declining respect that so many Americans have for those in leadership positions.

While decorum can be imposed by fiat, it is genuine respect that prompts teams to achieve in all fields, and which must be earned. I'm not going to defend the general, who clearly overstepped his bounds and had to be dismissed to maintain civilian control over the military. But he was (and I am) clearly frustrated with micromanagement of the Afghan campaign by politicians lacking military experience and situated thousands of miles away.

In recent years, we have seen far too much of this situation, where those with little or no pertinent experience or knowledge impose their views upon the country and in the process undermine respect for major institutions with their ineptitude.

For example:

•We currently see a Supreme Court nominee with virtually no experience in the law, outside academia and the White House, and none as a judge.

•We have the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee considering the Elena Kagan nomination focusing ad nauseam on her handling of the gays in the military issue years ago at Harvard Law School, and largely disregarding issues that are of real significance to Americans today -- such as her views on the implications of the Constitution's Commerce Clause for the new health care law.

•In House hearings on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, we have noted experts in petroleum engineering -- Reps. Henry Waxman and Edward Markey -- making determinations as to which well-drilling method was preferable.

•We have a treasury secretary with no private sector experience and who had trouble filing an accurate tax return.

•And last year we saw our president -- with no experience running a business -- deciding to oust the CEO of General Motors.

If our country is going to get back on track, we need to redevelop confidence in and respect for our leaders and institutions. This means first and foremost electing and appointing people who command this respect by virtue of their bona fide achievements and not simply their paper credentials.

In recent years, far too many people with prestigious degrees and titles have made far too many horrible decisions that have caused great harm to Americans everywhere. We need people who have shown through their actual performance in business, the military, government or academia (preferably in multiple areas that pertain to the problems we face) that they can and will handle pressure and act at all times with integrity and good judgment.

The time for on the job training in lofty positions is over.

Kagan's Princeton thesis centered on German socialist/Nazi who advocated war against capitalism and a "total ordering of life"

Elena Kagan's senior thesis at Princeton University, recounting the history of socialist politics in New York City, cited the theories of an influential German Marxist who notoriously switched allegiances to Nazism after Adolf Hitler attained power.

Werner Sombart was widely recognized as an academic proponent of Marxism and was once praised by Karl Marx's colleague Friedrich Engels as the only German professor who understood Marx's Das Kapital. During World War I, however, Sombart endorsed Germany's "heroic" war against the "capitalist spirit" represented by England. In 1934, Sombart published Deutscher Sozialismus, which advocated the "total ordering of life" as an expression of the German Volksgeist, or "national spirit."

In the introduction to her 1981 thesis, Kagan addresses a question famously asked by Sombart: Warum gibt es in den Vereinigten Staaten keinen Sozialismus? -- "Why is there no socialism in the United States?"

National Rifle Association opposes Kagan for Supreme Court

WASHINGTON (AP)  The National Rifle Association is opposing Elena Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court and warning senators that it will take their votes into account when considering endorsing their re-election.

In a letter sent to leading senators Thursday, top NRA officials say Kagan has "repeatedly demonstrated a clear hostility" to gun rights in her career in government and academia.

The NRA also opposed Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation last year. Sotomayor was among the four dissenters in the high court's decision last week that limits state and local gun restrictions.

Kagan emerged from three days of vetting by the Senate Judiciary Committee much as she had begun, declaring she'd be an independent and impartial judge and denying Republican suggestions that she would be unable to separate her political leanings from her job as a justice.

Democrats said President Barack Obama's nominee to succeed retiring Justice John Paul Stevens was on track to become the fourth woman in Supreme Court history.

Kagan reveres judge who says he's "subject to no authority" and hopes to give statutes "new meaning that suits social needs"

Barack Obama revealed his goal for the Supreme Court when he complained on Chicago radio station WBEZ-FM in 2001 that the Earl Warren Court wasn't "radical" enough because "it didn't break free from the essential constraints placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" in order to allow "redistribution of wealth."

Now that Obama is president, he has the power to nominate Supreme Court justices who will "break free" from the Constitution and join him in "fundamentally transforming" America. That's the essence of his choice of Elena Kagan as his second Supreme Court nominee. She never was a judge, and her paper trail is short. But it's long enough to prove that she is a clear and present danger to the Constitution.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she presented a guest speaker who is known as the most activist judge in the world: Judge Aharon Barak, formerly president of the Israeli Supreme Court.

The polar opposite of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "all legislative powers" are vested in the elected legislative body, Barak has written that a judge should "make" and "create" law, assume "a role in the legislative process" and give statutes "new meaning that suits new social needs."

Barak wrote that a judge "is subject to no authority" except himself, and he "must sometimes depart the confines of his legal system and channel into it fundamental values not yet found in it." Channel? Does he mean he channels in a trance, as Hillary Clinton supposedly channeled discourse with the long-deceased Eleanor Roosevelt?

Despite Barak's weirdo writings, or maybe because of them, Kagan called him her "judicial hero." Judge Robert Bork, a man careful with his words, says Kagan's praise of Barak is "disqualifying in and of itself." Bork said that Barak "establishes a world record for judicial hubris." He wrote that Barak embraces a judicial philosophy that "there is no area of Israeli life that the court may not govern."

Sotomayor lied about the right to bear arms; what's Kagan going to lie about as she bobs and weaves in the kabuki theater

The most important question members of the Senate Judiciary Committee should ask Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is, "Who do you think you are kidding?"

The hearings process for high court nominees has become ritualized to the point that it is almost useless. Nominees are extensively coached to avoid voicing a real opinion. There is no intellectual give and take. Spontaneity is largely absent. Anyone who can reasonably keep his cool and regurgitate platitudes for a few hours can enjoy a lifetime appointment to the most important judicial body in the land.

Ms. Kagan is playing her expected role in the predictable manner. We saw the same kabuki dance during the hearings for Justice Sonia Sotomayor less than a year ago. When asked by the sympathetic Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat, if she agreed that "the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions," Ms. Sotomayor answered: "It is." Yet her answer to this obviously staged question was untruthful. On Monday, Justice Sotomayor joined the Supreme Court minority in saying that there is "nothing in the Second Amendment's text, history or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as 'fundamental,' insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes." In other words, when she said the right to bear arms was guaranteed, she lied.

For her part, Ms. Kagan is equally dishonest when she says that she would approach her duty impartially. We know the intellectual milieu from which she has emerged. We know that her heart and mind are devoted to leftist causes and that she can be counted on to find rationales to further those aims in whatever cases come before the court.

Can government tell us what to eat? Kagan struggles with reply

Supremes rule against Kagan, whose score is 3 wins, 2 losses

Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings haven’t even begun, and the score is already 1-0 against her.

The Supreme Court on Monday morning ruled against Ms. Kagan in a case she had argued as solicitor general when it decided that a quasi government agency that audits public companies is unconstitutional. The board’s members are appointed and removed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and not the president – a violation of Article II of the Constitution, which vests executive power in the president, the court ruled.

The board, called the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, was created under the 2002 law known as Sarbanes-Oxley. Ms. Kagan, arguing on behalf of the Obama administration, had made the case that the president appoints and can remove S.E.C. commissioners, and thus, by extension, has control over the accounting board.

The White House notes that Ms. Kagan’s overall Supreme Court record is 3-2. That is, three wins and two losses in the five cases she has argued. (The other loss was in the Citizens United case, in which the court lifted limits on corporate spending to influence elections.)

Monday’s ruling is a narrow one, however, and experts anticipate Congress will simply amend the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to allow the accounting board to remain in existence.

Rep. Ted Poe questions Kagan's judicial qualifications

The new Supreme Court pick, Elena Kagan, has never been a judge. She's never seen a courtroom from the bench. She's never had a judge's responsibilities. Elena Kagan has never instructed a jury or ruled on a point of law—any point of law. She's never tried a criminal case, a civil case, or even a traffic case. She has not decided even one constitutional issue.

We don't know whether or not she believes the Constitution is the foundation of American law or whether she thinks, like many, the Constitution constantly changes based upon the personal opinions of Supreme Court justices. But either way, Elena Kagan has never had to make a constitutional call in a court of law in the heat of a trial.

She has never admitted evidence or ruled out evidence or ruled on the chain of custody regarding evidence. She has never made even one decision regarding any rule of evidence. She has never ruled on the exclusionary rule, the Miranda doctrine, an unlawful search and seizure allegation, a due process claim, an equal protection violation or any constitutional issue.

She has never impaneled a jury. She has never instructed a jury on a reasonable doubt or sentenced a person to the penitentiary. She has never had to decide whether a witness was telling the truth or not. As a judge, she has never heard a plaintiff, a defendant, a victim, or a child testify as a witness. She has never made that all-important decision of deciding whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of a crime.

She has never ruled on a life-or-death issue.

Elena Kagan has never made a judgment call from the bench—not a single one. Yet, as a Supreme Court justice, she would be second-guessing trial judges and trial lawyers who have been through the mud, blood and tears of actual trials in actual courts of law. How can she possibly be qualified to fill the post of a Supreme Court justice?

Elena Kagan appears to have compared the NRA to the KKK

It has become clear that Elena Kagan, Obama’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is no friend of gun rights, to say the least. While clerking for Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall in 1987, she wrote the judge that she was “not sympathetic” to a Second Amendment–based challenge to the D.C. gun ban. While serving in the Clinton administration, she wrote a memo that “paved the way for an executive order banning dozens of semiautomatic weapons,” according to the L.A. Times.

And National Review has learned that in 1996, Kagan apparently tied the NRA to the KKK — yes, the KKK — while debating the Clinton administration’s position on a bill.

The bill in question was the Volunteer Protection Act, which, when it was passed and signed the following year, protected some non-profits’ volunteer workers from tort liability in certain cases. The administration worried that it would apply to volunteers from unlikable non-profits.

Two documents discovered at the William J. Clinton Presidential Library and obtained by National Review suggest that Kagan was involved in these discussions. One does not contain her name, but the handwriting appears to be hers. (You can see an example of Kagan’s handwriting here.) It has the name of administration colleague Fran Allegra at the top, and lists two “Bad guy orgs” that might be covered — the NRA and the KKK.

The second does have Kagan’s name on it; it is a memo from Allegra to Kagan. Allegra reports that he checked the IRS’s “Cumulative List of Organizations Described in Section 170(c)” — the list of tax-exempt organizations, which, he says, are the only organizations the bill would cover — and that neither the NRA nor the KKK was on it. “If you have other names you want me to run down in the Cumulative List, I would be glad to check them out,” he adds, suggesting that Kagan requested the initial check of the NRA and the KKK.

Is Kagan so hostile to gun rights that she would compare the top gun-rights organization in the United States with a viciously racist hate group? It sure looks that way. We look forward to her explanation.

Elena Kagan advised Bill Cllinton's attorneys in harassment case

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton's presidential library won't publicly release memos and notes Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan wrote about the sexual harassment lawsuit that triggered Clinton's impeachment.

Kagan was involved in defending Clinton in the lawsuit brought by ex-Arkansas state worker Paula Jones, according to documents released Friday. Clinton's testimony for the Jones lawsuit, denying a sexual relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, led to his impeachment.

The library held back several of Kagan's memos to Clinton's top advisers in the case, saying that publicly releasing them would divulge confidential advice. They were turned over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that will hold hearings on Kagan's nomination, however.

It's clear from files that were made public that Kagan had a hand in the Jones case. In a September 1996 memo, Kagan writes that she's been in touch with other lawyers on a brief in the Jones lawsuit and, "I am happy with the direction they seem to be taking."

Earlier that year, she forwards to colleagues a brief written by then-Solicitor General Walter Dellinger supporting Clinton's bid to postpone the civil trial until after he had left office.

"It's really pretty good," Kagan says of Dellinger's brief. She notes approvingly that the brief "downplays" the question of whether the president should have immunity for conduct before he took office, and instead focuses on the argument that the case should be delayed because it would disrupt the performance of Clinton's duties as chief executive.

Newly discovered papers "show Elena Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left" on gun control and abortion

Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that in the days after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, some on the left worried she was too moderate to replace liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

But in documents obtained by CBS News, Kagan--while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues.

The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left, at a time when the Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right.

They also provide a remarkably candid picture of her opinions, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.

Although Kagan's confirmation has thus far been an all but foregone conclusion, sources say these documents will give Republicans a few cards of their own to mount a strong fight against her.

And they will only heighten demands for more information on her views--including interest in her papers in the Clinton Library. Some of the Clinton Library documents, which cover her time working in that administration, could be released as early as Friday.

The Marshall documents are legal memos summarizing cases the Court had been asked to consider. They cover the spectrum of hot-button social issues: abortion, civil rights, gun rights, prisoners' rights and the constitutional underpinnings for recognizing gay marriage.

On abortion, Kagan wrote a memo in a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure. Kagan expressed concern to Marshall that the conservative-leaning Court would use the case to rule against the woman--and possibly undo precedents protecting a woman's right to abortion.

"This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights," she wrote in the 1988 memo.

She also expressed strong liberal views in a desegregation case. Summarizing a challenge to a voluntary school desegregation program, Kagan called the program "amazingly sensible." She told Marshall that state court decisions that upheld the plan recognized the "good sense and fair-mindedness" of local efforts.

"Let's hope this Court takes note of the same," she wrote in the 1987 memo. Just three years ago, the Supreme Court struck down a nearly identical plan.

Kagan also wrote a memo that senators could use to question whether she believes there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.

That memo summarized a 1988 case involving a prisoner serving a life sentence in New York. He argued the state of New York was required to recognize his marriage-by-proxy in Kansas - even though such marriages were illegal in New York.

The basis of his argument was that New York had a duty under the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause to recognize his Kansas the marriage as valid. Kagan told Marshall his position was "at least arguably correct," and recommended asking for a response from New York officials.

Then there was the recently disclosed memo on gun rights. In a case challenging the District of Columbia's handgun ban as unconstitutional, Kagan was blunt: "I am not sympathetic." The Supreme Court took the opposite approach two years ago, striking down the D.C. gun ban as unconstitutional.