Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a 5-4 vote that it is unconstitutional for state and local governments to completely ban citizens from owning guns. This vote opens the realm, just as Elena Kagan began her confirmation hearings yesterday, that she will say whatever is necessary for a vote of confidence. Case in point: Justice Sotomayor. During her confirmation hearings, when asked where she stood on the 2nd amendment:
LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.
Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct? SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir. LEAHY: Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized 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. Is that correct? SOTOMAYOR: It is. LEAHY: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney? SOTOMAYOR: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the -- a different question. LEAHY: Well, that -- let me -- let me refer to that, because Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case expressly left unresolved and explicitly reserved as a separate question whether the Second Amendment guarantee applies to the states and laws adopted by the -- by the states.
Will Kagan simply say whatever is necessary to be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court? If Sotomayor is used as a 'precedent', indeed, she will.