As you know from reading Roger’s and Ilya’s posts, this has been a pretty dreadful news day for libertarians at the U.S. Supreme Court. (And we haven’t even gotten into Justice Kennedy’s use of supposed international consensus in devising new Constitutional standards on excessive sentencing, despite a Cato amicus brief [pdf] urging the contrary). For whatever comfort it provides, which may not be much, here’s more reporting and speculation on the often hard‐to‐pin‐down views of the newest nominee:
- Her participation in Clinton Administration gun‐control initiatives doesn’t (to put it mildly) suggest an expansive view of individual rights under the Second Amendment [Brian Darling via David Kopel]
- On Kelo and eminent domain, will she share Justice Stevens’s property‐rights‐unfriendly views? [James Ely via Ilya Somin]
- Be advised, Prof. Wagner, that despite her flair for protean mask‐shifting, it is lacking in dignity to refer to the nominee as “Lady KaGa”.
- Stuart Taylor, Jr. offers a semi‐defense of her “inherited and largely symbolic” stand on military recruiters at Harvard (earlier here, here, and here).
- From his lips to God’s ears: Marvin Ammori at Balkinization offers an argument (via ABA Journal) as to why, contrary to all expectations, Kagan might wind up coming out on the free‐speech side of Citizens United after all. Ira Stoll wonders how effectively critics can raise the free‐speech‐in‐campaigning issue at the hearings anyway: “it’s a bit much for Republicans, having watched President Bush sign BCRA [the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002] into law, now to oppose putting Elena Kagan on the court because she defended its constitutionality.”