9 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Thursday, March 29, 2012 | 3:21 p.m.
Related files
Sen. Dean Heller is opposing Clark County District Court Judge Elissa Cadish for a federal appointment (she was tabbed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) because she said in 2008 that she does not believe there is a constitutional right to bear arms, sources confirm.
Cadish answered a question from the conservative group, Citizens for Responsible Government, during the 2008 campaign. The actual handwritten answer is posted at right. "I do not believe this is a constitutional right," Cadish wrote. "Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge."
Not a constitutional right? Nice vetting job Team Reid.
I already informed you elsewhere on this blog in general terms why Heller opposes her
Meanwhile, Reid issued a statement that he hopes Heller will change his mind:
“I am disappointed to learn that Senator Heller will not support Elissa Cadish to serve as a federal judge in Nevada,” said Reid. “By all accounts, Cadish is one of the most highly respected jurists in the state of Nevada and supremely qualified to serve as Nevada’s next U.S. District Court judge. The vacancy to which she has been nominated has been designated a judicial emergency. Her nomination cannot proceed without Sen. Heller’s support, and starting this process over with a new nominee is likely to leave this vacancy open for many more months. Nevadans will be left with a crippled court system we cannot afford. I very much hope Sen. Heller reconsiders his decision.”
I don't think that will happen.
Jon Ralston, the constitutional scholar, is the authority here. The recent Supreme Court decision just means violence and murder rates will be higher than they would in a civilized country.
Thank you Senator Heller, job well done!
Jon - This article is very misleading.
You are quoting Cadish on an issue that was not entirely settled at the time.
First -- The context of the question was her thoughts/views on gun control. The first issue is Federal Gov't regulation of guns as it applies to individuals. Cadish could have been responding to an unsettled issue -- Whether the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals or whether the right to bear arms applies to State Militias, etc. If the 2nd amendment applied to State Militias etc, then Gun Control was ok b/c there was no 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) as it applies to individuals. If the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals -- Gun Control must meet heightened scrutiny.
This issue was settled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Here, the Court concluded that the 2nd amendment DOES apply to individuals. Remember -- this issue was on Federal Gov't regulation of guns.
The second issue is whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the States -- After the Heller case, in 2008 -- the issue of the 2nd amendment as it applies to the states was NOT settled. So Cadish could have been referring to this issue in her response.
However, in 2010 the Supreme Court settled the issue in MCDONALD V. CHICAGO. The Court concluded that the 2nd amendment does apply to the states with 4 Justices saying it did so through incorporation via the Due Process Clause -- Thomas arguing under the 14th Privileges and Immunities (Thomas believes the 14th P&I is a box full of State rights, etc.)
Anyhow, the article seems unfair on Cadish. Making her seem like she had no clue what she was talking about when in fact that is not the case.
Vegas Dlight is right on the money. From 1792 through 2008 the 2nd amendment did explicitly not mean an individual right to bear arms. That was the consistent ruling of the court. It was only with the 5-4 ruling in DC v. Heller that an individual right to bear arms was created.
Cadish was in the dead center of judicial precedent, and to indicate otherwise is at best misleading.
Here, I'll try to be more clear.
You quote Cadish on a question posed in 2008. The question involved Gun Control and its constitutionality. This is a two-fold question.
First, you have to address gun control at the federal level. Second, you have to address the issue at the state level. Why? Because the 2nd Amendment was not entirely settled until recently.
The Federal Level: - Federal Gov't Gun Control Laws:
Prior to 2008 -- The Supreme Court had not decided whether the 2nd amendment -- right to bear arms clause -- applied to individuals or state militias. In 2008 -- in response to the District of Columbia's ban on guns -- the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment did apply to individuals -- therefore the right to bear arms was a constitutionally protected right for individuals -- the ban was deemed unconstitutional.
The State Level - State/Local Gov't Gun Control Laws:
After 2008 -- The issue whether the 2nd Amendment applied to the states was unsettled. However, in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled on a Chicago ban on guns. The Supreme Court held that the 2nd Amendment does apply to the states via incorporation by 14th Due Process Clause (4 Justices, with Thomas concluding it was the 14th Privileges and Immunities Clause). Therefore, the ban on guns in Chicago was ruled unconstitutional.
I write this because the quote you referenced -- was a quote in 2008. Without the context of her statement -- I think it is unfair and opens her to unjustified criticism such as "[n]ot a constitutional right? Nice vetting job Team Reid."
Love you Jon, but this piece doesn't do this Judge justice.
Please delete my prior sloppy comment. K thanks.
@unlv @scott
If you read punctuation correctly the 2nd Amendment does apply to individual rights.
If you were correct why didn't the government gather up the firearms from individuals after the war was over? The history of our nation shows the opposite of what you purport.
The Constitution is not written like Nostradamus' couplets - its language is clear and its meaning is not hidden. To say that the "individual right to bear arms" was not decided until 2008 is disingenous, simply because until recent years when progressives tried to limit the freedom of the Second Amendment did the issue even come up.
The last thing we need is another judge to puts their own interpretation on the meaning of the Constitution. We already have 4 doofus supremes that appear willing to support the patently unconstitutional 0bamacare law. That's stretching the Commerce clause to the limits of absurdity.
Well done Senator Heller!!
"...We already have 4 doofus supremes ..." and this is the juvenile level of commentary I expect in response to factual discussion from the left side of our political spectrum.
Brian,
What professional expertise do you bring to make a judgement about what the 2nd amendment means?
Regardless of 2nd amendment "rights", if the judicial nominee is otherwise qualified, she should be confirmed. Has anyone had their guns confiscated, or their "right" to own said guns abrogated in any way? The answer is no. Let's move on to more important problems facing the state and country. Heller is massaging his cow county constituents on this issue, as usual. NOTE TO TEABAG KNEE-JERK TYPES: I own guns, and have for many years.