I wish I could say that can't believe she punted on this, but it is what it is. Kagan is answering as a jurist, and by giving a legalise answer (and in terms of her job) may be correct, but by appearing evasive here as to her own belief, I believe she is doing herself a grave injustice.
The constitution enforces INalienable rights. The second amendment is written by lawmakers and can be taken away.God did not grant the right to bear arms. UNalienable rights are not transferable and cannot be taken away this is given by our creator. Coburn is using the term as though they are the same
She is simply stating that what is important is that she follows the laws set out in the Constitution, to act objectively for the bettering of American society. You talk about natural inalienable rights and the right to bear arms being one of those, I wasn't aware that "GOD" had said anything about this. She answers only on the relevant topic for her future position.
Inalienable rights can not possibly exist; Think about it. Supposedly one has the Inalienable right to do what ever, when ever, how ever, where ever to whom ever one wishs based on their Inalienable right; UNTIL is supposedly infringes upon the Inalienable rights of someone else. The key word is INFRINGE. Ones inalienable rights allows one to perceive what infringment means to themselves. Thus negates anyone and everyone else's right to say they are incorrect. How can both be correct and incorrect. I mean your type of music sucks, I can state that all I want, it doesn't make it so. Your perception of a piece of music is your perception. And with an excess of 7 billion people on Earth all of which are entitled to their own beliefs. There can be an excess of over 7 billion opinions, some may agree, some may not. Taken to extremes, is the results of war. The one and only issue which has the longest disagreement based on preception is religion. More individuals have died due to religious infringments than all the wars combined. Look it up, assuming you use the same math I do. The number will prove it. Using a different form of math would disprove it, and we would disagree, in which case one must either accept the other's perception and use of math or in extrem cases fight and be willing to die over ones personal convictions. Tis a process that has been in place since the dawn of mankind and will never ever end.
If she gets in, say goodbye to the Constitution!
How the FUCK are these people getting into government; and especially into the Judiciary?!?????
Just answer the F#$king question!
I wish I could say that can't believe she punted on this, but it is what it is. Kagan is answering as a jurist, and by giving a legalise answer (and in terms of her job) may be correct, but by appearing evasive here as to her own belief, I believe she is doing herself a grave injustice.
The constitution enforces INalienable rights. The second amendment is written by lawmakers and can be taken away.God did not grant the right to bear arms.
UNalienable rights are not transferable and cannot be taken away this is given by our creator. Coburn is using the term as though they are the same
She is simply stating that what is important is that she follows the laws set out in the Constitution, to act objectively for the bettering of American society. You talk about natural inalienable rights and the right to bear arms being one of those, I wasn't aware that "GOD" had said anything about this. She answers only on the relevant topic for her future position.
Inalienable rights can not possibly exist; Think about it. Supposedly one has the Inalienable right to do what ever, when ever, how ever, where ever to whom ever one wishs based on their Inalienable right; UNTIL is supposedly infringes upon the Inalienable rights of someone else. The key word is INFRINGE. Ones inalienable rights allows one to perceive what infringment means to themselves. Thus negates anyone and everyone else's right to say they are incorrect. How can both be correct and incorrect.
I mean your type of music sucks, I can state that all I want, it doesn't make it so. Your perception of a piece of music is your perception. And with an excess of 7 billion people on Earth all of which are entitled to their own beliefs. There can be an excess of over 7 billion opinions, some may agree, some may not. Taken to extremes, is the results of war. The one and only issue which has the longest disagreement based on preception is religion. More individuals have died due to religious infringments than all the wars combined. Look it up, assuming you use the same math I do. The number will prove it. Using a different form of math would disprove it, and we would disagree, in which case one must either accept the other's perception and use of math or in extrem cases fight and be willing to die over ones personal convictions. Tis a process that has been in place since the dawn of mankind and will never ever end.