The picture to your right represents businessmen {forgive me ladies I couldn’t find a picture with businesswomen in my limited time}working together in teamwork to find resolution to business problems that effect them all. As well as those who work for and depend on them making the right decisions for the business. The business that pays all their salaries and upon which all their livelihoods depend.

Teamwork. Concept seems simple enough to me. I am sure it does to you as well. Hm.

If the above paragraph(s) make any sense at all then does it not make sense that teamwork in government might make sense as well? Just asking because I sure as hell haven’t found the answer to that question on conservative blogs {even my own}, conservative news sites, liberal blogs {including Truth 101}, liberal news sites or anywhere else for that matter.

I find myself wondering why. Cant’t help it. There is certainly a wealth of intelligent fiscal conservatives, Libertarian, modern  liberals, classical liberals, social conservatives etc. and yet we find our nation in the most divisive state since perhaps the mid 1800′s.

I just recently felt a strong need to take a hiatus. Still do. But as I spent the time bouncing from site to site, including conservative, Libertarian, and liberal I began to realize that each and every one of them really want what is best for America.

Having thought the above I had to ask myself just what is it that I feel is best for America. After going through the list of my fiscally conservative, moderate  Libertarian, and classical liberal beliefs  I realized it is the need for the proponents of all the varying belief systems, and political  principles to talk with each other rather than at each other.

It is time for all special interests to put American interests first. It is time that labor unions recognize business is their life blood. It is time that corporations recognize that labor is the engine that drives their success. It is time that corporations, labor, and government actually acknowledge this nation is indeed standing on the precipice. It is time for solutions. Time for American solutions to the unique problems that are America’s.

A I stand prepared to be criticized by both the hard right as well as the hard left I stand ready. As an independent conservative, the owner of  the site that is the Birthplace of Independent Conservatism, I know that America has a population that indeed loves their country, its Constitution, and its way of life. Which for all you far left leaning dudes and dudettes is pretty damn good!

Now, as I prepare to once again return to my well earned, if I may say so myself, hiatus, I shall leave my thoughts for your consideration. I assure my brethren of the fiscal conservative right, and my brethren of the moderate Libertarian center, and my brethren of the Classical Liberal left, I have not, and will not forgo weighing in on all issues of state and national importance based on how I view them from my unique perspective. I simply have grown to realize that no political or philosophical premise can stand only on its own beliefs. We are a diverse nation of ideas. We always have been.

Is that not how our founders saw it? It is not correct ? I leave it to you to decide.

Cross posted to Rational Nation USA, Left Coast Rebel,

They must be honest men themselves, and instead of voting for a man because he belongs to their party, Bank or Anti-Bank, Jackson, or Anti-Jackson, they must find out whether he is honest and upright, and fit to be trusted. They must let the world see that the church will uphold no man in office, who is known to be a knave, or an adulterer, or a Sabbath-breaker, or a gambler, or a drunkard.

Such is the spread of intelligence and the facility of communication in our country, that every man can know for whom he gives his vote. And if he will give his vote only for honest men, the country will be obliged to have upright rulers.

All parties will be compelled to put up honest men as candidates. Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently, or God will curse the nation, and withdraw his spirit. As on the subject of slavery and temperance, so on this subject, the church must act right or the country will be ruined.

God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the church will take right ground. Politics are a part of religion in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. It seems sometimes as if the foundations of the nation were becoming rotten, and Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics.

But I tell you, he does see it, and he will bless or curse this nation, according to the course they take.

~Charles Finney

(PIN Apologizes for leaving the author off)

The Tea Party has been a sleeping giant that has abruptly waken after years of allowing the government to grow to its current ominous state.  Sincere members of the movement are as angry at the American people as they are those that govern, because they know our mess is as much due to voter neglect as anything else.  Some have not voted in years, if at all, and they in particular are going to need to know the tough questions to ask aspiring candidates.  Here are just a few suggestions of what a candidate should be asked:

• What is your employment history? In my opinion, if a candidate has never owned a business and has never been subject to the payroll, regulations, taxation, and licensure laws that comes with it, they should not be taken seriously as a candidate.  Empathy is an important characteristic to leadership and I want a leader that understands what the engines of prosperity go through.
• What is your view of the Constitution? The tasks of a member of Congress are numerous, but the single most important duty is to carry out the responsibilities in the Constitution they have sworn to defend. They need to explain what the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution mean. They need to articulate the role of the Tenth amendment in limiting federal power. If a candidate does not answer these questions in a manner in line with the Constitution, they have no business running for such an important office. This is the most important question to ask someone running for federal office, in my opinion.
• What other elected offices have you been in?  The US House and Senate are pretty significant offices. In my experience it takes politicians a significant period of time to “get their legs” in Congress. When I worked for the US Senate I was surprised by how little members knew when it came to conducting their duties. I believe that career politicians are a problem, but I also believe it makes sense for the House or Senate to be the “next step” after serving in a state legislature or similar position and not the first “step.”  If you have not held any office at all, try city council or the school board, before the US Congress.
• What other positions have you held? I think that many Americans will be a little reluctant to elect a career “community activist” to any office after the Barack Obama experience. For a long period of time people on every level of government (federal, state, local) were reluctant to elect attorneys to office because they did not want to elect individuals who make a living off the proliferation of laws.  That certainly makes sense. To me, the best candidate is the one who is most sympathetic and empathetic to the plight of all Americans and understand the challenges of job creation and economic growth.  Furthermore, they believe in the concept of rule of law.  The US government today is ran by a lawless crowd with their own agenda and it has little to do with the Constitution they swear to defend.

2010 could mark the beginning of a great era in American politics.  It could set the stage for a turn around and a move back to limited, constitutional, government.  However, if this is to happen, voters are going to have to be smart and ask the tough questions that politicians must honestly answer.  Voters must also have the courage to hold these politicians accountable and to the highest standards.

_______________________________________________________

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.  Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio).  Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com.  Visit the archive of past shows here.

Let’s just call 2010 what it is:  The Year of the Black Conservative. It’s time that the Republican establishment understands the importance of what is happening, lest they leave fodder for the Left.  The Left provides a glimpse of their strategy in this NY Time’s article:

But Democrats and other political experts express skepticism about black Republicans’ chances in November. “In 1994 and 2000, there were 24 black G.O.P. nominees,” said Donna Brazile, a Democratic political strategist who ran Al Gore’s presidential campaign and who is black. “And you didn’t see many of them win their elections.”

There was one black Conservative (sort of) winner, and he had to be the loneliest man on Capitol Hill.  For years, the lone ranger of black Conservatives (well, sort of) was JC Watts (R-OK).  Talk about a man without a country.

The Congressional Black (Democrat) Caucus wanted no part of Watts, because even pseudo black Conservatives were not allowed in the Congressional Black Socialist Caucus.  The Republicans offered no real solace, as they did little to provide JC cover.

JC Watts (R-OK)

In 1994 and again in 2000 the Republicans had 24 opportunities to get additional blacks in Congress, and they failed every time. It was only Watts’ notoriety as an Oklahoma football star that encouraged the Republicans to get behind him.  However, since Watts’ exit from politics, there has not been a single black Conservative elected to Congress, not that the Republicans are doing that well with white candidates either. 

As Brazille suggests, if the Republicans can’t get a suitable contingent of black Conservatives elected, particularly given their pedigrees, then perhaps the Republicans should be judged harshly on their irresponsibility.

Steele had all the black Conservative candidates to DC a few months back only to report that the RNC was broke. Very few are getting serious Republican support, in a time where Republicans should be yelling, “It’s Reconstruction again up in this biotch!”

Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ and a host of other racist Democrat icons should be rolling over in their graves at the prospect of so many black Conservatives getting elected.  However, they are laughing at the incompetence of Republicans to seize the moment. Carpe diem, damnit!

In the Democrats’ zeal to erase their heinous past on race relations, they elected the real token, when they elected Barack “Articulate and Clean” Obama—obviously Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Shirley Chisolm were dirty!

Democrats jumped at the chance to prove how tolerant and non-racial they were, as they voted for “the black dude.” 

Credentials  and character be damned, this dude is BLACK…and if we cheat, he can actually WIN! – anon Democrat

It wasn’t enough that Democrats have 42 black Congressmen who proved their point.  No it wasn’t, and here’s the reason why.  The characters who make up the Congressional Black Caucus, black Democrats all—are “the great unwashed” and an embarrassment to white Democrats…you know, the Democrats who actually run shtuff.  Gasp!  The CBC’s handlers know that they need these black intimidators and extortionists from time to time, so they must continue to care for and feed them.

The Republicans on the other hand actually have competent blacks running, people like Star Parker (CA), Bill Randall (NC), Tim Scott (SC) and many others. Many are not running against black Democrat candidates in gerrymandered districts. For those who are, the Era of Obama has put ALL Democrat districts in play.

So, though the quantity of black Conservative candidates running today may appear hopeful, the issue is no longer how many black Conservative candidates run, but how many win!

Here’s the wrap:

It’s time the Republicans re-establish themselves as the party of Civil Rights. This is a time to teach, reminding America of the Republicans history of Civil Rights, and showcase that record.  People should know that in 1870, the first black elected to either chamber of Congress was Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels (R-MS). Shortly thereafter the first black elected to the House was Joseph Rainey (R-SC). The first black governor occurred during Reconstruction, and his name was P. B. S. Pinchback, a Republican from Louisiana.

Move over Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, the first black nominee for Vice President of the United States was Frederick Douglass who ran under the Equal Rights Party during Reconstruction.

As Reconstruction ended, it was Democrats who implemented Jim Crow laws and other preventative measures that would slow the political and economic progress of blacks for generations.  That Democrat oppression continues today! They do NOT want to see black Conservatives peeing in the punch bowl.

America has the opportunity to really put racism to bed, and provide Liberals with a true history lesson, and use this most unique time in America’s history to set the record straight. I say to America…STEP THE HELL UP!

That’s my rant!

© 2010 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere, LLC – All Rights Reserved

The campaign has already made its way to the Bryan-College Station area and is expected to be in Houston soon.

The billboards read ‘Black and Unwanted’ and show an image of a baby’s face. The campaign’s website, toomanyaborted.com, appears at the bottom.

“This campaign wants to expose the destruction of hope and possibility that abortion brings and offer something that is a life affirming solution like adoption or parenthood,” said Ryan Bomberger, one of the creators of the Radiance Foundation.

The Radiance Foundation and the Life Education Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.) are behind the initiative. Both groups are led by African Americans and say they are trying to expose what they call a huge racial disparity of abortions in Texas.

“Out of the over 80,000 abortions, 25 percent of those are on African American women even though African American women only comprise 12.7 percent of the population,” said Bomberger…

Read more

In 1997 the Linguistic Society of America passed a resolution calling Ebonics a form of communication that deserves recognition and study. Characterizations of Ebonics as ‘slang,’ ‘mutant,’ ‘lazy,’ ‘defective,’ ‘ungrammatical’ or ‘broken English’ are incorrect and demeaning.

A language formerly considered lazy a few decades ago is now en vogue. To emphasize this, the government hires people too lazy to learn proper English to monitor those too lazy to partake in the American Dream.

In the 1800’s Ebonics was spoken by slaves to keep Massa from knowing what the slaves were doing. Ironically, the re-enslavement of America has slaves repeating history.

For those wondering why Ebonics speakers are needed, it may be that Democrat policies have led to there being more drug use, thus more drug sales, dare I say more drug crimes…in da hood?

Though this article says it’s not just black folks’ phones that are being tapped, conversations intercepted and translated, I’m not so sure. This program will be rolled out in what is described as “the agency’s Southeast Region — which includes Atlanta, Georgia; Washington; New Orleans, Louisiana; Miami, Florida; and the Caribbean…” 

Let’s analyze these areas:

Atlanta, GA – Chocolate City

DC – Chocolate City

New Orleans – Chocolate City

Miami – Caramel Chocolate City

Caribbean – Chocolate Islands

As Jesse Jackson proclaimed while race-baiting the banking crisis, “They are targeting the blacks and browns.”

I’m inclined to agree, as it appears this program has been gerrymandered. In Florida for example, these new agents aren’t being deployed in Naples!

But you can’t possibly think that Eric Holder or Obama wants to really crack down on drugs, ergo crime in black neighborhoods. Two brothas who would not prosecute Black Panthers?!  The HNIC who appointed Van Jones to his Czar network?!  Cracka please!

Neither of these light-skinned, metrosexual brothas would run the risk of losing street cred.

This token gesture—pardon the pun—is just political posturing, and what this administration thinks will be a win win.  Liberal blacks who will never abandon Obama will proclaim that he is cleaning up black neighborhoods, creating jobs, providing opportunities, and so on.

However, if a Republican administration were hiring Ebonics agents, these same blacks would be crying foul, and joined in their chorus by every race-baiting Leftist organization in America.

The lamestream media would report, “Republicans Targeting Blacks with Racist Hiring”!

Here’s the wrap:

Leave it to Democrats to promote the use of a useless language to fight a war that can’t be won with the current strategy, then to attempt to sell the Ebonics as a language.

Ebonics is creative code that takes elements of English, and synthesizes it, so it is not understood by the mainstream. Like Jazz for example, Ebonics is no longer just “black,” but it belongs to all. Ebonics has a sort of poetry to it, as its use of metaphors requires one to think, sometimes deeply.

Given that definition, this administration could use some creative types capable of deeper thought.

Because as it stands now,

“O and his peeps pitchin’ straight game, hella clownin’ America. Can’t nobody fade them chickenheads, cuz they stone wack; tryin’ to git all of America to catch a ride, and laying a bum beef on the Republicans. Ya feel me?!”

Peace out!

© 2010 Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere, LLC All Rights Reserved

Kevin Jackson is a father of four sons, and an unlikely success story, given his background.  He is a leader in the consulting industry in America, having some of the world’s largest companies as his clients.  Interaction with prominent business leaders, as well as being a business leader himself has provided Jackson real world perspective to politics.  Kevin has appeared on Fox News with Glen Beck and other conservative leaders.  You can read more of Kevin’s work at his blog, The Black Sphere.

Many have dropped the term “conservative” altogether, because there is really very little left to “conserve” these days. Taxes, regulation, and spending are out of control and the other institutions that have supported our liberties are either being abused or are in decline. The US is on the fast track towards socialism. We need a different paradigm to put our nation back on track. That is where the term “restoration” comes to mind. The United States has lost sight of the things that have made it the most free and prosperous country in the history of the world.

To “restore the Constitution,” we would have to review at the things the government can and cannot do according to our founding document. Article I, Section 8 lists the seventeen powers specifically enumerated to the federal government. All of these things are important and the government’s function in these areas was suppose to be strong, in order to protect the liberties of every American. Some of the things allowed include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

So how did new medicines get regulated? How would certain industries be licensed? What about the many other things done today by the federal government, who would do them? This is where we get to the idea of “federalism.” You see how it was designed to work clearly in the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That word, reserved, speaks of exclusivity. This was not a preferential view of public policy (“it would be best if the states and people took care of these things”), but a mandate (if it is not listed in the US Constitution, it is for the states and the people).

The vast majority of regulations that exist throughout state governments came into place from states watching the works of one another. With the many states, our country had a vibrant laboratory with new ideas being brought to the surface and each state emulated those laws that worked best. This system worked very well. As the rest of Western civilization largely limped through the 19th Century with stagnant economies and governments in excess, the US was a vibrant powerhouse that focused on industry and innovation. Government did not get in the way, but largely cleared the way for progress.

The ideas behind this system are both simple and profound. The state governments had virtually unlimited powers, but limited amounts of money. It could not “print money” to fund its programs, because only the federal government had the power to do such. On the other hand, the federal government only had 17 powers and it had no reason to use inflation as a vehicle to fund its programs. This contributed to the value of the US dollar remaining constant from the era of the founding until the early part of the 20th century (during the New Deal we began to devalue our currency to pay for “extra Constitutional” or unconstitutional government programs).

Money was not the only restraint put on the states, but also good old fashion competition. If any one state became too excessive in its regulations, taxation, generosity in social spending, or in any other way, people could (and would) vote with their feet to go to places with more fiscally responsible environments. During the early 19th century, the Whig Party’s “internal improvements” program (very similar to earmarks today) had a devastating effect of state budgets around the country and led to massive migrations nationwide because of the high taxes that followed. In no time every state, except for Massachusetts, had prohibitions against such programs placed in their constitutions. Since people could leave states because of policies that were economically harmful, all states tended to demonstrate much more restraint in their spending and regulations, which led to greater prosperity for the nation as a whole.

Federalism works. It is in decline today only because of the appetite of the federal government. The national failures seen throughout the federal government today — inflationary monetary policies, unemployment out of control, and a debt growing exponentially — are all very eloquent arguments for restoring both the Constitution and federalism.

Kevin Price is a syndicated columnist whose articles frequently appear at ChicagoSunTimes.com, Reuters.com, USAToday.com, and other national media.  Kevin Price is also host of the Price of Business (M-F at 11 AM on CNN radio).  Hear the show live and online at PriceofBusiness.com.  Visit the archive of past shows here.

In brief, here’s what occurred. Famous conservative muckraker Andrew Brietbart posted a couple of videos on his website, Big Government, that showed Ms. Sherrod speaking at an NAACP awards dinner. She was describing to the audience how she struggled to help a white farmer who had come to her seeking assistance because he was about to lose his farm. She spoke of how she helped him just enough to where he would report back to whoever referred him that she had done her job. She also spoke of sending him to a white attorney, “one of his own kind”, for further help.

She went on to say that the experience taught her the issues that confronted her weren’t black and white, but “haves” and “have nots”. But the damage from her earlier statements had been done. Once the videos went public, all anyone saw – and I include myself in that number – was a black government official denying service to a white person based solely on his race. That couldn’t be easily explained away.

The secretary of agriculture, Tom Vilsack, contacted Ms. Sherrod and asked her to submit her resignation via her Blackberry – somewhat unorthodox and demeaning, in my view, but they were apparently trying to demonstrate their swiftness in dealing with racism in their ranks. Shortly thereafter, her resignation was announced, and to the casual observer, justice had been served – or had it?

After the fact, previously undisclosed information began creeping into the narrative, changing the complexion of what had occurred:

1) The incident she described took place two decades ago, before she became a government employee.

2) She was describing the incident as indicative of how she felt then versus how she feels today.

3) The white farmer and his wife immediately came to her defense. They are apparently very fond of her, and she of them. They credited her with saving their farm, and regret that she lost her job.

I spoke to a reporter this evening as the “conservative” voice on this issue and, while I’m not sure what she expected, this is what I told her.

This was a rush to judgment, exacerbated by the racial tensions that have broken out since the expose on the Justice Department’s apparent refusal to pursue the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, and the NAACP’s resolution condemning the racist elements of the Tea Party movement and the leadership’s “continued tolerance” of them. She should have been given a chance to tell her story, but the White House was so concerned about how this would play out in the media that they acted before giving her an opportunity to explain herself.

Should she have told the story at all? That’s a matter of opinion. Some say it would have been more prudent of her to save it for her memoirs. In this era of camera and video equipped cell phones and easily concealable recording devices, anything we say or do in public can and will be used against us. People from previous generations haven’t adapted to that reality, and younger people show no discretion and don’t seem to care unless and until they are denied opportunities because of it.

Should the journalists who released the videos been more responsible? Depending on which side of the ideological divide you sit, you may have a different answer for that question. The videos released by Breitbart didn’t address the time frame in which the incident she was describing occurred; was that fact in the video at all? If it was, then someone made a conscious decision to omit that information. Whether they thought it was irrelevant to the topic, or left it out with malice and forethought, leaving that out was wrong.

In the very same news cycle, a series of videos released by a leftist organization to prove the Tea Party is a racist movement were found to have been edited to leave out critical information, like the Tea Party organizers forcing a racist to leave the rally, or another racist whose rants apparently occurred several years before the Tea Party movement even existed. Whether they thought this information was irrelevant to the topic, or left it out with malice and forethought, leaving it out was wrong.

Today’s news seems to be more about speed than accuracy, and for every slip-up, there’s a coup that will feed a reporter’s family steak and lobster for months. Think of the John Edwards story; the National Enquirer was fastest and first with the news of his infidelity and the “love child” that resulted from the affair. Once the story was verified, they looked like crack investigative journalists, while the mainstream media looked timid at best, and biased at worst. The pressure to put “hot” stories out there without fully vetting them is incredible, and it puts a premium on us as consumers of information to ask questions and reserve judgment until all the relevant information is in.

Here’s my conclusion. Both the White House and the NAACP were on a hair trigger regarding the race issue because it is a flash point in the current news cycle. They acted against Ms. Sherrod based on incomplete information, and did so out of fear. The White House, frankly, isn’t particularly comfortable with the issue of race, as I spell out in my upcoming book, “Sellout: Musings from Uncle Tom’s Porch”:

My observation is that President Obama is a reluctant warrior and a bit of an opportunist when it comes to the topic of race. He is clearly uncomfortable casting issues in racial terms and there are only three conditions under which I’ve seen him invoke race.

He uses the issue of race when he needs to generate a large minority voter turnout. Witness his 2010 midterm elections video appeal to “young people, African-Americans, Latinos, and women who powered our victory in 2008 [to] stand together once again.

The other time he discusses race is when he’s backed into a corner, as he was during the 2008 campaign when the continuing controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary comments from the pulpit forced his hand.

In response, Obama delivered his famous campaign speech in Philadelphia on race in America. Although not explicitly stated, he and his campaign staff clearly hoped all the race talk would die down after he’d addressed it.

Finally, race becomes a hands-on topic for him when a friend is involved, as with his condemnation of the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department for their arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates at his own home.

Even in that incident, he quickly backed off his comment that the police acted “stupidly.” He hastily arranged a beer summit at the White House between himself, Vice President Biden, Professor Gates and James Crowley, the Cambridge police officer who had arrested Gates for disorderly conduct.

As for the NAACP, the heat in the kitchen generated by their Tea Party resolution was already on high, and they couldn’t afford another public relations disaster, especially one that occurred at one of their own awards dinners. As soon as the White House reacted, they did, too.

Now the White House is remaining silent on the issue, hoping it will die down, and the NAACP says it was duped by the conservative media. There are no winners in this situation.

The irony for me personally is that, when I set out ten months ago to write a book about race in America from the perspective of a Christian conservative black man, I never envisioned the racial climate in this country to be what it is today. That doesn’t make me prescient, but it’s a reminder to me of God’s timing. We’ll see if the manner in which I address this sensitive topic fans or retards the flames.

And so I turn to Ms. Sherrod as my final word. The story she told the audience that night was, in my opinion, a story of sin, repentance and redemption. It is a Christian story, and one that deserves more applause than condemnation. I don’t know if she’ll get her job back, but as far as I’m concerned, she may have been a racist two decades ago, but she is redeemed today, and she’s a sister in Christ. That’s good enough for me, and I’m praying for her.

The Supreme Court ruled for the first time Monday that the Second Amendment provides all Americans a fundamental right to bear arms, a long-sought victory for gun rights advocates who have chafed at federal, state and local efforts to restrict gun ownership.

The court was considering a restrictive handgun law in Chicago and one of its suburbs that was similar to the District law that it ruled against in 2008. The 5 to 4 decision does not strike any other gun control measures currently in place, but it provides a legal basis for challenges across the country where gun owners think that government has been too restrictive.

“It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty,” Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for the conservatives on the court.

(Photos from a Patriot’s Day gun rights rally)

The victory might be more symbolic than substantive, at least initially. Few cities have laws as restrictive as those in Chicago and Washington.

Alito said government can restrict gun ownership in certain instances but did not elaborate on what those would be. That will be determined in future litigation.

Alito said the court had made clear in its 2008 decision that it was not casting doubt on such long-standing measures as keeping felons and the mentally ill from possessing guns or keeping guns out of “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings.

“We repeat those assurances here,” Alito wrote. “Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, [the decision] does not imperil every law regulating firearms.”

The decision came on the final day of the term and at a time of great change for the court. Justice John Paul Stevens sat at the mahogany bench for the last time, and will end more than 34 years on the court when his retirement becomes official Tuesday. Confirmation hearings for Solicitor General Elena Kagan, President Obama‘s choice to replace Stevens, were scheduled to begin Monday afternoon.

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 77, was with the court despite the death of her husband of 56 years, Martin D. Ginsburg, on Sunday.

Read full article here.

By Julie Hirschfeld Davis THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON —  One week before Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan begins her Senate confirmation hearings, both liberal and conservative groups are criticizing her record on abortion rights.

The anti-abortion group Americans United for Life, which calls Kagan a pro-abortion activist, recruited failed conservative Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork for a news teleconference this week to denounce her. At the same time, the liberal Center for Reproductive Rights released a report Monday casting doubt on the depth of Kagan’s support for abortion rights.

The seemingly conflicting developments highlight the degree to which key players — along with the public — can do little better than guess at many of her views on major constitutional issues.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which doesn’t take positions on Supreme Court nominations, released a report Monday concluding that Kagan has demonstrated intellect and knowledge of the law but has not weighed in on most constitutional issues. Free speech and presidential powers, on which Kagan has written extensively, are exceptions, the ACLU said.

“The simple truth is that there is much that we do not know about Kagan’s views on the Constitution and the court,” the ACLU’s report said. “The available record offers very few clues about her constitutional views on criminal justice, immigration, voting rights, prisoners’ rights, due process, the Establishment Clause and a host of other recurring Supreme Court topics.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights said it’s clear from her record that Kagan believes the Constitution affords the right to an abortion. But the group said some of her writings raise questions about how significant Kagan believes those rights are to women’s health, lives and equality.

The center says it’s important that the Senate ask Kagan about her views on the matter during her confirmation process. It criticized as “troubling” Kagan’s contention in a 1988 memo she wrote as a Supreme Court clerk that elective abortions are by definition not medically necessary.

Kagan was writing a memo to Justice Thurgood Marshall recommending that he vote to let stand a ruling requiring Monmouth County, N.J., to pay for inmates’ elective abortions.

“Quite honestly, I think that although all of this decision is well-intentioned, parts of it are ludicrous,” Kagan wrote. She said women generally have no right to have their abortions paid for, and “I do not see why prisoners should have such rights.”

The center’s report also criticized Kagan for supporting what it called a “too-narrow health exception” in legislation banning a procedure its opponents call partial-birth abortion. Her recommendations “would have had harsh consequences for women seeking abortions, and were unconstitutional under then-prevailing law,” it said.