Gun question trips up federal court nominee

But from the start, the story in legal circles was that Heller’s objections had to do with Cadish’s stance on gun rights.

On Thursday, I obtained a questionnaire Cadish filled out in 2008 that goes a long way toward explaining why Heller may have a problem with Cadish. The group Citizens for Responsible Government asked candidates that year a series of questions, including this one: “Do you believe the individual citizen has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms?”

In reply, Cadish wrote: “I do not believe there is this constitutional right. 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.”

Given how circumspect judicial candidates usually are about answering questions that could betray how they’d rule in pending cases, Cadish’s reply is uncharacteristically stark. And while she had no idea at the time, it was also about to be contradicted by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2008 — just one month after Cadish filled out the questionnaire — the high court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that residents of federal enclaves had an individual right to possess firearms. Two years later, the court ruled in McDonald v. Chicago that states must respect the same right.

Cadish, through a court employee, declined comment on the questionnaire on Thursday. But in a March 22 letter to Reid, she explained her remarks:

“I want to assure you that I was not giving my personal opinion on this question,” she wrote. “Rather, this response was based on my understanding of the state of federal law at the time.”

She concluded: “As a result, if asked the same question today, I would say I believe that there is a constitutional right for individuals to keep and bear arms, and I would make clear that I would faithfully apply the binding precedent on this issue starting with the Heller and McDonald decisions, if faced with an issue regarding these important Second Amendment rights.”

The letter — which Cadish wrote after her nomination to the bench was announced in February — shows Reid’s office had concerns about the 2008 questionnaire and Cadish’s answer to the gun question.

But while Cadish’s letter may have satisfied Reid, it clearly hasn’t satisfied Heller, who has refused to sign off on her nomination, potentially killing her chances of ever getting a vote on the Senate floor. On Thursday, Reid urged Heller to change his mind, noting the vacancy which Cadish was nominated to fill is classified a “judicial emergency” by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.

“Nevadans will be left with a crippled court system we cannot afford,” Reid said in a statement. “I very much hope Sen. Heller reconsiders his decision.”

Curiously, however, Heller has yet to even acknowledge the 2008 questionnaire is the reason he’s held up the nomination. On Thursday, Heller’s spokesman referred to a statement released by his office earlier this week, in which Heller said he looked forward to working with Reid to fill future judicial vacancies.

His silence makes no sense, practically or politically. The Republican base, after all, would hardly object to a senator standing up for an expansive view of gun rights. Heller owes it to his constituents — and to Cadish, whose career is on the line — to explain himself.

As for Cadish, her nomination appears to be doomed, which is too bad. She was rated “unanimously qualified” for the bench by the American Bar Association, and she’s invariably described in glowing personal and professional terms by colleagues and attorneys. In fact, the man she was nominated to replace — Senior U.S. District Judge Phillip Pro — described her as “a brilliant lawyer.”

 

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.