Very true - but it's to some extent a myth that one can appoint "conservative" (whatever that is) or "liberal" (whatever that is) justices and expect them to vote in a predictable way. Especially on social issues - and gun rights is a social issue. Just look at the expectation regarding how the current Court might vote on the Arizona immigration laws. It really isn't an"us" vs "them" situation but is far more nuanced.
... It is common knowledge that four of the current SCOTUS justices are commonly referred to as the liberal wing. They are pretty easy to identify. They are the ones who voted in Heller that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. The other five justices are the ones who are commonly referred to as the conservative wing. All five of them agreed in Heller that the Second Amendment means exactly what it says... not some twisted perverted interpretation of the truth which is supported by the words and papers of the framers of the Constitution themselves.
...
Both of Obama's first term Supreme Court nominees shared his vehemently anti-gun vision. Both of them lied about that during their confirmation hearings. All too often, that is a way to tell the liberal from the conservative. But you already know that. Please don't try again to convince anyone that Obama is not a threat to gun rights and gun ownership. It will only make you appear stupid. Again. In light of the following quote from Justice Kagan (one of Obama's first-term Supreme Court nominees) earlier this month (to an audience in Wisconsin), please explain how the last paragraph of your post (I've bolded it above, for your convenience) bears anything other than a passing resemblence to describing reality:
Though she's not running for anything, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan almost sounded as if she were trying to score points with Wisconsin outdoorsmen Tuesday during a conversation at Marquette University.
Kagan, a New York City native who had no experience with guns when she was named to the court in 2010, said she's now used them several times with colleague Antonin Scalia.
"He's made a huntress out of me," Kagan told Mike Gousha, host of "On the Issues" at Marquette's law school - and about 240 law students listening in on their talk. The justices have bagged pheasant and quail, and plan to go after bigger game out West this fall.
"He insists I'm going to shoot myself an antelope," Kagan said. That's fine with her, she said, because she's come to view hunting as "really good fun."
It's been known since shortly after she joined the Court that Kagan was invited to learn about shotgunning - skeet, in particular - by Scalia, she accepted his invitation, and came to like it. And she's been shooting skeet (and, more recently, pheasants) with Scalia since.
Frankly, gun owners, hunters and shooters would benefit far more from extending a friendly hand to non-owners, non-shooters and non-hunters to invite them to see what guns, shooting and maybe even hunting are all about. It works a hell of a lot better than engaging in fulminating arguments over whether this politician is more or less liberal or conservative or whatever.
Or, as my old man used to say, you'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar. In this case, Scalia took Stevens' replacement and turned her into a pro-gun person.
Pols say and do whatever it takes to get elected. They'll come out for man-on-yak sex, if it means enough fanciers of man-on-yak sex to elect them, will show up to vote for them. It's a waste of time to argue about them. Spend your time on positively influencing otherwise-undecided people in favor of guns, shooting and hunting. It's far more productive.
