Possible United States Vatican Ambassador Kmiec and Another Reversal- This Time Gun Rights

It has been a while since I have talked about Douglas Kmiec. I along with many Catholics are praying that Obama will not name him Envoy to the Holy See.

It a prominent legal blog looks at yet another conversion experience he has had on a important issue. This time on the second amendment and the now famous D.C. gun case. See Kmiec v. Kmiec regarding Heller and the comments.

I am reminded what Notre Dame Prof Rick Garnett said recently over the possible Vatican job for Kmiec and his promotion of Obama:
First, as I contended (many -- too many? -- times), here and elsewhere, the problem with Kmiec's arguments was not their pro-Obama-all-things-considered conclusion, but their failure (in my view) to correspond with and take account of the relevant abortion-policy-related facts and history. Second, I do not believe Kmiec provided (and, because he is not a reluctant, "hold my nose" Republican but a longtime conservative public intellectual and partisan, I think it was incumbent on him to provide) an admission that he was changing his mind (on a number of issues) and an account of why he was changing his mind. (Remember Mitt Romney?) .

Exactly!!! As I stated at my post at John Allen On Kmiec and the Vatican Ambassador Controversy

This is and has been my main objection. The 180 degree turn he took on several issues is troubling. This goes far beyond he voted and supported for Obama in the public square. Also how he conducted himself is a issue to me. His martyr act really got old, his taking important documents out of context, and way he characterized those had a opposite point of view. I think that last point exasperated many of his allies in the conservative camp (for instance many people at the National Review jumped to his defense when they though he was treated wrongly in the infamous "communion incident.

Again Lawyers have a legal obligation to make a legal argument for their client. For instance a Lawyer can make one argument supporting a insurance firm one day and in another case representing a car accident victim make a argument that is 180 degrees different.

However Prof Kmiec is not acting a advocate for a client in some soft tissue car wreck case here.