Gun rights leaders say 'NO' to Sotomayor nomination


PDA






Dave Workman
July 7, 2009, 07:00 PM
25 Top gun rights leaders say "NO" to Sonia Sotomayor nomination.



http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d7-Gun-rights-leaders-tell-US-Senate-No-on-Sotomayor-nomination

If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/l6hxc9

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun rights leaders say 'NO' to Sotomayor nomination" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
outerlimit
July 7, 2009, 07:01 PM
We're about to have a Supreme Court Justice who can barely write, and believes in Mexico retaking the American southwest. I don't need gun rights advocates to tell me she's bad for the country.

CoRoMo
July 7, 2009, 07:02 PM
I can't tell that any of these 25 currently hold an elected office.
Doesn't that remove any teeth from this letter?

I hope it works.

TEDDY
July 7, 2009, 08:09 PM
there are a number that are on the board of directors of the NRA and others that are well know gun rights activists.
are you saying theres no polititions on this list.:rolleyes::uhoh:

oneounceload
July 7, 2009, 08:12 PM
but the ABA loves her, so it's a done deal

CTSigLover
July 7, 2009, 08:50 PM
We're about to have a Supreme Court Justice who can barely write

That's all right, we used to have a President who could barely speak...

Seriously, the time to be concerned about this was last November, Democratic administrations nominate liberal judges... Republican administrations nominate conservative judges (with the exception of David Souter... where did he come from?).

Bush got Roberts and Alito, and to the left, they look about as appealing as Sotomayor...

When the Democrats hold the White House and 60 votes in the Senate what do you expect? Republicans are in disarray, and could not mount an effective opposition if they wanted to, and if they do, they look petty and vindictive.

Face it folks, the American voters gave the Democrats a clear mandate in November... how can you blame them for taking the newfound power for a "spin".

Who were you expecting Obama to nominate... Robert Bork again?

I am no fan of her policies, but as far as Sotomayor's writing ability, I find nothing wrong with it. Plus, she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get into Yale Law... and then to make the Law Journal? It is not a charm school.

By the way, better get used to the idea of Obama justices... John Paul Stevens is almost 90...

NC-Mike
July 7, 2009, 08:51 PM
This is why elections matter...


You get exactly what you vote for. :)

Michael Thomson
July 7, 2009, 08:51 PM
Regardless, she will be confirmed with every Democrat (58 Dems and 2 Independents who vote as Dems) voting for her and no less than 5 Republicans.

AS NC-Mike said elections matter. The time to have beaten Sotomayor was last November.

stevelyn
July 7, 2009, 08:54 PM
25 Top gun rights leaders say "NO" to Sonia Sotomayor nomination.

Unfortunately it won't make any difference to the mooks that now make up the majority of the Senate.

mljdeckard
July 7, 2009, 08:56 PM
IBTL,

Bob Bennett (R) Utah is going to get hard opposition in the next election because he supported the first stimulus package. If Orrin Hatch (R) Utah, who sits on the judiciary committee doesn't fight against this confirmation like his life depends on it, I'm done with him too. It's not enough to show up and vote. I could do that. You have to push to make things different than they are. They could both be easily replaced with pro-gun senators who will act like their jobs aren't guaranteed.

TexasRifleman
July 7, 2009, 08:56 PM
am no fan of her policies, but as far as Sotomayor's writing ability, I find nothing wrong with it. Plus, she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get into Yale Law... and then to make the Law Journal? It is not a charm school.


Let's see... Yale is widely discussed as having quite the "active" affirmative action entrance policies.

That's all right, we used to have a President who could barely speak...


You sure you wanna keep that story going about how hard it is to get into Yale?

You just bashed Bush, yet he went to the same school.

Interesting how you give one a pass and hold the other accountable.

Very interesting.

And yes, very IBTL even though it's gun related. The thread has left Mr Workmans original intent I think.

CTSigLover
July 7, 2009, 09:12 PM
You sure you wanna keep that story going about how hard it is to get into Yale?

You just bashed Bush, yet he went to the same school.

Interesting how you give one a pass and hold the other accountable.


Nice try, but some fact checking and clarification is in order.

Bush went to Yale as an undergrad, no small feat, yet his performance there was mediocre at best. You imply that Sotomayor's admission to Yale Law had something to do with her race, I suggest Bush's acceptance to Yale undergrad had much to do with patronage and family connections.

Sotomayor went to Yale Law... huge difference. Yale undergrad is a top school, but Yale Law is the elite of the elite. Mediocre performance won't get you on the Law Journal either... and that one is graded blind... so no "points" for legacy or ethnicity.

Show me someone Obama would nominate of whom you would approve. I repeat again... you are not getting Robert Bork... let it go!

Anyhow, now that we have straightened that out... I feel like I am trapped in the famous scene from Casablanca... "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that Obama nominated a liberal justice..."

TexasRifleman
July 7, 2009, 09:15 PM
Bush went to Yale as an undergrad, no small feat, yet his performance was mediocre at best. You imply that Sotomayor's ethnicity had something to do with her race, I suggest Bush's acceptance to Yale undergrad had a lot to do with patronage and family connections.


So we agree that Yale let 2 morons in, regardless of reason. I just find it telling that you couldn't wait to praise one and bash the other.

CTSigLover
July 7, 2009, 09:21 PM
I just find it telling that you couldn't wait to praise one and bash the other.

Au contraire, I bashed them both... you yourself quoted it...


I am no fan of her policies

But I can see on this issue we shall simply have to agree to disagree...

Edited to add in the interest of precision:

I mistyped in the post you quote above... it should have read...

You imply that Sotomayor's admission to Yale Law had something to do with her race

not

You imply that Sotomayor's ethnicity had something to do with her race

Which is of course just a silly statement equating race and ethnicity. Mea Culpa

runrabbitrun
July 7, 2009, 09:26 PM
Does it really matter what bunch gets sent to Washington anymore anyway?
I mean it matters, yes...
(We want pro 2a representatives).

But from any of their perspectives.
Why should they care if they get in do more damage
to the Constitution and get out?
They get their salaries for life, right?
(No to mention all the other goodies)...

So in theory, one could get elected, do some
seriously screwed up stuff, get booted out via vote at election.
But ha >>> he/she gets all the benefits for life anyway.

Kind of like how all these CEOs were able to destroy companies and walk away with millions.

CTSigLover
July 7, 2009, 09:29 PM
I voted for McCain so I guess I didn't get what I voted for.

True, but with 365 electoral votes, the country as a whole got who they voted for.

It sucks to be in the minority, but it is a good incentive to work hard for the 2010 midterms, and the 2012 general to get our people back in. You have to admit the Republican Party really flubbed '08.

NC-Mike
July 7, 2009, 11:11 PM
Nice try, but some fact checking and clarification is in order.

Bush went to Yale as an undergrad, no small feat, yet his performance there was mediocre at best. You imply that Sotomayor's admission to Yale Law had something to do with her race, I suggest Bush's acceptance to Yale undergrad had much to do with patronage and family connections.

Sotomayor went to Yale Law... huge difference. Yale undergrad is a top school, but Yale Law is the elite of the elite. Mediocre performance won't get you on the Law Journal either... and that one is graded blind... so no "points" for legacy or ethnicity.

Show me someone Obama would nominate of whom you would approve. I repeat again... you are not getting Robert Bork... let it go!

Anyhow, now that we have straightened that out... I feel like I am trapped in the famous scene from Casablanca... "I'm shocked, shocked I tell you to find that Obama nominated a liberal justice..."



Sotomayor herself says the only reason she got in was because of her race...

Very ironic, considering how her recent race-based decision was just thrown out by the SCOTUS.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/11/sotomayor.affirmative.action/

jakemccoy
July 8, 2009, 12:50 AM
I am no fan of her policies, but as far as Sotomayor's writing ability, I find nothing wrong with it. Plus, she was an editor of the Yale Law Journal. Do you have any idea how hard it is to get into Yale Law... and then to make the Law Journal? It is not a charm school.

Yeah, that basically gives her bragging rights to being a good writer. If you happen to come across something that she poorly wrote, then either it's you not understanding or it's her not trying.

Let's see... Yale is widely discussed as having quite the "active" affirmative action entrance policies.

Believe it or not, there are minorities in this country with perfect grades and 172 LSAT scores. Some of them get rejected from Yale Law. Yale Law is number 1 because they know what they're doing. Yale's graduates go on to make a difference in the world at large.

I don't like Sotomayor. However, let's not automatically lose credibility by making far reaching statements.

You sure you wanna keep that story going about how hard it is to get into Yale?

We're talking about Yale Law here, not Yale undergrad. Yale Law is much harder to get into than the undergrad. Just look at the darn requirements for Yale Law and see if you can meet them halfway.

searcher451
July 8, 2009, 12:39 PM
The thread has turned political quite quickly, which is no surprise, I suppose, given its premise and the immediate/automatic bashing that we seemingly can't wait to dish out once the door is opened even a crack. I'd be interested to read more about the nominee's case rulings regarding guns, if anyone has any specifics or details or recommendations on where to go to get them.

TexasRifleman
July 8, 2009, 12:45 PM
Believe it or not, there are minorities in this country with perfect grades and 172 LSAT scores. Some of them get rejected from Yale Law. Yale Law is number 1 because they know what they're doing. Yale's graduates go on to make a difference in the world at large.

I don't like Sotomayor. However, let's not automatically lose credibility by making far reaching statements.

The poster I replied to made the comment that Yale only took "the best" as he took swipes at GWB.

I simply replied to him that we could throw stones at Sotomayor as easily as he threw stones at Bush.

Whether or not affirmative action, or patronal favors got them into Yale is irrelevant.

The point is that both attended Yale yet it's seen as perfectly acceptable to bash Bush as a moron but not to point out that Sotomayor might be there because of affirmative action (whether it's true or not doesn't matter).

I never said she wasn't qualified for the job based on attending Yale law, I said that the poster I replied to was a hypocrite.

Walkalong
July 8, 2009, 12:50 PM
She doesn't support the constitution, which is all I need to know about her.

bigalexe
July 8, 2009, 01:23 PM
I do not see how this is firearm related, seems more like personal bashing to me.

TexasRifleman
July 8, 2009, 01:52 PM
No, not very firearm related. She has made few 2A rulings.

As for personal bashing yes, there's plenty of that, but she sort of started it.

Not for THR but she's got a long history of making very racially charged statements which in my view disqualifies her for the Supremes, but she will get the seat, there is little to stop it from happening at this point.

jakemccoy
July 8, 2009, 02:51 PM
The point is that both attended Yale yet it's seen as perfectly acceptable to bash Bush as a moron but not to point out that Sotomayor might be there because of affirmative action (whether it's true or not doesn't matter).


I get your point. However, Yale Law and Yale Undergrad are two different schools. The connection to Bush doesn't exist. Equating the two makes it look like you don't know what you're talking about, no offense man.

CTSigLover
July 8, 2009, 02:57 PM
She doesn't support the constitution, which is all I need to know about her.

I am sure that she supports the Constitution... she just does not subscribe to your personal view of Constitutional interpretation... and that's OK, reasonable minds can differ.

Remember though, the Constitution has no meaning beyond what the United States Supreme Court gives it... those 9 individuals are the final arbiter of meaning... on the day before Roe, the constitution meant that a state could ban abortion, on the day after Roe, the constitution meant that a state could not ban abortion... the language of the document did not change, the meaning did, because the USSC said it did.

If you don't like the meaning given to the Constitution by the court, either get yourself appointed to the USSC to change things, or make sure that we have an executive who will appoint the judges you want.

This entire thread is academic anyhow, since with Obama in the White House and 60 Democratic Senators on the hill, there is no practical way for the Republicans to derail her nomination. When you hand control to a party you disagree with, don't be surprised if you disagree with their policy decisions and nominees.

Walkalong
July 8, 2009, 03:07 PM
She doesn't believe in the 2nd amendment, which to me means she does not support the Constitution. :)

CTSigLover
July 8, 2009, 03:28 PM
She doesn't believe in the same interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as I do which to me personally means she does not support the Constitution in the way I wish she would.

There, I fixed it for you. Statements of absolutes are dangerous... the world is composed of shades of gray...

bearmgc
July 8, 2009, 03:42 PM
One of the most telling statements she made, when early on she was being considered, was that the Supreme Court was a great place to make laws. After she was being seriously considered for the position, she quickly backed off from making another statement to that effect. That first statement alone demonstrates her intentions and lack of maintaining the ONLY role of the Supreme Court- to interpret the law. Strong consideration of her intentions and the possible effects on 2nd amendment in the future, should be enough to say NO by GOP congressmen, on her confirmation. Unfortunately, too many of them are playing to minorities to garner votes in the next election. They are prostituting their Congressional voting power for personal gain.

Skillet
July 8, 2009, 05:52 PM
sometimes the leaders of this country forget who they are leading.
the USA.
we don't take government corruption lightly.
that is how this country was formed in the first place.
they do what WE say.
not the media, not what other countries say.
they do what the american public says.
sometimes they need to be reminded of that.

CTSigLover
July 8, 2009, 06:32 PM
they do what the american public says.
sometimes they need to be reminded of that.

Absolutely right, and when the government does not listen, we get to vote the politicians we don't like out of office, and hand power to people who will better serve our needs.

Like what happened last November... a majority of American's wanted a change, and voted for it. No coup, no blood in the streets, just a handover of power because people demanded a different leadership style.

We happen to be in the minority, but that does not make the process any less valid. We just need to work harder in 2010 and 2012.

buckbucko
July 8, 2009, 06:55 PM
We have to remember that there are Pro gun Democrats like Jim Webb ov Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. The residents of these states need to put the pressure on their Senators and make them toe the Second Ammendment line.

yokel
July 8, 2009, 07:04 PM
Freedom certainly is at risk here at home if our elected leaders and appointed judges believe that our fundamental rights are merely "political rights". If that is true, then politicians-- and the judges they appoint -- can abridge, alter or eliminate them and the Constitution and Bill of Rights have been reduced to just rotting sheets of antique paper, the quaint relics of a dead dream.

A biased judge that is ideologically driven by prejudice and ignorance is one of the vilest and most dangerous of despots.

feedthehogs
July 8, 2009, 07:15 PM
As long as we keep at each other over party lines, we'll continue to lose.

She's not sworn in yet, while the fat lady is warming up, she ain't started to sing.

Win or lose, get up off the fat butts and do something. Send a letter to your reps asking that they not confirm her.

Even if they do, at least you did something. If enough people do something, eventualy the cup comes back home.

The bickering by the sudo intellectuals is really starting to get old.

nwilliams
July 8, 2009, 07:23 PM
The sky is falling!!!

Sorry I just don't see the point in panic threads like these anymore:rolleyes:

rbernie
July 8, 2009, 08:22 PM
There is no profit in these discussions, and so we won't have them.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun rights leaders say 'NO' to Sotomayor nomination" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!