Sotomayor and the second amendment


PDA






JImbothefiveth
July 13, 2009, 03:50 PM
Well, it looks like Sotomayor's going to be confirmed. Did anyone who watched the hearing hear about what she thinks of the second amendment?

What concerns me here is what was written in, I believe, the Maloney case
Where, as here, a statute neither interferes with a fundamental right Implying the second amendment isn't a fundamental right.

Has Sotomayor changed that view?

(Please, everyone, do not talk about politics, or any other Sotomayor cases in this thread. If you want to PM me I'd be happy to talk politics.)

If you enjoyed reading about "Sotomayor and the second amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
July 13, 2009, 04:48 PM
As far as I can tell, she's very sparse in her opinions. There's a very limited basis on which to judge her thinking and philosophy.

All anyone can tell is that she went to the right schools, is the right ethnicity, says the right things, to please the left wing, and has never in her career deviated from the official leftist interpretation of anything before her.

It's a pretty fair bet she hasn't changed her mind.

The question really is, what will the serious justices around her do to influence her thinking? Will she take this post seriously, write opinions and dissents, really consider each case as a SCOTUS judge ought to? Or will she do what she has done in the past, and just toe the left line?

Who knows?

Certainly, SCOTUS judges have moved in various directions once on the bench. Is it the others around them and their influence? Is it their having to look at cases in different ways?

I don't know.

JImbothefiveth
July 13, 2009, 04:51 PM
Could you please edit out that leftist comment? I don't disagree, I just don't want this thread going political.

JImbothefiveth
July 13, 2009, 04:52 PM
More bad news. I recently learned that Sotomayor in 2004 joined in an opinion that saidthe right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right

Zoogster
July 13, 2009, 06:23 PM
She believes law is made on the bench, which is technicaly correct, but officialy not supposed to happen.

The intended purpose of the SCOTUS is to judge legislation in appeals on its Constitutionality. Not decide whether they believe the legislation is good, bad, or fits with thier beliefs.

She clearly feels the role on the SCOTUS is making decisions based on her personal beliefs she has aquired through her unique experiences, as voiced by her. Making changes based on those beliefs is most important in her limited official statements.

That alone is a clear statement that she does not wish to uphold the Constitutional role of a SCOTUS judge in impartialy determining Constitutionality whether she agrees with it or not, but rather to create what she feels is "good law" from the bench.
Not that that opinion makes her any different than many other justices in that regard (even those we support), it is however contrary to the oath they take and the job they are supposed to do.

Oro
July 13, 2009, 07:42 PM
The most succinct analysis of Sotomayor and the RKBA was by this law professor and 2nd Amendment scholar Here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/12/sotomayor_and_the_second_amendment_97420.html

Sotomayor and the Second Amendment
By Nelson Lund

Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor recently held that the Constitution does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments. Her defenders maintain that she was merely applying settled precedent, which only the Supreme Court itself is authorized to reconsider. This is a half truth that conceals more than it reveals.



Last year, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding debate by holding that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms includes the right of American citizens to have weapons for personal self defense. Accordingly, the Court struck down a D.C. statute that outlawed the possession of handguns.



Since 1833, it has been settled that the Bill of Rights does not apply to state laws, but only to federal legislation like that involved in the D.C. case. In 1868, however, the Fourteenth Amendment imposed new restrictions on the States, forbidding them to abridge the "privileges or immunities" of American citizens or to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."



In several nineteenth century cases, the Supreme Court held that the individual liberties protected by the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, are not among the "privileges or immunities" protected against state abridgement by the Fourteenth Amendment. Whether this was a correct interpretation or not, the Supreme Court has adhered to it ever since, and the lower courts are required to accept it.



In the twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court decided a series of cases in which it concluded that most of the rights protected against the federal government by the Bill of Rights are also "incorporated" against the state governments by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court has analyzed each right separately, but the legal test that eventually emerged focuses on the significance of the right at issue in the Anglo-American tradition of ordered liberty. The Supreme Court has not yet reviewed an incorporation case involving the Second Amendment, but its Second Amendment opinion last year pointedly noted that a due process analysis is now "required" under its twentieth century caselaw.



Judge Sotomayor ignored this instruction from the Supreme Court. She decided that her court was not required to perform this due process analysis because the nineteenth century decisions under the Privileges or Immunities Clause had settled the issue. Several circuit courts had reached the same conclusion before last year's Supreme Court's decision, and one other circuit court reached the same conclusion just this month. Her defenders can therefore plausibly argue that her decision was not wildly out of the judicial mainstream.



It is not true, however, that Judge Sotomayor was faithfully following precedent. The Supreme Court has never said that the Due Process Clause does not "incorporate" the right to keep and bear arms. That Court has never said that the nineteenth century Privileges or Immunities Clause cases foreclose due process analysis. Nor has it ever said that the lower courts are supposed to "wait" for the Supreme Court to rule on due process incorporation. The Supreme Court's twentieth century incorporation cases are the most relevant precedents, and Judge Sotomayor completely ignored them.



Two months ago, the Ninth Circuit performed a careful analysis of those precedents, and concluded that the right to keep and bear arms is indeed incorporated. Nor was this the first court to realize that lower courts are required to analyze and apply those precedents. A number of circuit courts have done so with respect to other individual rights, and none of them has ever been criticized by the Supreme Court.



One illuminating example, from Judge Sotomayor's own Second Circuit, is a double jeopardy opinion written by then-Judge Thurgood Marshall. The Supreme Court later cited his opinion favorably, but Judge Sotomayor apparently decided that she didn't even need to consider the precedent he set, let alone the relevant Supreme Court cases.



President Obama has said that he wants judges whose "deepest values" will help them decide the 5 percent cases that are truly difficult. Judge Sotomayor's deepest values apparently caused her to ignore the precedents that would have vindicated the right of Americans to have the tools they need to protect themselves from violent criminals. Can anyone expect that to change if she is confirmed to the Supreme Court?





Nelson Lund, the Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law and the Second Amendment at George Mason University School of Law, recently published “Anticipating Second Amendment Incorporation: The Role of the Inferior Courts” in the Syracuse Law Review. He was also a law clerk for former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

ArmedBear
July 13, 2009, 07:49 PM
JImbo-

Left has a meaning. It's not a pejorative.

Her judicial philosophy, insofar as it has been articulated -- or maybe insofar as it IS a philosophy, is generic left, of the academic leftist variety.

Ask a ten Sociology professors at state-run universities what the answer to a particular question before the court is, and I'll bet $20 that she will answer the same thing.

My point is not that she's a Stalinist; it's that she doesn't really HAVE a judicial philosophy of her own, so far as anyone can tell. Her opinions are sparse, and her decisions follow the academic left's accepted "truth" when that's relevant.

Her judicial philosophy appears to be equivalent to Obama's economic philosophy, in yet other words. Whether you like that or not depends on whether or not you stand with the academic left, and not much else.

I've had a lot of exposure to the academic left. This is my honest opinion, not some sort of rant.

When her decisions have been appealed to SCOTUS, she's been overturned 4/5 of the time, by a large majority of justices overall, not just narrow decisions. This doesn't sound like someone with a judicial philosophy, does it?

highmountain78
July 13, 2009, 11:09 PM
The bottom line is this: a Supreme Court Justice is suppose to make opinions, rulings and so on based on the Constitution, not the fashion of the day.

Yo Mama
July 14, 2009, 10:03 AM
She just stated that she believes in the individual right, but not in incorporation when answering Senetor Lehey.

She also stated that she has an open mind for incorporation.

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 10:21 AM
Interesting.

It appears that the left side of the bench might be recognizing that they look pretty silly if they don't at least pay lip service to an enumerated right.

Being a libertarian, and believing that some aspects of judicial conservatism are utter claptrap, I don't have a problem with "emanations and penumbras". If the court wants to "overreach" a hundredfold, and protect individual rights from the tyranny of the majority and of local governments everywhere, I have zero problem with that.

The problem I have had with judicial liberals is that they have had a habit of failing to protect many of our rights while digging hard for one or two here or there.

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 11:19 AM
Implying the second amendment isn't a fundamental right.
Well, she confirmed this morning that she believes that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right.

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 11:21 AM
Hence, "lip service."

dirt_j00
July 14, 2009, 11:33 AM
Talking about it now.

hnk45acp
July 14, 2009, 11:35 AM
What she said was, and I'm paraphrasing, is : "it is not a fundamental right within the legal meaning of "fundamental" meaning since the SC did not address the states incorporation issue it is not a "fundamental" right.

I guess it means that you should not read it as her personal opinion that it isn't a fundamental right as we laymen define it. She also said her godson is an NRA member and she had friends that hunt and that she was open minded about the issue

AirForceShooter
July 14, 2009, 11:39 AM
i'm watching her now. Senator Hatch is trying to pin her down.
She's a very good dancer.

AFS

Gun Slinger
July 14, 2009, 11:42 AM
She can "smell" it, the job that is, it is so close.

She has no moral scruples. She knows her confirmation is "in the bag". She knows that all that she has to do is to "weather the storm" and she is "in".

At this point she'll say anything she can to be confirmed and whatever she believes her questioner wants to hear. Once appointed, she'll do as she pleases.

Norinco982lover
July 14, 2009, 11:44 AM
I am just afraid that she will give us the answers we want now and then completely disregard what she said when she reaches the bench.

In fact, I'm sure she will do so.

~Norinco

dbltp
July 14, 2009, 11:47 AM
Just read this on Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl607

No issue scares Democrats more than gun control. Republican claims that then-President Clinton and his fellow Democrats would erode the 2nd Amendment led to big GOP gains in the 1994 midterm elections. That defeat made guns a third-rail issue for the next generation of Democrats.

And into this briar patch walks Sonia Sotomayor. Early in her testimony, she tried to reassure senators that she would not take any "preconceived notions" about gun rights to the Supreme Court if confirmed as a justice.

Her proof point? "One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA," Sotomayor said. "I have friends who hunt." She also said that as a member of the high court bench, she would feel constrained by precedent, if the Supreme Court has already spoken on an issue. The high court earlier this year reaffirmed the right of people to own a gun for self defense.
-Ron Fournier, AP Washington bureau chief

If that bolded part stays true then it makes me feel a bit better but I have a feeling she is in regardless so I am just looking for something to hope on...

Art Eatman
July 14, 2009, 11:54 AM
Okay, we're getting into politics. Let's give it a rest, okay? We're stuck on "hold" until some relevant case gets to SCOTUS.

Art Eatman
July 14, 2009, 12:31 PM
Re-opened for some incoming LEGAL commentary.

Political stuff will be deleted...

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 02:00 PM
Note that any judge will claim to follow precedent. It really is a meaningless claim, because it is the judge herself who interprets the precedent. Thus, an anti-gun judge will read the Heller precedent extremely narrowly. Every subsequent RKBA case that comes up could be distinguished from Heller because Heller "only held that the District of Columbia could not completely ban handgun possession in the home." On the other hand, if it serves the judge's purposes, a case with no apparent connection to the issue at hand could be cited as "binding" on the judge when she reads the prior case extremely broadly.

All you need to know about Judge Sotomayor regarding the 2A is this: if she really was a strong proponent of gun rights and the 2A would she really have been selected by President Obama and would her greatest fan be Senator Di Fi? Everyone knows that she is going to rule in lock step with the liberal justices on the Supreme Court.

legaleagle_45
July 14, 2009, 02:27 PM
To get back on track... and regarding Maloney:

Maloney did not say anything about whether or not the 2nd was a fundamental right. In what is known as a Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, the court felt bound by SCOTUS rulings in Presser and Cruikshank which held that the 2nd was not incorporated. It was only in a preHeller case where she wrote that the 2nd is not fundamental. If that was all there was, I would not be overly concerned,(or as concerned) however....

In her testimony today, she indicates that SCOTUS ruled that the 2nd was not "fundamental" as far as incorporation rules are concerned. She also stated that she would be governed by rules of stare decisis (prior case law in SCOTUS) in this area.....

SCOTUS has never determined whether the 2nd is "fundamental" under incorporation analysis. The case law to which she refers (Cruikshank and Presser) arose before any such analysis was ever attempted by SCOTUS. This is not a very good sign, IMHO. She MUST know that her statement is wrong unless she was sleeping during Maloney and never read any of the briefs. I believe she is merely trying to sluff off her prior statements re: the 2nd not being "fundamental" based upon wrongfully blaming that on a determination made by SCOTUS.

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 03:03 PM
legaleagle-

WRT her referring to Cruikshank or Presser, there are really two possibilities. In layman's terms, she is stupid, or she is lying.

That's why it's hard not to stray into "politics" here. She IS a politician, and right now that's becoming ever more clear.

Dirty Dawg
July 14, 2009, 03:06 PM
Feingold just gave her every opportunity to offer insight into her opinion on the 2nd Ammendment and she made every effort to avoid offering such insight. Disappointing but not at all unexpected.

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 03:10 PM
Maloney did not say anything about whether or not the 2nd was a fundamental right.
Maloney did say that the RKBA was not a fundamental right in this passage:

Where, as here, a statute neither interferes with a fundamental
right nor singles out a suspect classification

legaleagle_45
July 14, 2009, 03:11 PM
ArmedBear:

I am going to tactfully decline to join your characterization until I have a chance to review the transcripts carefully. Right now, and based upon what I heard, I can not disagree with you, but I still hold out hope that I misunderstood what she was saying.

Does anyone know of an online source which has the complete transcript?

dirt_j00
July 14, 2009, 03:12 PM
She's really getting hit with recusal in regards to the 2nd's incorporation. Can someone opine on how her recusal would affect the upcoming SCOTUS incorporation case? -- i.e. would her recusal tip the scales in our favor?

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 03:15 PM
Not sure if there's a verbatim transcript up anywhere, yet. This seems to be the place to look for that and similar resources, in multiple articles and links.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 03:18 PM
Can someone opine on how her recusal would affect the upcoming SCOTUS incorporation case?
I don't think it will make the slightest difference. Presumably, the five justices from the Heller majority will vote for incorporation of the 2A. If Sotomayor recuses and all of the dissenting justices from Heller vote against incorporation, the final decision is simply 5-3 instead of 5-4.

To be honest, though, I would be really surprised if even the liberal justices voted against incorporation of the 2A. I think that will be a unanimous opinion on the issue of incorporation.

legaleagle_45
July 14, 2009, 03:20 PM
Yeah, I am already on ScotusBlog, but the commentary on the 2nd is not too illuminating. They just have a superficial feel for the 2nd and do not understand the implications of what is being asserted.... or which I think is being asserted.

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 03:24 PM
To be honest, though, I would be really surprised if even the liberal justices voted against incorporation of the 2A. I think that will be a unanimous opinion on the issue of incorporation.

It's hard to figure out exactly how certain judges think.

However, I wonder whether some wouldn't at least worry about the impact on the whole incorporation doctrine, were they to decide that the 2nd Amendment simply isn't incorporated.

Could that lead to a "domino effect" that even the judge farthest to the left would dread? Or might a judge on the other end of the spectrum WANT to undermine incorporation?

What a system we have created here...

Phatty
July 14, 2009, 03:42 PM
It's hard to figure out exactly how certain judges think.
For sure. At the end of the day, some of the "conservative" justices could vote against incorporation and some of the "liberal" justices could vote for it.

The main reason why I think the liberal justices will join the conservative justices on the incorporation issue is because a lot of the liberal commentary I have read agrees that the 2A should be incorporated against the states. Heller decided a hotly debated issue last year about the collective right v. individual right interpretation of the 2A, in which a lot of liberals did not feel that the 2A granted an individual right. However, now that the issue has been decided, even the liberals concede that there is no justification for refusing to incorporate that individual right against the states.

Zoogster
July 14, 2009, 05:25 PM
She's really getting hit with recusal in regards to the 2nd's incorporation. Can someone opine on how her recusal would affect the upcoming SCOTUS incorporation case? -- i.e. would her recusal tip the scales in our favor?

The main issue is not immediate changes she will have as far as the 2nd is concerned. The issues will be in the future. She is 54 years old, and women generaly live longer than men. The position is a lifelong appointment.
She could end up being a justice for around 30 years.


Her positions have always been against the 2nd, her views as stated and available through her career are the academic liberal views as ArmedBear stated earlier.
In fact while she thinks she has a unique opinion and unique experiences in her statements, her views seem to be extremely stereotypical, and her insight beyond what she has been taught through formal education very limited.
Not very smart for a Supreme Court Justice.
You might think that is good because she would be less capable of articulating arguments against higher caliber justices, but at the same time it means she will be stubborn in her education formed views.
She is very educated and experienced, but that is not the same as possessing a high intellect.
It means she will be less capable or willing to view perspectives of another time period, with another culture, and with views like those possessed by the founders when they wrote the Constitution. Which is an important part of deciding cases that are unique and outside previous education.
To think within the spirit of the founders.

Additionaly her racial remarks are troublesome. Every single one of the founding fathers was a white male, the very type of person she claimed she is superior to in making certain decisions. Not only that, but from a different time period, with different concerns, etc with many other reasons to dismiss what they said if someone is so inclined...
So maybe she will make better decisions on what our rights are than any of them ever could?
That view is dangerous not so much for the racism itself, but because it shows she may have some contempt for the capabilities of the founders and the documents they produced. Documents she will be tasked with interpreting in ways that decide the rights the government will recognize.
That would make her less likely to preserve them, and more likely to "improve" them as she sees fit.

GRIZ22
July 14, 2009, 05:33 PM
She will be confirmed unless she acts like a buffoon in front of the confirmation hearing. That's the way it is. I just saw her on TV and in regards to the RKBA she said "I know how important the RKBA is to many Americans....I even have a Godchild who is a member of the NRA".

What a qualification!

dirt_j00
July 14, 2009, 05:38 PM
Thanks Phatty and Zoogster -- this is troubling.

Lou McGopher
July 14, 2009, 05:59 PM
Being a libertarian, and believing that some aspects of judicial conservatism are utter claptrap, I don't have a problem with "emanations and penumbras".

The proper way to do such things (from a legal standpoint) would be to point at the 9th and 10th Amendments for justification, rather than for the judges to say, "Ooohh... I've got a feeling about this." :)

The 2nd has not been infringed upon nearly as much as the 9th and 10th have. Of course, strictly obeying the 9th and 10th amendments would put a lot of bureaucrats out of a job, so don't expect it to happen anytime soon.

ArmedBear
July 14, 2009, 06:02 PM
The proper way to do such things (from a legal standpoint) would be to point at the 9th and 10th Amendments for justification, rather than for the judges to say, "Ooohh... I've got a feeling about this."

Quite true.

It would be far better to have a ruling that says, "The Constitution doesn't say you can make a law about this, so you can't."

I just don't believe in fighting against a ruling that advances individual rights and/or limits government power. There's an implied right to privacy? Fine with me. Now apply it to EVERYTHING.

...and I'm not holding my breath for the former.:(

Tom Servo
July 15, 2009, 10:35 AM
To be honest, though, I would be really surprised if even the liberal justices voted against incorporation of the 2A. I think that will be a unanimous opinion on the issue of incorporation.
It's going to be hard for them not to vote for incorporation. Gura's argument calls for a re-evaluation of Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank, the two precedents most frequently cited as not allowing for incorporation.

I doubt anyone wants to defend those precedents as valid. Cruikshank all but validated the Colfax massacre and allowed for over a decade of violence and oppression afterwards.

As the Cato brief (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10336) states, the modern consensus is that the Slaughterhouse ruling was plainly defective and needs to be revisited:

The doctrine of stare decisis ["the decision stands"] is particularly inapt with respect to the Slaughter-House Cases, not only because of the extreme violence that opinion did to constitutional text and history, but because the purposes of the doctrine would not be served by refusing to revisit this particular mistake.

When Leahy put Sotomayor on the spot yesterday (transcript (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/sonia-sotomayor-hearing-transcript.html)), she claimed she was only deferring to precedent. Once on the Supreme Court, she will no longer have that excuse.

Bear in mind, this case is going to have some big ramifications, well beyond the 2nd Amendment. It demands a review and evaluation of the whole history of incorporation.

Of course, we're all just guessing at the moment. She could surprise us, as Roberts did by swinging Right. She's written a few opinions very supportive of individual rights, a couple of which were quite emphatic.

Phatty has a good point. Even if our worst fears are founded, we're still looking at a safe majority.

Phatty
July 15, 2009, 11:08 AM
Sotomayor refused to answer the question: "Do citizens have a right to self-defense?"

That is very troubling.

dirt_j00
July 15, 2009, 01:17 PM
Yeah, I saw that. Seemed like a simple question.

30mag
July 15, 2009, 01:31 PM
"Where, as here, a statute neither interferes with a fundamental right"

Which is the fundamental right to own a nunchuka, right?

FiREhAwk
July 15, 2009, 01:47 PM
She might as well of plead the 5th :barf:

Lone_Gunman
July 15, 2009, 01:50 PM
To those who oppose Sotomayor, I must ask, why resist?

Her confirmation is certain given the make up of the Senate.

Her positions on many issues are bad, but what do you expect from an Obama nominee? I am worried if she is not confirmed, we will do worse.

Expending resources to oppose her does not make sense to me.

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 01:56 PM
To those who oppose Sotomayor, I must ask, why resist?


Very simple.

Political capital.

If Obama wants to spend it on a far-left affirmative action hire*, make him spent as much as possible.

This is a game of inches. Play, or get off the field. Score points whenever you can. Don't wait for the 105 yard touchdown reception that gets played over and over on the evening news, while the other team beats the crap out of you with field goals.

* Let's face some facts here: were she not a Puerto Rican female, we'd never have heard of her. That doesn't mean she's less qualified than any number of others, just that we know why SHE was picked over a pile of other people who attended Ivy League schools. More power to her; we all get ahead in whatever way we can. But it's not her "story" that got her nominated -- lots of people grew up in less-fashionable New York neighborhoods with one parent -- and it's not that she is a shining star of the field, either.

It amused me to see Juan Williams this morning, claiming that the Republicans has turned this into "racial politics." Nobody had to TURN anything.

That's why it's hard to avoid political questions and issues here. She's a purely political animal, and this is a purely political nomination.

BHP FAN
July 15, 2009, 02:00 PM
Why did the Left oppose ALL of Bush's appointees? It's a strategy,or tactic.

Phatty
July 15, 2009, 02:01 PM
To those who oppose Sotomayor, I must ask, why resist?

Her confirmation is certain given the make up of the Senate.

Criticizing her views and bringing them to the public's attention is never a waste of time. You're right that her confirmation is all but certain. But does that mean we should just throw due diligence out the window and immediately hold a vote?

I am worried if she is not confirmed, we will do worse.
If a President's first choice is rejected because his/her views are seen as too extreme one way or the other, the next choice is almost always less controversial. It wouldn't make sense for a President to nominate an even more-extreme person after suffering a defeat. Regardless, that won't happen here because Sotomayor is a sure thing.

leadcounsel
July 15, 2009, 02:02 PM
I read today that she promises to keep an open mind about the 2A because "a godchild is a member of the NRA and she has friends that hunt..."

It's not looking good...

Phatty
July 15, 2009, 02:04 PM
Also, when you sort through the more than 95% of non-answers and irrelevant answers by Sotomayor, you do learn some new things about her beliefs and philosphy, which can be used to help predict how she may vote in future cases.

ArmedBear
July 15, 2009, 02:06 PM
the more than 95% of non-answers and irrelevant answers by Sotomayor

Those ARE her philosophy.

So far as I can see it, her philosophy is: get into a position of power by whatever means necessary, then use that position to try to force her politics on anyone she can.

As I posted far above: that's NOT a judicial philsophy, at all.

RP88
July 15, 2009, 02:26 PM
regardless of her philosophy, it will be really surprising if the 2A is not incorporated. It would basically create a mess for the rest of the rights when it shows that the bill of rights apparently does not speak of rights of the people (isn't that the point of incorporation in regard to the rights listed in the bill of rights?). I suppose that is the line to walk on when it comes to selective incorporation.

JImbothefiveth
July 15, 2009, 02:33 PM
Which is the fundamental right to own a nunchuka, right? Sort of. I think the case didn't say a nunchuka wasn't a second amendment right, I think the case just guesses it is and says that the second amendment is not a fundamental right.

The 2nd has not been infringed upon nearly as much as the 9th and 10th have. You can make a pretty good case for the 10th. How is it the 9th has been infringed though? It's a very vauge amendment, and all it says is that just because a right isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean you can't have it.

PHenry
July 15, 2009, 02:37 PM
I watched her some this AM - she was very careful and appeared to be saying what she assumed everyone wants to hear.

I were not convinced. I judge a woman the very same way I judge a man - strictly by their deeds. Her deeds tell me that she would decide the law, rather than apply the law - the later being what is required.

That said - has everyone here called their Senators - preferably more than once?

Please do not be offended, as that is not my intent. I know everyone here supports the 2A and wants to see our Constitution upheld against all enemies, but when we only speak amongst ourselves - tyranny is free to do as it wishes.

Our elected employees prefer to operate unfettered by the "great unwashed" you know. 350 million Americans - 100 Senators = good math for us. A single voice is a whisper, easily ignored. A million voices create a thunder that causes elected officials rear ends to pucker up in sheer terror. I mean the private sector expects results right?

Deeds gentlemen, deeds.

If anyone here is unsure of how to get in touch with their elected reps - please PM me for assistance. I would consider it an honor to help. I can show anyone how to "bother" their reps in a matter of seconds via Email, or minutes via telephone or postcard.

234 years ago a bunch of very determined shop keepers and farmers began securing our Liberty at a cost too horrible to imagine. We owe them our direct participation the system of government that they created.

Time grows short.

PH

Sheldon J
July 15, 2009, 02:47 PM
How can they even consider someone with mutiple pending cases, this alone should disqualify her from SCOTUS....

Now let's not get off on the tangent of her racist background.....

Cosmoline
July 15, 2009, 03:23 PM
Is she a pro-2nd Judge? No, absolutely not. But you have to consider the current political situation. The dems now have 60 in the Senate thanks to that half-rate SNL has-been. SIXTY. Sotomoto is not the judge I would pick. But trust me it could be MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH worse. MUCH!! She is not the standard bearer of the left, not by a long shot. And more importantly she's not the legal giant who will persuade a Kennedy or other swing vote to switch sides. We need to swallow the pill and realize it could have been a whole lot worse.

Think of it this way. Her PERSONALITY matters more than her views. If she was a brilliant jurist and consensus builder from the left, we could be in big trouble. But by all accounts she's abrasive and alienates other judges. That's perfect, since it will keep her from swinging the current middle votes. She is also likely to get into entertaining fights with Scalia.

Lone_Gunman
July 15, 2009, 03:33 PM
I see no reason to oppose her. Her confirmation is inevitable given the current make up of the Senate.

Others have said that is conservatives oppose her, Obama has to spend political capital to get her comfirmed. I do not believe this is true. He has plenty of votes to get her confirmed as is. All that will happen is that Republicans will waste what little bit is left of their own capital by fighting a battle that cannot be won.

THE DARK KNIGHT
July 15, 2009, 03:43 PM
Honestly, why is this even a thread? Why would Obama nominate someone who isn't just going to be a steady liberal left vote on every case?

mcdonl
July 15, 2009, 03:50 PM
Sotomayor refused to answer the question: "Do citizens have a right to self-defense?"

That is very troubling.

She sort of answered....

The Oklahoma conservative asked whether the Second Amendment confers a right to personal self-defense.

Under New York law, she said, it is permissible to use force to repel the threat of imminent death or very serious injury. Yet, she said, "If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law because you could have alternative ways to defend. ..."

Phatty
July 15, 2009, 04:53 PM
Under New York law, she said . . .
It pissed me off when the Senator didn't follow up with a better question. It sucks that the people who get to ask the questions are not remotely qualified to be doing so.

If I could have jumped into his shoes, my follow up would have been: Assume that New York passes a law making it illegal for any person to defend themselves or others even when faced with imminent threat of death. Would that law be unconstitutional?

Along the same lines, all of the Senators keep asking about the application of the 2nd Amendment to the states, and Sotomayor keeps dodging those questions by stating that the 2A has not yet been incorporated by the Supreme Court against the states. IF THEY WANT TO LEARN ABOUT SOTOMAYOR'S VIEWS ON THE SCOPE OF THE 2A WHY DON'T THEY DIRECT THEIR QUESTIONS TO FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS? That way, incorporation is not an issue at all.
An easy question would be:
Assume that Congress passes a federal law that says no person may possess a loaded gun except in their own home. Would that law violate the 2A? Why or why not?

FiREhAwk
July 15, 2009, 04:55 PM
During class lectures she loves to voice her opinions and true feelings to law students but during a senate hearing she has no opinions and only thinks by precident. :rolleyes:

BUGUDY
July 15, 2009, 05:43 PM
+1 ArmedBear

DRYHUMOR
July 15, 2009, 06:08 PM
I've only gotten to see bits and pieces.

I'm not very impressed. Her articulation is poor, she says the word? "um" quite often. And seems to lack the ability to answer a question in a cut and dry manner that is clear and concise.

Today she was asked a question concerning a statement about: "it was (and don't quote me) up to the judges and lawyers to overhaul the XXX." I missed part of it. She stated that laws written long in the past needed to be interpreted for the conditions of today. I'm sure someone can post a verbatim.

However, for laws written long ago (constitution) one wonders how todays conditions would influence her decisions.

Animal Mother
July 15, 2009, 07:14 PM
It is clear to me from her answers that there is no way she will ever rule in favor of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

Igloodude
July 15, 2009, 08:19 PM
... She is also likely to get into entertaining fights with Scalia.

Boy, if that doesn't represent a glass-half-full mentality, I don't know what does. :) But yeah, Scalia and Ginsburg seem to get along well together (to the extent that their legal views are as respectful as they are diametrically opposed), it looks like there will be no such off-hours chumminess between Scalia and Sotomayor. And yeah, the fireworks should be totally popcorn-worthy.

StockKahr
July 15, 2009, 10:29 PM
"One of my godchildren is a member of the NRA," Sotomayor said. "I have friends who hunt."

That quote told me all I needed to know about Sotomayor's 2nd Amendment views when I saw it. If she has reached her current position while still believing that the 2nd Amendment has anything to do with hunting, she is beyond hope.

Art Eatman
July 15, 2009, 10:43 PM
Enuf politics...

If you enjoyed reading about "Sotomayor and the second amendment" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!