Looks like Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Bench
- Thread starter flying_gage
- Start date
- Status
AirForceShooter
Member
Near as I can tell, given the 3 choices I have seen, pro gun people at gonna be stuck with another anti- I think that this lady may be a less vile selection than the other 2.
She may change the dynamics of this court very little and as she appears to be generally middle of the road to slightly left.
Whole heck of a lot better than that lady from Chicago who used be chums with Obumma
She may change the dynamics of this court very little and as she appears to be generally middle of the road to slightly left.
Whole heck of a lot better than that lady from Chicago who used be chums with Obumma
"Any clues in her history about 2A issues?"
My hunch is that she is anti-gun, but as a practical matter, it doesn't change the court's makeup, since Souter is also quite anti.
Tim
My hunch is that she is anti-gun, but as a practical matter, it doesn't change the court's makeup, since Souter is also quite anti.
Tim
"I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."
She made this claim a decade ago, let's hope she's a woman of her word.
She made this claim a decade ago, let's hope she's a woman of her word.
Sonia Sotomayor is a judge on the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers New York state, Connecticut and Vermont. According to Sotomayor, “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” (U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, 2004).
jfh
Member.
As some time passes, I hope this thread can be a link to a reasoned discussion of her attributes--or lack thereof--in her judicial decisions.
ScotusBlog, in the link above, has a discussion about the political discussions of her decisions. I don't have time to do it now--but I'll try to exerpt some relative quotes from it for examination here.
Meanwhile, do take time to read those additional observations.
edit: DammitBoy's observation above is probably the most telling about 2nd A issues for her. I wonder what her history--in all her roles--shows?
Jim H.
ScotusBlog, in the link above, has a discussion about the political discussions of her decisions. I don't have time to do it now--but I'll try to exerpt some relative quotes from it for examination here.
Meanwhile, do take time to read those additional observations.
edit: DammitBoy's observation above is probably the most telling about 2nd A issues for her. I wonder what her history--in all her roles--shows?
Jim H.
FWIW I found this article by Rosen in the new republic:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
Something else I found on her: Holds her opinions on may issues:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html
Specfifcally she one said that the 2A only applies to the Federal Govt. limitation on this right.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html
Specfifcally she one said that the 2A only applies to the Federal Govt. limitation on this right.
According to the New Republic, she's not a real intellectual giant, and other judges don't like her because she's really short on social skills as well.
She's hardly "middle of the road", but if we're going to get a far-left whackjob, I'd rather have a shrill dunce than a collegial, intelligent jurist who might actually persuade other judges. As it stands, she sounds like she'd drive "on-the-fence" judges AWAY from her views, not towards them.
She's hardly "middle of the road", but if we're going to get a far-left whackjob, I'd rather have a shrill dunce than a collegial, intelligent jurist who might actually persuade other judges. As it stands, she sounds like she'd drive "on-the-fence" judges AWAY from her views, not towards them.
CAS700850
Member
Fascinating that she's essentially stating that 2A limitations are a state's rights issues, and that 2A lmits federal restrictions. Why interesting to me? A federal AWB may be something that she sees as contrary to 2A, saying that such an issue is left to state's rights.
Also, if she is a strict constructionist of the COnstitution, many of the federela government stretching of teh commerce clause may become something she would challenge...
Time will tell, but she seems an interesting choice.
Also, if she is a strict constructionist of the COnstitution, many of the federela government stretching of teh commerce clause may become something she would challenge...
Time will tell, but she seems an interesting choice.
Well, at least she believes that the 2A does limit the Federal Government wrt gun laws.
Could be worse.
ArmedBear said:
Amusing. These are the exact arguments that scotusblog said would be levied against her.
Despite what her political views may be, I find it had to believe that anyone who graduates near the top of their Princeton class to be anything less than an "intellectual giant." I also don't see how a lack of social skills relates to her capacity for rational thought.
If we're going to debate her seriously, and not look like a bunch of right wing wackos, we need to get away from ad hominem attacks and focus on her ability to accurately and reasonably address the topics she will face as a Supreme Court Justice.
-Ice
ROTFLMAO
Doesn't seem she believes in anything but what she feels like at the moment. It's also not clear that she's read the Constitution.
And as of right now...
She'd be right.
The 2nd Ciscuit case decision was, in fact, a judicially limited decision. The Nordyke incorporation holding was an activist decision. It's one that we liked, so we didn't call it that, (proving the term to be a meaningless proxy for "a decision I disagree with", not that there's ever been any doubt,) but the 9th Circuit did make a decision directly contradicting a SCOTUS ruling that SCOTUS had not yet overturned.
--Shannon
She'd be right.
The 2nd Ciscuit case decision was, in fact, a judicially limited decision. The Nordyke incorporation holding was an activist decision. It's one that we liked, so we didn't call it that, (proving the term to be a meaningless proxy for "a decision I disagree with", not that there's ever been any doubt,) but the 9th Circuit did make a decision directly contradicting a SCOTUS ruling that SCOTUS had not yet overturned.
--Shannon
Did you read my post or just react to the first sentence or two?
That was not the point I was making, in the least bit.
I don't think it was the point that the right-wing wackos at TNR were making, either.
I note that Maloney is one of the several incorporation cases working their way towards SCOTUS.
As Sotomayor was one of the original judges that ruled on that case, will she have to recuse herself if Maloney does make it to to SCOTUS?
Assuming she is still against the individual right argument for the 2nd, this would potentially reduce the dissenting vote by one, although 5 votes would still be needed for a majority decision.
As Sotomayor was one of the original judges that ruled on that case, will she have to recuse herself if Maloney does make it to to SCOTUS?
Assuming she is still against the individual right argument for the 2nd, this would potentially reduce the dissenting vote by one, although 5 votes would still be needed for a majority decision.
ArmedBear,
I read your entire post. I was commenting on your summary of the New Republic article and not directly at you. I included "According to the New Republic" in the quote specifically to show that I knew it was not you who made the original comments.
The rest of my reply was a warning that we must be cautious to keep our comments on "The High Road." These types of posts are known for going off on political tangents and I think it's important that we all remember why we visit this forum.
-Ice
I read your entire post. I was commenting on your summary of the New Republic article and not directly at you. I included "According to the New Republic" in the quote specifically to show that I knew it was not you who made the original comments.
The rest of my reply was a warning that we must be cautious to keep our comments on "The High Road." These types of posts are known for going off on political tangents and I think it's important that we all remember why we visit this forum.
-Ice
It was only an "activist" decision because it cited "substantive due process" and not the 2nd Amendment itself being applied to the states. There can hardly be any originalist-style interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states.
It seems silly to me that some people here seem to think that "originalist" means "ignoring all amendments to the Constitution."
That would include the 2nd Amendment, if that's what you think "originalist" means.
That's right: the 14th was intended to make the entire Bill of Rights (among other things) limit state government power. The idea of "selective incorporation" is the "activist" view.
Last edited:
That's not a political tangent.
I've interviewed, hired and fired people.
If TNR's report is accurate, or nearly so, it matters.
Yes, unprofessional conduct DOES bear on one's qualifications as a SCOTUS judge. You and I may disagree on that, but I stand by my opinion.
The New Republic article has also been widely discredited as a smear job by a reporter relying exclusively on anonymous sources. The reporter also has an undisclosed conflict of interest on the subject, as a relative of his would likely receive a big promotion if Kagan were chosen, instead of Sotomayor. A primer on the subect can be found here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/index.html
While the quote above:
seems damning, it is interesting to note that as a 'fundamental right,' the 2A would inalienable even to felons and the insane. Given that the quote above begins with a lowercase letter, I'm wondering what the antecedent clause of that particular sentence was, and why it was omitted. I'm guessing because that clause would inject some inconvenient nuance.
None of this is to say that I approve of the selection. I need to do more research. I'll start with the details of the case mentioned above.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/05/tnr/index.html
While the quote above:
seems damning, it is interesting to note that as a 'fundamental right,' the 2A would inalienable even to felons and the insane. Given that the quote above begins with a lowercase letter, I'm wondering what the antecedent clause of that particular sentence was, and why it was omitted. I'm guessing because that clause would inject some inconvenient nuance.
None of this is to say that I approve of the selection. I need to do more research. I'll start with the details of the case mentioned above.
The serious Prius-driving, tofu-eating Democrats here at the office are appalled. She isn't nearly liberal enough and thinks for herself.
Sounds promising.
John
Sounds promising.
John
- Status
