Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gun rights leaders say 'NO' to Sotomayor nomination

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Dave Workman, Jul 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dave Workman

    Dave Workman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2006
    Messages:
    423
    Location:
    Washington state
  2. outerlimit

    outerlimit Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2007
    Messages:
    1,375
    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.
     
  3. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,940
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  4. TEDDY

    TEDDY Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    884
    Location:
    MANNING SC
    ?

    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:
     
  5. oneounceload

    oneounceload member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2008
    Messages:
    15,710
    Location:
    Hot and Humid FL
    but the ABA loves her, so it's a done deal
     
  6. CTSigLover

    CTSigLover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    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...
     
  7. NC-Mike

    NC-Mike Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,227
    This is why elections matter...


    You get exactly what you vote for. :)
     
  8. Michael Thomson

    Michael Thomson Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2007
    Messages:
    95
    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.
     
  9. stevelyn

    stevelyn Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2003
    Messages:
    3,290
    Location:
    Fairbanksan in Aleutian Hell
    Unfortunately it won't make any difference to the mooks that now make up the majority of the Senate.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  10. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,705
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    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.
     
  11. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Let's see... Yale is widely discussed as having quite the "active" affirmative action entrance policies.

    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.
     
  12. CTSigLover

    CTSigLover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    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..."
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2009
  13. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  14. CTSigLover

    CTSigLover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    Au contraire, I bashed them both... you yourself quoted it...


    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...

    not

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

    runrabbitrun member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2009
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Right here
    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.
     
  16. CTSigLover

    CTSigLover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    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.
     
  17. NC-Mike

    NC-Mike Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2007
    Messages:
    1,227

    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/
     
  18. jakemccoy

    jakemccoy Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    Northern California
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  19. searcher451

    searcher451 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Messages:
    2,516
    Location:
    Oregon
    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.
     
  20. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  21. Walkalong

    Walkalong Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    46,719
    Location:
    Alabama
    She doesn't support the constitution, which is all I need to know about her.
     
  22. bigalexe

    bigalexe Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    Messages:
    931
    Location:
    SE Michigan
    I do not see how this is firearm related, seems more like personal bashing to me.
     
  23. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  24. jakemccoy

    jakemccoy Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Messages:
    2,601
    Location:
    Northern California
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2009
  25. CTSigLover

    CTSigLover Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2008
    Messages:
    55
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page