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

Sotomayor and the second amendment

Discussion in 'Legal' started by JImbothefiveth, Jul 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    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
    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.)
     
  2. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  3. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    Could you please edit out that leftist comment? I don't disagree, I just don't want this thread going political.
     
  4. JImbothefiveth

    JImbothefiveth Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    2,711
    Location:
    Oklahio
    More bad news. I recently learned that Sotomayor in 2004 joined in an opinion that said
     
  5. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,074
    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.
     
  6. Oro

    Oro Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,496
    Location:
    WA state
    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

     
  7. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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?
     
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2009
  8. highmountain78

    highmountain78 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    Messages:
    17
    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.
     
  9. Yo Mama

    Yo Mama Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,789
    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.
     
  10. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  11. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    Well, she confirmed this morning that she believes that the right to keep and bear arms is not a fundamental right.
     
  12. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Hence, "lip service."
     
  13. dirt_j00

    dirt_j00 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Messages:
    310
    Location:
    Montgomery, AL
    Talking about it now.
     
  14. hnk45acp

    hnk45acp Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    719
    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
     
  15. AirForceShooter

    AirForceShooter Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,748
    Location:
    Central Florida
    i'm watching her now. Senator Hatch is trying to pin her down.
    She's a very good dancer.

    AFS
     
  16. Gun Slinger

    Gun Slinger member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    777
    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.
     
  17. Norinco982lover

    Norinco982lover Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    641
    Location:
    South Central Kansas
    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
     
  18. dbltp

    dbltp Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2009
    Messages:
    23
    Just read this on Yahoo News http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl607

    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...
     
  19. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,990
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    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.
     
  20. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    42,990
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Re-opened for some incoming LEGAL commentary.

    Political stuff will be deleted...
     
  21. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    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.
     
  22. legaleagle_45

    legaleagle_45 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    831
    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.
     
  23. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    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.
     
  24. Dirty Dawg

    Dirty Dawg Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2008
    Messages:
    212
    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.
     
  25. Phatty

    Phatty Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    701
    Location:
    Southern Illinois
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page