Sotomayor and the second amendment

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.

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.

 

Sotomayor

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

 

Can you say conflict of interest???

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.....

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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. ..."

 

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?​

 

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.

 

+1 ArmedBear

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Enuf politics...