WTF, did anyone just watch Sotomayor???

[z0mbi]

We should fight to get the 1st Amendment un-incorporated, see how they like that.

 

[clinotus]

Ain't gonna happen. She'll be SC Justice Sotomayor sooner than any of us want. The only good thing is her appointment won't swing the number in their favor. It'll be a liberal replacing a liberal.

This woman is nuts, she is evasive and the 2nd arguments tripped her up between the answer she had to give and her personal convictions. The next set of questions regarding secret laws seem to have her dodging and lying.

Nice pick for the Obama administration, horrible pick for the nation if she sits on the bench.

 

[Admin]

horrible pick for the nation if she sits on the bench.

+1 She is an extremist moonbat.

 

[Lynne]

This woman is nuts, she is evasive and the 2nd arguments tripped her up between the answer she had to give and her personal convictions. The next set of questions regarding secret laws seem to have her dodging and lying.

Nice pick for the Obama administration, horrible pick for the nation if she sits on the bench.

I completely agree, but the reality is, she'll be rubber stamped.

 

[Titan]

Listen to the newest moonbat blow everyone in the room.

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/new...dio/7-09/frankenstatement.wmv&pimg=&redir=yes

PITIFUL!

I was disappointed that when he was sucking up to his colleauges and playing to the camera, he didn't find a place to throw in his Stuart Smalley "Because I'm worth it" line.

 

[MrsWildweasel]

I completely agree, but the reality is, she'll be rubber stamped.

I know.[sad2] Make me

 

[clinotus]

Kyl is ripping her a new one.

 

[atilla]

oh he was doing great! i was loving it!

 

[DozerC6]

Senator Kyl of Arizona got Sotomayor to state her opinion on the Heller decision.

Sotomayor believes the Heller decision: "Has recognized an individual’s right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government".

WTF does that mean? I read it as, it only applies if you live in Washington DC.

 

[Bob P]

Senator Kyl of Arizona got Sotomayor to state her opinion on the Heller decision.

Sotomayor believes the Heller decision: "Has recognized an individual’s right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government".

WTF does that mean? I read it as, it only applies if you live in Washington DC.

& that's exactly it. She doesn't believe 2 applies to the states and we can expect her to argue against incorporation when it comes up.

 

[clinotus]

Senator Kyl of Arizona got Sotomayor to state her opinion on the Heller decision.

Sotomayor believes the Heller decision: "Has recognized an individual’s right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government".

WTF does that mean? I read it as, it only applies if you live in Washington DC.

She does not believe that the decision is valid on the state level by any means, hence her repeating the wording of the question and the question in light of the federal viewpoint of the law.

You could surmise that she would argue against it, if it came up as a matter prior to incorporation, which is why the Senators are hitting her on the incorporation issues.

If you have been following current events it seems that we may in fact see a push for the second to become incorporated in the future.

When you take that in regard to her appointment you can start to see the conflict.

 

[Preachers Sheets]

What the hell is up with Fraken....did that entire speech have anything to do with the situation at hand. I felt akward and embarassed even watching the video. Ugh, just shut up and let the grown ups talk.


I love everyone, I'm happy to be here, I want to help, your great...your great....your great....your great too.

 

[Admin]

I love everyone, I'm happy to be here, I want to help, your great...your great....your great....your great too.

You just summed up what his entire term is going to consist of.

He is a nobody and a complete big .gov socialist.

 

[Preachers Sheets]

He reminds me of Matt Damon when he made it big and a few other small time actors.

Jeepers creepers you made it, you still suck, you still poop like the rest of us and your going to die eventually. Get over it, shut you c*ck holster and get some work done since everyone voted you in.

Ok Sodomizer has me in a bummy mood today.

 

[DozerC6]

She does not believe that the decision is valid on the state level by any means, hence her repeating the wording of the question and the question in light of the federal viewpoint of the law.

You could surmise that she would argue against it, if it came up as a matter prior to incorporation, which is why the Senators are hitting her on the incorporation issues.

If you have been following current events it seems that we may in fact see a push for the second to become incorporated in the future.

When you take that in regard to her appointment you can start to see the conflict.

I agree the incorporation question is coming and I'm hopeful we have enough votes.

I have be told by some Democrat gun owners and 2A supporters that Sotomayor would support an individual's right to bear arms at a state level based on the Heller decision. It appears they may be mistaken...

 

[Bob P]

I agree the incorporation question is coming and I'm hopeful we have enough votes.

I have be told by some Democrat gun owners and 2A supporters that Sotomayor would support an individual's right to bear arms at a state level based on the Heller decision. It appears they may be mistaken...

You know, you have to wonder how many of the people opposing Incorporation would be singing a different tune if Heller came out with a collective right decision.

 

[RKG]

It is already that way! Here in NH our State laws trump fed law. In Mass and Conn it goes against the gun owner, but the State has the final say still. So change things in your State or Commonwealth!

No. Any conflict between a state law and a federal law is resolved in favor of the federal law. In any field, not just guns.

What Sotomayor apparently said (I didn't see it) is that she doesn't buy incorporation. That would mean (should it become the law of the land), that the 2d Amendment limits the feds but states can do what they want. Which, in turn, would mean that some states can go easy on guns (like NH) and some can go hard (like the People's Republic), which is what I think you meant to say. However, the fact that the 2d Amendment doesn't apply to NH doesn't mean that NH laws "trump" federal law, in any sense.

 

[MARINE96]

The worst part is once she's in were stuck with her until she decideds to retire.

 

[Bob P]

No. Any conflict between a state law and a federal law is resolved in favor of the federal law. In any field, not just guns.

What Sotomayor apparently said (I didn't see it) is that she doesn't buy incorporation. That would mean (should it become the law of the land), that the 2d Amendment limits the feds but states can do what they want. Which, in turn, would mean that some states can go easy on guns (like NH) and some can go hard (like the People's Republic), which is what I think you meant to say. However, the fact that the 2d Amendment doesn't apply to NH doesn't mean that NH laws "trump" federal law, in any sense.

It would mean that things stay as they are. Incorporation was tried with the 2nd in 1876 and failed. It's not precluded from being tried again though. State Laws do trump federal ones in limited circumstances - that's how they make the Medical Marijuana laws in spite of it being against federal law.

 

[RKG]

Effing right. If I'm an American citizen then by God the constitution in its entirety applies to me regardless of what GD excuse for a state I reside in.

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Mme. Sotomayor (or is it Sa. Sotomayor?) or anything she stands for, but your argument doesn't work:

The issue is not whether the United States Constitution applies to you, but rather what it says. What it says (literally) is that Congress -- and only Congress -- is precluded from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. What we want it to say (via incorporation) is that neither Congress nor the states may so infringe.

 

[RKG]

Senator Kyl of Arizona got Sotomayor to state her opinion on the Heller decision.

Sotomayor believes the Heller decision: "Has recognized an individual’s right to bear arms as applied to the Federal Government".

WTF does that mean? I read it as, it only applies if you live in Washington DC.

No, Heller goes far beyond DC. Because it establishes a personal right that may not be infringed by the federal government, it would apply, for instance, to such things as a Federal AWB.

 

[RKG]

& that's exactly it. She doesn't believe 2 applies to the states and we can expect her to argue against incorporation when it comes up.

So what? You could have counted on Souter (whom Sotomayor, if confirmed, will replace) to vote against incorporation as well. So long as the issue is addressed before the Kool-Aid Crowd gets to replace a conservative judge, the substitution of Sotomayor for Souter probably has zero impact on this question. In fact, if the issue were to be decided by the Supreme Court today, there would be only one vote that would matter, that of Mr. Justice Kennedy.

Now, you want a scary thought? Are you sure you can count on the vote of Mr. Justice Scalia? Incorporation is, after all, contrary to -- or at least veers from the pure path of -- strict and literal construction, which is the unifying theme of all of Mr. Justice Scalia's decisions.

 

[RKG]

It would mean that things stay as they are. Incorporation was tried with the 2nd in 1876 and failed. It's not precluded from being tried again though. State Laws do trump federal ones in limited circumstances - that's how they make the Medical Marijuana laws in spite of it being against federal law.

Not quite, but this thread already has enough distractions.

 

[Another_David]

Sorry if this is a dupe or not in the right thread but I thought this summed it up pretty well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN1443533620090714

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said on Tuesday that she accepted the high court's ruling last year that an individual's right to own guns is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

"I understand ... how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans," she told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized."

Sotomayor said she had cited the Supreme Court's decision in a ruling by a U.S. appeals court panel she was on that held that the right to keep and bear arms only prohibits the federal government from imposing restrictions, and not the states.

Federal appeals courts around the country have been divided on whether the ruling also applied to state laws, and the Supreme Court is expected to decide the issue during its upcoming term that starts in October.

Sotomayor said she would have an "open mind" on the gun rights issue. "I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a justice on the Supreme Court," she said.

The appeals court panel that included Sotomayor said in the opinion that "it is settled law ... that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations that the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

The panel rejected a challenge to a New York law that bans possession even in the home of a martial arts weapon called a chuka stick or nunchaku. James Maloney, who was arrested under the law, has appealed his case to the Supreme Court, where it is pending.

Sotomayor told the confirmation hearing the ruling held the state had a rational basis for prohibiting the possession of this kind of weapon.

"When the sticks are swung, which is what you do with them, if there's anybody near you, you're going to be seriously injured, because that swinging mechanism can break arms, it can bust someone's skull," she said.

A gun control group, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it supported Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, based on her testimony at the second day of her hearings.

Paul Helmke, the group's president, said, "She has given clear and responsible answers, while not prejudging any issues that may come before her on the court. We have been impressed with her presentation." (Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

 

[Jose]

What it says (literally) is that Congress -- and only Congress -- is precluded from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

I don't think so. The first Amendment literally bars Congress from restricting speech and from establishing a state religion.

The Second affirms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By whom it is not specified in its text.

I may not be a lawyer, but my reading comprehension of the text, as written, is second to none.

 

[RKG]

I don't think so. The first Amendment literally bars Congress from restricting speech and from establishing a state religion.

The Second affirms that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. By whom it is not specified in its text.

I may not be a lawyer, but my reading comprehension of the text, as written, is second to none.

True enough, as far as you go. But since the whole Bill of Rights, when enacted, was part of a document that defined the powers and limits of the then-new (and then under consideration for adoption or rejection) federal govenment, when the 2d Amendment says "shall not be infringed," it means "shall not be infringed by the Federal government."

Just like the Fourth Amendment, which reads (in full):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Prior to (and absent) "incorporation", "shall not be violated" meant "shall not be violated by the Federal government" because the whole Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government.

Which is why the issue was not whether the constitution "applied" to someone (as surely it does), but rather what it says.

 

[JimB]

BFL

Big F****n Liar, she was asked to repeat her statement that a woman
Latino could make better decisions than a white male. She would not
repeat those words, she just smiled...

This lady is a piece of shit soon to be on the highest court in the land.

She also said something to say that she is open minded and anyone
could make a fair decision and be a judge, or something to that effect.

I can't believe that the Dumocrats and OH blah blah would let themselves
be subjected to this embarassment. Or don't they kNow it.

JimB

 

[BBQ.Uncle]

Now, don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Mme. Sotomayor (or is it Sa. Sotomayor?) or anything she stands for, but your argument doesn't work: The issue is not whether the United States Constitution applies to you, but rather what it says. What it says (literally) is that Congress -- and only Congress -- is precluded from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. What we want it to say (via incorporation) is that neither Congress nor the states may so infringe.

So lemme see if I get this straight. I just re-read my copy of the Constitution and Amendment II. says... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I take that to mean that every American citizen has the right to own and carry a gun and that that right is protected, not by Congress, but by the Constitution. We've managed to eff that up over the years by allowing local governing authorities and law enforcement the ability to deny us that right. Rightfully, neither Congress nor the individual states have the legal authority to infringe on that...unless the 2A is somehow repealed. So now, we're scrambling to get our rights "incorporated" state by state so we don't lose 'em....even though the Constititution was ratified by each and every state. Do I have that about right? WTF.

 

[KMaurer]

I watched a bit of it and was frankly amazed. I've been hearing all this about how brilliant she is, but based on her answers today I'd be tempted to think that I understand incorporation better than she does. Several times she stated that a right was considered to be fundamental if it was incorporated, when it goes the other way. Then when she was called on her "wise Latina" remarks, she repeatedly tried to say she was agreeing with Justice O'Connor, when she explicitly stated the exact opposite in her original remarks. I've got a feeling that she's not going to be writing a lot of influential opinions for the dark side.

Ken

 

[Lynne]

I watched a bit of it and was frankly amazed. I've been hearing all this about how brilliant she is, but based on her answers today I'd be tempted to think that I understand incorporation better than she does. Several times she stated that a right was considered to be fundamental if it was incorporated, when it goes the other way. I've got a feeling that she's not going to be writing a lot of influential opinions for the dark side.

Ken

+1