WTF, did anyone just watch Sotomayor???

RKG said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't. See my quote in an earlier post. There is a very valid argument that the 2nd was intended as a universal statement and not just pertaining to the federal government
 
Bob P said:
Actually, it doesn't. See my quote in an earlier post. There is a very valid argument that the 2nd was intended as a universal statement and not just pertaining to the federal government
Click to expand...

+1 What good is the BOR if any state can negate it whenever they choose too?
The BOR supercedes all state constitutions otherwise it is useless. Unfortunately this is how many of our so called representatives in congress want it to be.
 
Preachers Sheets said:
The news just had her being grilled by a senator about the 2nd amendment.

I swear sometimes I want to bang my head into a wall. The lady is crazy and she is openly extreme with her views on firearms. She thinks the 2nd amendment is on a Federal level and if a state doesnt want to follow it they shouldn’t have to.
Click to expand...


So does she feel the same way about abortion?
 
BBQ.Uncle said:
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neither Congress nor the individual states have the legal authority to infringe on that...unless the 2A is somehow repealed.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.
Click to expand...

Not quite. See above. By themselves, the Bill of Rights defines only the powers and limits of the Federal goverment the adoption of which was then up for a vote.
 
KMaurer said:
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
Click to expand...

I concur; there was nothing in these hearings to demonstrate that Judge Sotomayor is a legal heavyweight (which is consistent with the prior record).

That said, however, I sniffed a strong aura of careful choreography, which implies that much of what she said was of doubtful sincerety.
 
Bob P said:
Actually, it doesn't. See my quote in an earlier post. There is a very valid argument that the 2nd was intended as a universal statement and not just pertaining to the federal government
Click to expand...

I think you will find nothing in the historical context or the contemporary discourse concerning the constitutional debates that would support that argument.

The folks voting on adoption of the federal Constitution at the time had, and were motivated, by no fear of what their own states might do. In hindsight, perhaps that was short-sighted, but such is the fact. They were only afraid of what the federal government might do, and the Bill of Rights was insisted upon as a condition of adoption in view of those fears.
 
DozerC6 said:
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.
Click to expand...

See, that is the problem with affirmative action: You get ten pounds of sh*t in a five pound bag for very person who jumps ahead of a qualified candidate because of their race and not their brains. I cannot WAIT for Goobermint Run health care with affirmative action running rampant.. WHOOO HOOO!

awg35.jpg
 
Gonzo said:
Yep. When they start cracking down on the little guy who's only voicing concerns and discussing the state of things, that's when push comes to shove.
Click to expand...

I never thought in a million years I would be watching this country sink to the level it has.[sad2]
 
Sen. Coburn (R-OK) is my hero...

...in the Senate.

Great RKBA questioning of Sotomayor in this morning's hearing. When there is a transcipt (or video clip) do make not of it.

Her answers were completely lame. She wouldn't even admit that there is a right to self-defense.

BTW, anti-gunners always speak of the "right to bear arms" and not of the "right to keep and bear arms." We here it so much that sometimes even pro RKBA people drop the "keep". I believe the anti-gunners use this tactic because it is easier to get people to agree to some "reasonable" restrictions on the bearing rather than the keeping.
 
wahsben said:
+1 What good is the BOR if any state can negate it whenever they choose too?
Click to expand...
Well, let's remember that the BoR was written because some of the states would not ratify the Constitution without more clear limits on federal power. There's an equally good argument that - up until the 14th Amendment - the BoR was really intended solely to more explicitly limit the federal government's ability to supersede states' powers - not just in areas affecting the inherent rights of the people. After all, the states knew where they were at, and they all had their own constitutions spelling out their limits and the rights within their borders. Some of the states had been founded as - and remained - little experiments in religion, rights, and social planning.

The real issue is - and remains - what the 14th A was meant to include. The history of its passage and events of the time strongly suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was solidly within its scope, and that the one SC case on point is an outlier driven by other political concerns of its day.

The BOR supercedes all state constitutions otherwise it is useless. Unfortunately this is how many of our so called representatives in congress want it to be.
Click to expand...
Utility is a very poor legal argument, and is always a very sharp two-edged sword.
 
strangenh said:
Well, let's remember that the BoR was written because some of the states would not ratify the Constitution without more clear limits on federal power. There's an equally good argument that - up until the 14th Amendment - the BoR was really intended solely to more explicitly limit the federal government's ability to supersede states' powers - not just in areas affecting the inherent rights of the people. After all, the states knew where they were at, and they all had their own constitutions spelling out their limits and the rights within their borders. Some of the states had been founded as - and remained - little experiments in religion, rights, and social planning.

The real issue is - and remains - what the 14th A was meant to include. The history of its passage and events of the time strongly suggest that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was solidly within its scope, and that the one SC case on point is an outlier driven by other political concerns of its day.

Utility is a very poor legal argument, and is always a very sharp two-edged sword.
Click to expand...

I have read arguments that the 2nd is incorporated already and also each and every individual is soverign and the BOR lists inalienable rights that protect the rights of each and every one of us from abuse by any govt. not just the federal govt.
 
wahsben said:
I have read arguments that the 2nd is incorporated already and also each and every individual is soverign and the BOR lists inalienable rights that protect the rights of each and every one of us from abuse by any govt. not just the federal govt.
Click to expand...

That's nice. The papers by the founders at the time of the BoR make it patent that the BoR was not intended initially to bind the states, at least not explicitly. There were debates on that very point, and wordings abandoned in favor of what we wound up with. I agree that it does list rights that everyone knew were Natural Rights. Indeed, the major counter-argument of the day was that they needed no enumeration! But in terms of the power of the BoR as a legal document, those legal (small r) rights were not put against the states. Many of the states had such rights and more already listed in their constitutions, which pre-dated the US constitution. We're talking legal effect, not Legal Philosophy.

All that said, from my reading, it's pretty obvious to most legal observers - even many on the left - that the 14th was meant to incorporate the 2nd against the states along with many other rights, including ones not explicit in the Constitution (rights "reserved to the people"); but whether the Court will overturn the clear (but old, based on abandoned legal bases, and driven by other political issues) precedent on the issue remains to be seen. The wise money is on the 2nd being held as incorporated against the states.
 
up until the 14th Amendment - the BoR was really intended solely to more explicitly limit the federal government's ...
Click to expand...
And Sen. Coburn specifically mentioned to Sotomayor that the history of the 14th showed that it was thought necessary because Freedmen were being denied the right to keep guns.

He also asked her to explain how it came to be that the explicit RKBA came to mean almost nothing in the courts, yet something that was implicit (privacy) could be enforced against the states.

She bloviated on this for a couple minutes without any answer.
 
she is just a stupid, liberal, criminal loving/supporting, anti gun idiot who has no business being in a political position.

People like that should all be put in a locked, massive room with some of the most dangerous criminals for about 4 days straight. I would love to see if their views changed after that.

she makes me want to puke.. [angry]

Rob
 
clinotus said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is exactly right. With the decision by the 9th Circuit and the amicus that was signed by 2/3 of state AGs that the 2nd should be incorporated, we should all expect the SJC to rule on it relatively soon.

The only saving grace of this this appointment will be that the person she's replacing would have voted the same on incorporation anyway.
 
I can't remember where I saw it - but hasn't something like 80% of her decisions been over turned??

Has any of the Senators asked her about that? Or has it only been a case by case question? More people need to hear about the 80%.
 
God help us all.

I cant watch it [puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke][puke]

Her views are so far left that it can not be described in words. Moonbat supreme court justice may work.
 
Lynne said:
I can't remember where I saw it - but hasn't something like 80% of her decisions been over turned??

Has any of the Senators asked her about that? Or has it only been a case by case question? More people need to hear about the 80%.
Click to expand...

Yes I think that you are correct. 80% of her appealed decisions have been over turned. Of course not all of her decisions have been appealed.

It’s a pretty poor record. I think that even the more liberal justices probably think that she is not qualified.
 
Lynne said:
I can't remember where I saw it - but hasn't something like 80% of her decisions been over turned??

Has any of the Senators asked her about that? Or has it only been a case by case question? More people need to hear about the 80%.
Click to expand...

Cato said:
Yes I think that you are correct. 80% of her appealed decisions have been over turned. Of course not all of her decisions have been appealed.

It’s a pretty poor record. I think that even the more liberal justices probably think that she is not qualified.
Click to expand...

Its 60%. Not to horrible in consideration. You'll need to pull the same data from some of the older justices to see how high or low she actually is.

Additionally this part of the argument can easily be shot down since the SCOTUS may be looking at a different angle in the of the application of the law and not the same angle of legal interpretation that the lower court found.
 

Similar threads

Does anyone have
2
Replies
30
Views
933
appraiser
appraiser
Anyone run this light
Replies
10
Views
570
jkelly1229
J
WATCH: Eight Alleged Armed Robbers Flee Jewelry Store When Owner Appears with Shotgun
Replies
3
Views
136
friscoeast
F
just what we need, another hypothetical question...
2
Replies
47
Views
997
commodon
commodon
MUST WATCH IF YOU ARE SELLING OR PLANNING TO SELL A FIREARM AND ARE NOT AN FFL
Replies
19
Views
585
Bigfudge16
Bigfudge16
Back
Top Bottom