TexasCHLforum.com

Unfortunately I have not yet married a Latina that DIDN'T think she was more intelligent than everyone else. They tend to be very confident women and over-achievers.

pdubyoo wrote:

Purplehood wrote:So far all I see are general impressions and guesses regarding her possible stance on 2A rights.
We all know she must be more "liberal" than most or she wouldn't have been appointed. But I have as yet to be convinced that she is the devil's advocate for the Brady bunch.

Let me see...she plainly said that the second amendment only applies to military, which completely disregards the fact that the 2nd amendment says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Oh, and let's not forget the fact that she's on record from the bench just this year saying that the states should be in control of each state's gun rights, not a federal constitutional right. Sorry, but I fail to come to the same conclusion you do. There's no general impression and guessing regarding her possible stance on 2A. Her opinions regarding 2A are on record from the bench, and she was very specific.

I have been actively chasing down the veracity of some of the statements made above and thus far found only chat room references to them that simply interpret her actual quotes to mean what the reader wants them to.

The thing that does alarm me about her is that she seems to think that the 2A applies to the Feds and not necessarily the individual States. I am not sure how or why she thinks that in light of Heller (perhaps she thinks it doesn't apply because DC is not a state?).

I am not yet in a state of panic over her nomination. I like some of her statements about her background not having any bearing on the law, but of course I wonderwhat her interpretation of "the law" actually is.

IMHO, I think many of us are doing alot of "reaching" here to find something wrong with her. There is not a single Supreme Court candidate that has been submitted for nomination in the past 30 years (my presumed period of adulthood) that doesn't rub someone wrong.
In most cases one can point to specifics about that individual and say, "I don't like that". So far all I see are general impressions and guesses regarding her possible stance on 2A rights.
We all know she must be more "liberal" than most or she wouldn't have been appointed. But I have as yet to be convinced that she is the devil's advocate for the Brady bunch.

Abraham wrote:Her immoderate declarations are farcical. A heavy weight intellectual she is not. Her drollery will be at least entertaining.

If she gets the nod, her ego will fill and sail and we'll be off to gaffe land.

It'll be great fun listening to her discredit herself.

Though my knee-jerk reaction was to look for all the reasons why she should not be confirmed, I couldn't find any. In fact, everything I have found seems to support that she is a heavy-weight intellectual. She may be philosophically different than you and and even I, but a dummy she is not.

I do envy your ability to predict her future drollery and ego-pandering. I lack that skill.

In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing on to a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

Not being a lawyer, I read the above statement to say that the ruling agreed with "stupid" people, and went against what the "smart" people need and want to do.