TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote: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.

Confidence, over-achieving and intelligence are undoubtedly admirable traits when exercised properly, but wisdom and correctness are not inherently associated with them. Our current President is a confident over-achiever, and I would even yield to the fact that he's intellegent (that pains me), but I would not accuse him of having wisdom and I definitely don't think he's correct about much.

I certainly don't want to steer this thread off course. My initial intent in starting this thread was to point-out the contemptuous disregard this nominee has for OUR rights to arm ourselves, as afforded by the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. She certainly feels protected by the 1st Amendment, although I think she has shown her true racist colors while employing that 1st Amendment right.

Bottom line for me...I don't want a Supreme Court Justice that is a racist, admits to making policy from the bench (and laughs about it), and is dead wrong on her interpretation of the Constitution.

Purplehood wrote: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.

Judge Sotomayor ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:gW ... clnk&gl=us" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Want to hear something alarming?...She is also on record stating that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made”. Listen for yourself… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99Lrr ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regarding her background not having any bearing on the law...“…I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Judge Sotomayor's belief is that a "Latina woman" is by definition a superior judge to a "white male" because she has had more "richness" in her struggle. The danger inherent in this judicial view is that the law isn't what the Constitution says but whatever the judge in the "richness" of her experience comes to believe it should be. Case in point…her lower court ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano.

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.

bdickens wrote:Obama appoints another socialist left-wing nutcase to replace one who is retiring. So then the net loss is what...?

For her to say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to military is a direct threat to our 2A right to possess a gun. She wants to knullify the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment for individuals to possess a firearm for private use. Further, she "feels" that states and municipalities should be able to decide their own gun ownership rights. This is a blatent attack on the 2nd Amendment and a glaring example of legislating from the bench...far beyond Souter.

Fox still hasn't posted their story yet, but here's a report from CBS and others that are along the same lines.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27 ... 4428.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor- ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090526/p ... _amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Fresh off the press from Fox News this morning...

Fox is reporting that Sotomayor's position on 2A rights is very disturbing. In June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2A rights in the DC vs. Heller case, saying that the 2nd Ammendment protects the individuals right to possess a firearm for private use. In January of 2009, Sotomayor ruled against the Supreme Court's ruling in another case (details to come). She made the statement during that ruling, that the Constitution's 2nd Ammendment only applies to military, and that it should be up to the individual states to regulate their own gun laws.

Whoa! This confirmation needs to go down in flames. Fox hasn't posted the story on their web site yet. I'll post a link when it's available.