Sotomayor and 2A Rights

[casingpoint]

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.

That pretty good, pdubyoo. But, perhaps some comas might change the meaning of your statement, like some have suggested the Second Amendment was affected.

To wit: "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."

Well, it appears not a thing has been changed by the insertion of all those commas. It still indicates Sotomayor's personal life will influence her decisions. But since approximately sixty per cent of Americans are functionally illiterate, the presence or absence of commas is largely immaterial anyway to a whole lot of folks out there who just don't get it about Sotomayor.

"You can't whistle Dixie out of both sides of your mouth and stay in tune very long."--Unknown

[Purplehood]

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]

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.

[Abraham]

pdubyoo,

Conspicuous racism is de rigueur with many minorities and never a counterbalancing peep will be uttered by any leftist. Female chauvinism can be added to this mix, but hey, we're male, so we're not supposed to mention this bit of sexism...

Consider similar wording - Boldly asserting the richness of male Caucasian life experiences as a basis for judicial decision and the immediate, bombastic response. The left would go bonkers.

Hypocrisy be thy name.

The Constitution - what's that?

Knowledge of the 2a - say what?

So now we have a female Archie Bunker lurching her way to the Supreme Court.

Theatre of the absurd at it's finest...

[casingpoint]

Limbaugh and Gingrich softened their stances considerably today against Sotomayor, almost like they were threatened by the KGB simultaneously.

[srothstein]

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;

This is one of my biggest complaints against her. How much common sense can a person have who says well, this is on tape and I shouldn't be saying this but here I am syaing it anyway/

Either she has no sense at all or she is very firm in her beliefs and willing to take the heat on them. If it is a lack of sense, we do not need her, and if she is so firm in her belief that she should "make policy" that she doesn't care who knows, we don't need her on the bench. Either way, this one clip is enough to convince me she should not be confirmed.

of course, her record of being oveturned by the SCOTUS more than the Ninth Circuit (well, it seems that way) is another good reason too.

[Liberty]

Limbaugh and Gingrich softened their stances considerably today against Sotomayor, almost like they were threatened by the KGB simultaneously.

I don't think Limbaugh softened his stance. Although I must confess I only heard about 5 minutes of him on the way to lunch. He did not back down on her being a racist. None the less he did claim he could back Ms Sotomayor if she has a strong right to life stance. He believes that she as a Puerto Rican is a faithful Catholic, and therefore must be prolife. I believe she is divorced and doesn't attend any church regularly. I do think that Rush is stirring the pot just to get a little more controversy on her. Getting her to take sides would serve to delay her appointment, and maybe even get borked.

[ErnieP]

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/careercenter ... reercenter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[shootthesheet]

The woman is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I did not agree with many in the majority that voted for Obama only because of the color of his skin and I don't agree with those that praise this nomination because of her "race". Progressives seem to believe that anyone is qualified as long as they rule their way and meet their minority appointment standards. I think it is racist to push her appointment simply because she has Latin heritage and it is sexist to support her only because she is a women. I hold her to the same standard I would any person who wants to be on the SCOTUS.

From what I have seen, her basic understanding of our supreme law is as lacking as the man who nominated her. She gives rulings based on emotion and her own race-based opinion and not to protect our rights. She is sub-standard because of her socially excepted racism and not because of her physical make-up. I believe we have a good selection of women of her "race", that would rule according to the framers intent, which have been insulted by the nomination of this unqualified elitist. When we accept someone based on race we are not progressing toward a better nation. We are simply accepting the same old racism that we have worked so hard, for so long, to remove from our own lives and political system.

She was chosen because she will rule against anything that hinders the Progressive ideal. That includes our 2A rights.