TexasCHLforum.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl699" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It was a battle of wits between GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative senators, and the nominee. Who won? Tell us: @reply us on @AP_Courtside on Twitter.

Here's a capsule: Coburn, a strong advocate of individual gun ownership, found an intriguing way to question Sotomayor on that issue. First, he asked her how she could consider that the right to privacy (not mentioned in the Constitution) is settled law but the right to keep and bear arms (the Second Amendment) as unsettled.

Sotomayor started with her usual answer that judges don't make law. And she noted that the federal government and many states have laws restricting guns, such as possession of firearms by felons. Then the sparing got more interesting.

"Do I have a right to personal self-defense?" Coburn asked.

Sotomayor: "That's an abstract question."

Coburn: "That's what the public wants to know. Yes or no? Do we have that right?"

The judge thought for a moment, then came up with an answer based on her experience as a New York City prosecutor: "If there's a threat of serious injury you can use force. How imminent is the threat? If the threat is in this room and I go home get a gun and come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law."

the most assinine answer I have ever heard to this question...

Coburn: "What the American people want to see is what your gut says."

Sotomayor said that's not how judges decide cases.

she cannot fall on the knife edge of the issue...She cannot, not that she wants us to have the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, have it both ways...Even thought we know she does not want you or I to be able to do so...

Regardless if my mind was already made up on her nomination, I do not believe for a second that she is material for a Supreme Court justice...

And this covers a lot of other issues besides the Second Amendment...

I know Senator Cornyn got in a shot at her before Coburn did, and I have not seen the transcripts to that...

I received a letter from Senator Cornyn last week about this committee hearing...He was being a good politician and basically signaling that he will let her dig her own hole...I am sure he is a "no" vote on this, but he had to appear amiable to the process...

Personally and politically I am wondering if President Obama thought this nomination was going to be a Red Herring??? I believe he misplayed this one thinking there wouold not be this much opposition to this nomination...If she is confirmed, that is not going to be a surprise...But if she is beat down by the process and not confirmed, that is going to be interesting to see who and what he offers up on the next one...

And remember, he is very likely to get two more nominations because of Ginsburg and Stevens being ill, and the other being older than dirt...

Fascinating. I should be watching the proceedings instead of being here.

While senators Coburn and Cornyn got in a few 'shots', deflected by leftwing doublespeak, this whole process appears to be a foregone conclusion. Just a few televised hearings to make things appear fair, but with the left having the solid 60 votes to confirm.

To me these hearing are sorta like hushpuppies. We make some noise, get tossed a small treat, and they go ahead with their original plans.

Sure hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

I agree. The fix is in.

Hushpuppies with a hint of malt vinegar...

Like mmmmmm, thats good, but its going to make me fat...



I know...Shut up Steve...

if she doesn't get confirmed, it's because we're all racist AND sexist....

Sotomayor is intellectually inferior to be a SCOTUS judge. She has the skills. She simply does not appear have the IQ. Did you ever hear the story of The Little Engine That Could...

casingpoint wrote:Sotomayor is intellectually inferior to be a SCOTUS judge. She has the skills. She simply does not appear have the IQ. Did you ever hear the story of The Little Engine That Could...

I was thinking the same thing, but that may be a good thing. Imagine if there was an intelligent leftist judge going in there! Wait, intelligent......leftist....... , what was I thinking.

I am trying to figure out how you have determined that she is not intelligent. I understand you not liking her, but I have been listening to the hearings sporadically throughout the week and find her educated and articulate. She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

Purplehood wrote:She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

That is a valuable quality for a politician, but thoroughly unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

But it is a reality in todays world, and it works both ways, not with just the liberal left.

I would say her lack of intelligence is in the factual proof.......the Highest Court has overturned her 60% of the time. The only way this is a good figure is if it were a baseball batting average.

Garry

I think they should go ahead and nominate her. We could do a lot worse. My reasoning is Obama will only nominate proactive liberal judges. I see her as a weak liberal with weak arguments. She won't be able to sway any of the other justices, and while replacing another liberal justice she's an even trade-off. Obama's next nominee could be a very strong orator and have a lot more influence in the court.

mr.72 wrote:

Purplehood wrote:She is also exceedingly skilled at avoiding giving an answer to a direct question.

That is a valuable quality for a politician, but thoroughly unacceptable for a Supreme Court justice.

Actually, that is pretty much a requirement for a SC nominee. They need to not show any bias in their answers or they will be accused of pre-judging cases instead of awaiting an actual case with actual facts that they can evaluate. If you look at SC nominee hearings going back for at least the last 25 years you'll see the same sort of dancing around the answers specifically because of that. No nominee worth their salt would come state a position on a hypothetical case that could be used later to attempt to impeach their impartiality.

That said, I do have some concerns about her recent ruling that the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the states is settled law. I've looked over quite a bit (admittedly, IANAL) of the rulings from the SCOTUS that relate to the 2A, and most of them seem to dodge the issue as completely as they possibly can. The ruling last June in Heller seems to be an exception in that both the ruling and the dissent seemed to agree on the underlying principles behind the 2A (self-defense is one of the rights being protected), but disagree on the ability of states & municipalities to regulate or ban firearms. A large part of the defense that DC used was rooted in the claim that this 2A stuff was all settled law. I thought that the ruling pretty thoroughly slapped that notion down. Also, with different circuits ruling contrary to each other, I think the SCOTUS pretty much HAS to step in and rule conclusively one way or the other on the incorporation issue. The only way I can see this as settled is that the rulings from the 2nd Circuit seem pretty consistently to claim that the 2A doesn't apply to states (some of the other circuits disagree), so I guess from a POV of Stare Decesis, as far as the 2nd Circuit is concerned, it is settled law (despite how much I might disagree with their position).