Sotomayor and 2A Rights

[Liberty]

Steve,

She's definitely not a throwaway. She's the real nominee. The Republicans will not put up a fight because it is futile. They may negotiate a few backroom agreements, but they won't embarrass a newly elected black president over nominating a Hispanic, female jurist. The Republicans are losing too many Hispanics as we speak. The selection by Obama was calculated.

jamullinstx

The reason that they won't hold it up, is that they just don't have the numbers, and she is as about as conservative as the the Obama is ever likely to pick. Expect the Republican to ask her some tough questions, but that's about all we can expect.

[myron243]

Steve,

She's definitely not a throwaway. She's the real nominee. The Republicans will not put up a fight because it is futile. They may negotiate a few backroom agreements, but they won't embarrass a newly elected black president over nominating a Hispanic, female jurist. The Republicans are losing too many Hispanics as we speak. The selection by Obama was calculated.

jamullinstx

I keep reading that the Republicans can't afford to lose the Hispanic voters over Sotomayor. That raises a question in my mind. How many Hispanic voters were lost by the Democrats when they drug Estrada through hell? Oh, wait, the Dems did it so it's okay with their voters. And just how many Hispanic voters do the Republicans stand to gain if she goes unopposed?

[casingpoint]

Vaclept on the issue of gun rights she may be, but Sotomayor is not bound by Heller until incorporation of the Second Amendment is confirmed by the Second Circuit or SCOTUS. Of course, common sense would tell a wise man who has lived the life different...

[74novaman]

I keep reading that the Republicans can't afford to lose the Hispanic voters over Sotomayor. That raises a question in my mind. How many Hispanic voters were lost by the Democrats when they drug Estrada through heck? Oh, wait, the Dems did it so it's okay with their voters. And just how many Hispanic voters do the Republicans stand to gain if she goes unopposed?

None. The democrats have done quite well painting the Republican party as the party of rich white males.

Even though the Dem party is funded almost exclusively by rich white males.

[Abraham]

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.

[A-R]

Doesn't add much to the disussion that hasn't already been posted, but thought I'd post this 3-minute NPR story (a lot of antis get their news from NPR) ...

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... c=fb&cc=fp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Purplehood]

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.

[srothstein]

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.

it may be a knee jerk reaction followed by rationalization (I am human after all), but I know of one very good reason she should not be concerned.

Anyone on tape as saying "I know this is being taped and I shouldn't say this" or words to that effect, but then saying it anyway, has either a severe lack of common sense or a strong belief in her values. if she lacks common sense, she should not be confirmed. If she has a strong sense of values that the appellate court system should be making policy, we don't want her.

[ClarkLZeuss]

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but the thing that I kept hearing but not understanding about Sotomayor finally made sense to me. They say she has a record of being very "pro-plantiff," and that it's around 60%. Meaning that despite her legal and logical fortitude, she has a tendency of siding with whoever brought the case, for whatever reason. This, I think, is a pretty major concern for 2A, because (and I'm making an intelligent guess here) most gun-related lawsuits have as their plantiff a gun control advocate.

[MBGuy]

Well, we all knew that Obama was not going to pick someone that respects the Constitution the way we do, especially the 2A. Considering the list that was being thrown about a couple of weeks ago, I think this could have gone a lot worse in terms of the Constitution (Woods), or intellect (the others). She may have said some idiotic things, and seems to have quite an ego, but compared with the others in that short list, I'm starting to think that this isn't too bad for us. I'm sure we'd be finding more faults with the rest than we are with her. Compared to whom she's replacing, she may even decide with the conservative side more often that Souter did.

It seems to me that Obama decided on someone based on gender and skin color moreso than ideology, which I think is a horrible way of thinking. I don't care if the person is purple and gender confused as long as they respect what our Constitution says and means.

[Purplehood]

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.

[A-R]

purple and gender confused

So you're advocating for Barney the cartoon dinosaur for Supreme Court justice?



Or maybe Tinky Winky the Teletubby?

[pdubyoo]

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.

[Purplehood]

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.

[pdubyoo]

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.