Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

This is a discussion on Sotomayor being grilled on 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm running about an hour behind on the hearings because of having the tv paused. But, I just saw a protestor break into the senate ...

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #16
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    I'm running about an hour behind on the hearings because of having the tv paused. But, I just saw a protestor break into the senate hearing yelling "order in the court" and a bunch of other crap I couldn't understand.

    I'm also getting tired of Sotomayor's answer to every question, "well in the case of ______ that was a very narrow ruling."
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    1943 - 2009
    Array Captain Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    10,372
    Please confine your replies to Judge Sotomayor's position regarding the 2nd Amendment.

    No other issues are appropriate for discussion in this thread, including name calling, inflammatory or slanderous comments. One post has already been deleted for these violations.


    When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
    And the women come out to cut up what remains,
    Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
    And go to your God like a soldier.

    Rudyard Kipling


    Terry

  4. #18
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,287

    Sotomayor on 2nd amendment

    From the Clinton News Network be sure to put on your chestwaders before clicking on link, it gets real deep.

    Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com
    Last edited by msgt/ret; July 14th, 2009 at 04:24 PM. Reason: typo
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    thanks for posting the link msgt
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  6. #20
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,659

    Sotomayor on 2a

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Crunch View Post
    Please confine your replies to Judge Sotomayor's position regarding the 2nd Amendment.

    No other issues are appropriate for discussion in this thread, including name calling, inflammatory or slanderous comments. One post has already been deleted for these violations.
    She ruled precisely the way the most conservative participants here have been insisting she should have. The most conservative participants here have insisted that 2a is not incorporated and that the Bill of Rights does not constrain what what the states do.

    By voting as she did, she upheld the 19th century precedents some here think were just wonderful, and gave us exactly the result we do not need.

    The 9th circuit got it right. They said 2a is incorporated.

    How anyone can fault Sotomayor for her 2A vote is beyond me given
    that had she done otherwise, she would have been blasted as being too liberal --as some claim of the 9th circuit.

    We are going to see an upside down world on the Supremes in the near future, with the pro-gun conservatives* voting to incorporate 2a and the liberals, who typically would apply the full BOR to constrain the states, voting the conservative position.

    None of this is Sotomayor's fault. It is the consequences of some screwy interpretations made 150 years ago to perpetuate Jim Crow laws and otherwise oppress the blacks living in The South.

    SD will rear his head again on this one, for sure, but Taney ain't no paragon of constitutional virtue.

    Anyway, I don't like how she voted, and actually would prefer she not be seated, but I can't fault her for doing precisely what the most arch conservatives and state's rights folks think was the correct constitutional conclusion.
    ___________________________________________
    *IN the view of SD, that would make the pro gun justices activist judges.

  7. #21
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    She ruled precisely the way the most conservative participants here have been insisting she should have. The most conservative participants here have insisted that 2a is not incorporated and that the Bill of Rights does not constrain what what the states do.
    I think this is incorrect. As far as I have read, I am the ONLY contributor that supports states' rights. Sure, others give lip serivce UNTIL the issue of guns comes up. Then they turn into the statist that pretend to vehemently disagree with expanding power of the Federal government.

    By voting as she did, she upheld the 19th century precedents some here think were just wonderful, and gave us exactly the result we do not need.
    Oh my! Upholding Court precedent. The nerve!

    The 9th circuit got it right. They said 2a is incorporated.
    Can you provide the legal precedent for the made up concept of incorporation? By theway, the Ninth is the most overturned court in the nation.

    We are going to see an upside down world on the Supremes in the near future, with the pro-gun conservatives* voting to incorporate 2a and the liberals, who typically would apply the full BOR to constrain the states, voting the conservative position.
    This is great example of how people typically act, unconcerned with consistency of principle if their persona agenda is directly affected.

    None of this is Sotomayor's fault. It is the consequences of some screwy interpretations made 150 years ago to perpetuate Jim Crow laws and otherwise oppress the blacks living in The South.
    Wrong. The opinions of the Court in Cruikshank, Presser, Adamson, and a host of other similar cases mirror the intent of the Founders and the words of the Constitution.

    SD will rear his head again on this one, for sure, but Taney ain't no paragon of constitutional virtue.
    Taney, Reed, Waite, Frankfurter, and a list of Court justices too long to enumerate that completely disagree with your opinion. But of course, you must be right!

    Anyway, I don't like how she voted, and actually would prefer she not be seated, but I can't fault her for doing precisely what the most arch conservatives and state's rights folks think was the correct constitutional conclusion.
    I prefer she not be seated because of the issues we dare not raise for fear of admonishment by the moderators.

    *IN the view of SD, that would make the pro gun justices activist judges.
    You misunderstand my view. It DOESN'T MATTER what the personal views of the justices are. It only matters that they follow the Constitution and the intent of the Founders.

  8. #22
    Member Array Faitmaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Dayton, Ohio
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think this is incorrect. As far as I have read, I am the ONLY contributor that supports states' rights. Sure, others give lip serivce UNTIL the issue of guns comes up. Then they turn into the statist that pretend to vehemently disagree with expanding power of the Federal government.
    I disagree with this. I realize I am new here but I have several times said that I believe that the states have the power to decide and not the federal. It was in a thread talking about Nationwide reprocity that I made it known that the Feds don't get to decide for the states.
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand

    NRA Member / Ohio Conceal Carry Instructor
    CHL Holder

  9. #23
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think this is incorrect. As far as I have read, I am the ONLY contributor that supports states' rights. Sure, others give lip serivce UNTIL the issue of guns comes up. Then they turn into the statist that pretend to vehemently disagree with expanding power of the Federal government.
    I'm on the fence with this one. I believe the Fed has slowly and drastically overstepped its authority over the years and robbed the states of the governing they should have been doing for themselves. However, as it relates to the ammendments and the 2A in particular, I think the ammendments (and the 2A) are there for very important reasons. Therefor I believe the states shouldn't be able to, for example, prohibit gun ownership, or make rules and fees prohibitive to gun ownership, concealed carry, etc.

    But see, this is the kind of deeper discussion and debate I felt was lacking in Sotomayors answers during the hearing.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #24
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,738
    Sotomayer has said the SCROTUS ruling does not apply to the States, and that individuals who live in states.... (not DC) do not have any individual rights to bear arms. IN the hearings she said " it's an undecided and open issue" , referring to "individual" rights to bear arms. There's your answer.

    On top of this, based solely on her own words.... I believe her comments to be racists, elitist, and that she wants to 'set policy' and law from the bench and could not only be damaging to 2A rights, but many others.... and to hell with the Constitution and the laws.

    Better to fight now, than hope for later, I hope she is not confirmed.

  11. #25
    Distinguished Member Array tinkerinWstuff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Colorado Front Range
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Eagleks View Post
    Sotomayer has said the SCROTUS ruling does not apply to the States, and that individuals who live in states.... (not DC) do not have any individual rights to bear arms. IN the hearings she said " it's an undecided and open issue" , referring to "individual" rights to bear arms. There's your answer.
    In fairness (or in context) for those who haven't seen it; she refused to answer a lot of 2A questions stating that "it [individual and fundamental right to bear arms] is an undecided and open issue likely to come up in front of the SCOTUS." There are three pending cases making their way to the court.

    On top of this, based solely on her own words.... I believe her comments to be racists, elitist, and that she wants to 'set policy' and law from the bench and could not only be damaging to 2A rights, but many others.... and to hell with the Constitution and the laws.

    Better to fight now, than hope for later, I hope she is not confirmed.
    But I'll still agree with your general statement.
    "Run for your life from the man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another-their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

    Who is John Galt?

  12. #26
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    I think this is incorrect. As far as I have read, I am the ONLY contributor that supports states' rights. Sure, others give lip serivce UNTIL the issue of guns comes up. Then they turn into the statist that pretend to vehemently disagree with expanding power of the Federal government.
    I too disagree!! I am a vehement supporter of State's rights, as can be seen in my signature below and my responses in other threads regarding Federally mandated CCW reciprocity. If people want to live in state's where their RKBA is stripped from them, then so be it. As for me and mine we'll stay in AL and keep our guns and enjoy our Fundamental Rights!!

    MT
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

  13. #27
    VIP Member Array edr9x23super's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,108
    We all know by now how Sotomayor feels about the 2A, and nothing is going to change her mind; my biggest problem with her concerns her intelligence.

    By that I mean that anyone nominated to be seated as a jurist on the highest court in the land should be at least smart enough not to make a bunch of comments during speeches to law students that call into question your credibility....

    She did this repeatedly, on different occasions so this was not some random slip of the tongue or anything "taken out of context". Because she repeated herself, this leads me to believe this is how she feels. I have a serious problem with anyone who makes statements like that and doesn't have the foresight to know that somewhere down the road, a whole bunch of people are going to get hold of this information.

    That kind of stupid we don't need on our SCOTUS.....
    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined". - Patrick Henry

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,782
    It needs to be more than a grilling. It needs to be cranked to "broil."
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  15. #29
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    If 2A does not cover the states, then you might as well kiss the rest of the amendments good bye. Which means no more pleading the fifth, or right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, or anything else that perseveres your freedoms. Constitutional law applies to the USA, it sets the laws basis, without it well imagine a world of warlords and fiefdoms. If part of it doesn't apply, then one can argue none of it applies. Thats a slippery slope I do not want to see.

    So as to Sotomayor, she is unfit for the position do to this stance she has taken.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

    Honing the knives, Cleaning the longguns, Stocking up ammo.

  16. #30
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by TerriLi View Post
    If 2A does not cover the states, then you might as well kiss the rest of the amendments good bye. Which means no more pleading the fifth, or right to a speedy trial, trial by jury, or anything else that perseveres your freedoms. Constitutional law applies to the USA, it sets the laws basis, without it well imagine a world of warlords and fiefdoms. If part of it doesn't apply, then one can argue none of it applies. Thats a slippery slope I do not want to see.

    So as to Sotomayor, she is unfit for the position do to this stance she has taken.
    The Framers envisioned a "Union" made up of individual "States". With the Federal government having very limited role. There cannot be Warlord's and Fiefdom's as the Constitution states that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this union a Republican Form of Government...". [Article IV, Section 4] This is one of a few roles of the Federal Government per the framework of the Founder's.


    BTW - Coburn is doing a great job of nailing her to the wall - "Do I have an individual right to self defense!!". She is bumbling now!! "That's an abstract question." haha, get her man!!!

    MT
    "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." Benjamin Franklin

    Steps in the stripping of State's Rights/Sovereignty
    1. War of Northern Agression 2. Coersion to ratify the 14th Amendment 3. Ratified 17th Amendment

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Millions Of Gun Owners Reject Sotomayor
    By jfl in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 8th, 2009, 07:22 PM
  2. Analysis of Sotomayor and 2A issues
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 5th, 2009, 08:42 AM
  3. Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court
    By miklcolt45 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: June 1st, 2009, 11:14 PM
  4. More About Sotomayor on Gun Control
    By CPTMO in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: May 29th, 2009, 09:35 AM
  5. Grilled out for the first time this year today...
    By TN_Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: March 12th, 2007, 05:41 PM