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; Originally Posted by Monkeytown The Framers envisioned a "Union" made up of individual "States". With the Federal government having very limited role. There cannot be ...

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 109

Thread: Sotomayor being grilled on 2A

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array TerriLi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    1,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    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
    That my point, if part of the Constitution does not apply to the states, then the rest of it doesnt apply. You cant have the founding document of your goverment system legal system, and the clear stating of your rights be a pick and choose. It all applies or none of it does. A state goverment unregulated by the Constitution is not a place I want to live.
    I know not what this "overkill" means.

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

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602
    It is indeed ironic that the very conservatives who object to incorporation of 2A blast her for upholding prior SC ruling on the very issue. It is even more ironic
    that the very member of the Senate denied a Federal judgeship for openly racist commentary would use race against her in a most inappropriate twisting of the meaning.

    The problem of course is that the right is very inconsistent in what they want--if they even know what it is they want. You can't be against "activist" judges
    while at the same time expect the Supreme court to take an activist position on incorporation.

    There's no consistency in that thinking. SD, though I thoroughly disagree with him on almost everything, is at least a tad consistent on this point; though we all know, and he has alluded to it here, that his real motivation in pushing his views is related to a matter that has nothing to do with 2a or guns which we can't discuss here.

  4. #33
    Member Array wolfshead's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Renton WA
    Posts
    493
    I don't understand why she could not answer a simple "yes" or "no" question that Senator Tom Coburn asked her about the individual right to self defense? Why is she being so vague in answering that? It bothers me a lot.
    Vince K
    Aerospace Designer, Freemason, NRA member

  5. #34
    Member Array glocker73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    121
    Coburn is awesome.

  6. #35
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,382
    Quote Originally Posted by wolfshead View Post
    I don't understand why she could not answer a simple "yes" or "no" question that Senator Tom Coburn asked her about the individual right to self defense? Why is she being so vague in answering that? It bothers me a lot.
    I haven't watched all of the hearings but I have watched much of it. I have failed to see Sotomayor give a straight up yes or no answer to anything.

  7. #36
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by TerriLi View Post
    That my point, if part of the Constitution does not apply to the states, then the rest of it doesnt apply. You cant have the founding document of your goverment system legal system, and the clear stating of your rights be a pick and choose. It all applies or none of it does. A state goverment unregulated by the Constitution is not a place I want to live.

    The tenth amendment picks and chooses for us. Any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government or not specifically denied the States by the Constitution are reserved to the State's.

    This is pretty clear to me.

    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

  8. #37
    Member Array Randy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Staunton, Va.
    Posts
    307
    The states do not have rights. They have powers. Specifically, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Amendment 10

    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.
    Barron v. Baltimore 1833 - the Bill of Rights applies only to the Federal Government and specifically not to the State Governments.

    The incorporation slope was started after the Civil War with the ratification of Amendment 14 (1868). The restrictions of the Federal Government you mention in the other Amendments have since been incorporated against the states. The restrictions of the Federal Government in Amendment 2, generally, have not been.

    All or nothing? Selective incorporation of clauses found in the BOR began in 1925 with the Twining v. New Jersey case.

    Since the 60's, most all of the restrictions on the Federal Government in the first 10 Amendments (BOR) have been incorporated against the states. The exceptions to this are Amendment 2, Amendment 3 (incorporated only against those states in the Second Circuit), the Grand Jury Indictment clause of Amendment 5, and Amendment 7.

    The recent change is in the Ninth Circuit where Amendment 2 has been incorporated against those states. Additionally, Amendment 2 has been held NOT to be incorporated against those states in the Second and Seventh Circuits.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorpo...ill_of_Rights)

    The United States Constitution

    I don't like the idea that the restrictions in Amendment 2 do not apply to the states any more than you do. That's the way it is though.

    Randy

  9. #38
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602

    They are not supposed to

    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    I haven't watched all of the hearings but I have watched much of it. I have failed to see Sotomayor give a straight up yes or no answer to anything.
    They are not supposed to. Doing so could cause them to have to recuse themselves from cases which reach the court.

  10. #39
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,602

    Drifting off topic, but

    Quote Originally Posted by Monkeytown View Post
    The tenth amendment picks and chooses for us. Any power not specifically granted to the Federal Government or not specifically denied the States by the Constitution are reserved to the State's.

    This is pretty clear to me.

    MT
    Drifting off topic, but there can be hones difference of opinion as to whether or not a particular authority has been granted to either the states or the feds; or denied. The real world isn't as black and white and dichotomous as most of like to think. That is why we have courts, and that is why the circuit courts often split on things, or why the supremes come up with 5 -4 decisions. None of it is plain and simple, as many naively seem to believe.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Sheldon J's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Battle Creek, Mi.
    Posts
    2,285

    Exclamation Can you say conflict of interest!!

    She has multiple cases pending, that alone should disqualify her for SCOTUS!!
    Let's not get started on her racist past.....
    "The sword dose not cause the murder, and the maker of the sword dose not bear sin" Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac 11th century

  12. #41
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Drifting off topic, but there can be hones difference of opinion as to whether or not a particular authority has been granted to either the states or the feds; or denied. The real world isn't as black and white and dichotomous as most of like to think. That is why we have courts, and that is why the circuit courts often split on things, or why the supremes come up with 5 -4 decisions. None of it is plain and simple, as many naively seem to believe.
    I respectfully disagree. I think the authority (i.e. powers) granted to the Fed and States is pretty clear in the Constitution and BOR. This can be seen by the limited role of the Fed up until the beginning of the 20th century. I think many of the post civil war amendments have been mis-applied and that Roosevelt's threat to stock the SCOTUS pushed otherwise Conservative (i.e. originalist) judges into making poor decisions. These decisions therefore become precedent and are hard to overturn or rule against in later proceedings. Add to this the advent of the activist judge and you get to where we are now where only remnants of the U.S. Constitution remain in tact.

    Do not get me wrong, there are many more to blame than just the SCOTUS; Congress and Presidents have contributed much to the departure from our sacred document.
    "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. #42
    VIP Member Array dukalmighty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    texas
    Posts
    15,177
    When she answered the right to SD by stating something under NY law I felt sick.
    "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country,"
    --Mayor Marion Barry, Washington , DC .

  14. #43
    VIP Member Array wmhawth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Western Colorado
    Posts
    4,382
    Originally Posted by wmhawth
    I haven't watched all of the hearings but I have watched much of it. I have failed to see Sotomayor give a straight up yes or no answer to anything
    .
    They are not supposed to. Doing so could cause them to have to recuse themselves from cases which reach the court.
    What's the point in questioning them then? All of this lady's answers have been nothing but rambling doses of gobbeldygook. IMO she doesn't come accross as being very bright.

  15. #44
    Member Array Censored's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    154
    So far, the NRA has only expressed "concerns" over her nomination. I will be greatly disappointed if, after today's session, they don't actually "oppose" her nomination. That will be the only chance there is to block her. I can't see ALL the dems voting against the NRA.
    --
    If I'm repeating myself, or repeating myself differently, it's probably 'cause of the brain cells I've murdered and the selective memory caused by concussions, contusions and confusions. Oh yeah, and that one night in Dallas.

    NRA-Life Member
    ATA- Life Member
    --Guns? What guns?--

  16. #45
    Member Array Monkeytown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by wmhawth View Post
    .

    What's the point in questioning them then? All of this lady's answers have been nothing but rambling doses of gobbeldygook. IMO she doesn't come accross as being very bright.
    First time in my 37 years on this earth I have seen this word spelled out. Great Job!!
    "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 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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