|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 26, 2009, 08:42 AM | #1 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
President nominates Sotomayor for Supreme Court
Here is what SCOTUSBlog* has to say about her past record of decisions regarding the Second Amendment:
*SCOTUSBlog is sponsored by Akin-Gump, the firm that represented D.C. in Heller. Quote:
|
|
May 26, 2009, 08:50 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
This better go down in flames. She doesn't believe the second amendment applies to the states. This nomination spells big trouble.
Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 26, 2009 at 09:56 AM. Reason: spellin' |
May 26, 2009, 08:54 AM | #3 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
I am sorry but you do not seem that people do not understand how much control the Dems have on this choice. Dems are 12 to 7 on the Judiciary committee in the Senate. They have 60 Seat majority in the Senate.
Like it or not Obama could nominate anyone they want. If you stop listening to the BS and the propaganda you would realize that this lady is really is middle of the road leaning left. Compared to who he could have picked Pamela Karlan who was the conscious pick of the far left. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/....html?inline=nyt-per She is middle of the road and has good track record in her thoughts on the Constitution. She has a professional and academic record that puts her in the top 1% of the 1% of judicial minds in the country. You might not like her stance but I cannot see anyway she does not get confirmed quickly. Sorry for bringing real facts to this thread. Please return to screaming that the sky is falling. Last edited by Colt1911forever; May 26, 2009 at 09:11 AM. |
May 26, 2009, 08:58 AM | #4 |
Junior member
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
|
It's going to be big trouble for ALL traditional right wing issues, and all it takes is one overturned verdict. What they don't tell us until it's passed is what worries me the most.
-7- |
May 26, 2009, 09:01 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Her decision to invalidate a 2A case relied on Presser AFTER Heller. You call that moderate. I have another term for it. And Her ACADEMIC record is supposed to be re-assuring? I don't think this will be a slam-dunk because of the Dems majority. We shouldn't underestimate the weight of this one issue, and the BD Dems position on it. It will not be a walk in the park. There are BIG 2A cases on their way to the SCOTUS right now, and 5-4 was WAY too close to call.
Last edited by maestro pistolero; May 26, 2009 at 10:02 AM. Reason: To eliminate responses to irrelevant personal comments |
May 26, 2009, 09:03 AM | #6 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
snip - Irrelevant personal comments - GEM
The right does not have the juice to do anything about it. That is the result of losing both the Presidential election and control of the Senate. Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; May 26, 2009 at 09:51 AM. Reason: It's not personal folks - stay on the issue |
May 26, 2009, 09:06 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,522
|
I worry less about her middle of the road slanted left ideas as I do on how it will help bring in more Obama supporters.
Snipped - not relevant - GEM
__________________
Texas - Not just a state but an attitude! For monthly shooting events in DFW visit http://www.meetup.com/TexasGunOwner-DFW Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; May 26, 2009 at 10:09 AM. Reason: Not relevant and getting a touch off topic |
May 26, 2009, 09:10 AM | #8 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
Yup if the right goes after her Hispanic back ground which it seems like they will the Right will have made a huge longer term strategy mistake.
Like it or not Hispanics are the largest emerging voting demographic. If the right alienates that group of growing voters they will be cutting off their nose to spite their face. |
May 26, 2009, 09:13 AM | #9 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
If you don't have the votes you cannot stop the nomination.
The right does not have the votes on the Judiciary Council or the Senate at large. DO you even know who appointed her to the bench? |
May 26, 2009, 09:25 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Anybody Obama puts up right now will be going right through- no doubt about it. The only thing that can change it is the mid term elections next year, and even those may not go so well.
Still, though, Ginsburg wasn't exactly a right leaning justice. Sotomayor may be more leftist than Souter, she could just be a left leaning moderate. Either way, it isn't going to cause any real shifts in the SCOTUS makeup. The ballgame is still the same. |
May 26, 2009, 09:27 AM | #11 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
I agree 100% Tech.
|
May 26, 2009, 09:59 AM | #12 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Colt1911Forever,
The Senate just voted 67-29 to allow states to regulate the carrying of guns in national parks. You seem to be mistaking the number of Democratic Senators for the number of Senators who will automatically vote to confirm Sotomayor. Now it may be the case that Democratic Senators who claim to support the Second Amendment will nevertheless vote to confirm someone who held that the Second Amendment was not incorporated and relied on precedent that was both racist and outdated to support it, although you would think someone of such high academic scholarship as Sotomayor would have realized that Presser predated the selective incorporation via due process argument that made the First Amendment and many others applicable to the states. However, I don't think it is unreasonable to point this decision out to our Senators and ask them how they can claim to support the Second Amendment and then vote for the nomination of someone who went out of her way to deny it - and didn't even write a good legal decision to support it at that. We need to fight here and now on this nomination; because the Obama Administration needs to know BEFORE they make the next nomination that this is going to be a sensitive area that is going to cause controversy. The louder the noise we make now, the better we will be for the next battle - the one where that one vote that was in favor of Heller gets replaced. I have to say that I don't agree much with your assessment of Sotomayor as a suitable judicial candidate or your "Lie back and enjoy it" line of reasoning regarding her nomination. |
May 26, 2009, 10:07 AM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
You are right a Summa Cum Laude Grad from Princeton who received the highest undergrad merit scholarship honor the school gives out and who got her JD from Yale while being the editor of the law journal. She has been on the federal bench since Bush I put her there. The 2nd Circuit appeals court is dynamic court which she has handled well. She is clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court Judge.
In the end you can disagree with her stance and her take on the law but to attempt to paint her as under qualified lightweight is not accurate. The only reason the national parks deal got done was because the Dems and the Reps wanted the CC bill to pass. It would not have passed as stand alone issue. I am glad it did but it is not representative of the real tone of the country. |
May 26, 2009, 10:13 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
Colt - a bit off topic, but on what do you base the statement " it is not representative of the real tone of the country" regarding passage of the right to carry in National Parks?
Last edited by JWT; May 26, 2009 at 10:19 AM. |
May 26, 2009, 10:17 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
[preachy-time]
A hint: When a topic has ethnicity involved - it is possible to stray into commentary that it inappropriate. Please avoid that. Also, if you disagree with another poster, stay away from saying nasties about that poster. [/preachy-time] GEM
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 26, 2009, 10:20 AM | #16 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
Yes JWT.... if it was not attached to the CC bill and got full debate and coverage I do not believe it would have passed. The NRA did a great job of sneaking that one in on a very popular bill. If you look at the polls and the numbers national park carry is not an issue most people care or even know about. It was a political win for a very small number of people.
It passed because very poor CC bill was a political win which the Dems could not pass up. |
May 26, 2009, 10:22 AM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
There was the separate roll call vote on the Coburn NPS firearms amendment. The bill passed 361-64.
|
May 26, 2009, 10:24 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Southern Arizona
Posts: 3,888
|
Colt - guess I didn't ask my question correctly. I understand your feeling that it might not have passed as a stand alone piece of legislation. I'm wondering why you don't think it represents the 'real tone of the country'?
|
May 26, 2009, 10:29 AM | #19 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
|
The NRA has huge pull. They used that to get this done. If you look around the country there is not national support for this measure.
There are lots of boots on the ground from the NRA telling the new Dems from traditionally conservative areas that if you do not vote for this we will crush you in the next election. This is the greatest motivating factor surrounding this vote on its own merits. The Dems have gotten to the 59/60 number by running pro -gun Dems with the support of the NRA. The NRA coughed up the cash and got these new Dems a win. Once you are in the relection machine takes over and you have to listen, not to the people, but the ones that paid your way. This is how the NRA is playing the game and they do it well. |
May 26, 2009, 10:55 AM | #20 | ||||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
But you bring up a great point, here is someone who has graduated from an Ivy League Law School and has a considerable academic career and federal judge experience, and yet in the Maloney v. Cuomo decision, she doesn't even discuss the fact that Presser predated the doctrine of selective incorporation via due process or discuss how that might affect the Plaintiff's case. In fact, none of her Second Amendment decisions (including her 2004 decision that says the Second is a collective right) has much scholarship in it at all. So here we have what by all accounts is a distinguished legal scholar making rulings against the Second Amendment and then declining to explain or expound on the legal scholarship behind those rulings? What are we to make of that? Is that the kind of judge you think makes an acceptable Supreme Court Justice? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
May 26, 2009, 11:29 AM | #21 | |
Junior member
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
|
Colt1911forever wrote:
Quote:
Since when do courts set policy? Isn't their task to interpret the law and U.S. Constitution? Sorry, she's just another Demo hack. |
|
May 26, 2009, 11:49 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 14, 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 169
|
"All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is...court of appeals is where policy is made...and I know, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law I know... um, I, okay, I know, I know....I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm, you know okay." Sonia Sotomayor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q Pretty scary quote for a nominee for the SCOTUS.
__________________
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! Samuel Adams Philadelphia Statehouse 1 August 1776 |
May 26, 2009, 12:06 PM | #23 |
Staff In Memoriam
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
|
Please help the dumb redneck feller...
This is a true question not sarcastic in any way...
Who would have been the best choice for the people in this position of the group that our very liberal president would have to choose from... Brent |
May 26, 2009, 12:18 PM | #24 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
So tired of hearing about qualifications based on race, creed, gender, orientation, religion, hair color, tooth whitening strategy....
Why do I care if the nominee is female or hispanic or white or male or jewish or atheist or.... How about QUALIFIED. With the emphasis on the PERIOD? How about someone who is well versed in constitutional law and things like context and intent? (I'm not saying this woman is or isn't but what you hear is hispanic woman hispanic woman hispanic woman) Just now on Fox News: "She's the first hispanic woman on the Supreme Court. Highly qualified." AARGH!
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
May 26, 2009, 12:25 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Ammoeater, that clip is very telling, and frightening, And I suspect (and hope) it will bite her in the rear-end.
|
|
|