The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old May 26, 2009, 08:42 AM   #1
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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:
Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.
So it looks like we can expect the new nominee to vote against incorporation when the matter comes before the Supreme Court. Definitely worth giving your Senators an earful about - especially those of you with pro-Second Democratic Senators.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 08:50 AM   #2
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
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'
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 08:54 AM   #3
Colt1911forever
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.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 08:58 AM   #4
a7mmnut
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-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:01 AM   #5
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
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
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:03 AM   #6
Colt1911forever
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
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:06 AM   #7
madmo44mag
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2008
Location: Ft.Worth, Texas
Posts: 1,163
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
madmo44mag is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:10 AM   #8
Colt1911forever
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.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:13 AM   #9
Colt1911forever
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?
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:25 AM   #10
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,928
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.
Technosavant is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:27 AM   #11
Colt1911forever
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2009
Posts: 328
I agree 100% Tech.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 09:59 AM   #12
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:07 AM   #13
Colt1911forever
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.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:13 AM   #14
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,196
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.
JWT is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:17 AM   #15
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,850
[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.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:20 AM   #16
Colt1911forever
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.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:22 AM   #17
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
There was the separate roll call vote on the Coburn NPS firearms amendment. The bill passed 361-64.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:24 AM   #18
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,196
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'?
JWT is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:29 AM   #19
Colt1911forever
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.
Colt1911forever is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 10:55 AM   #20
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt1911Forever
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.
Colt, if you are trying for sarcasm, you might want to watch your grammar - otherwise it doesn't tend to make much sense.

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:
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.
As I noted earlier and maestro pistolero noted, the amendment passed by a supermajority in both houses of Congress in order to be attached to the credit card bill. Of course you are right that it wouldn't have passed as a standalone bill - the Democratic House leadership or Senate Judiciary committee would have killed it in its crib as they control the committees and legislative process. However, I'll just note that every time the bill got a floor vote, it wasn't lacking for support. Apparently the wishes of the Senate Judiciary committee aren't always in line with a supermajority of Senators.

Quote:
I am glad it did but it is not representative of the real tone of the country.
I don't get this comment... it had plenty of popular support in both the Senate and the House, who are there to represent the tone of the country. Surely your aren't suggesting that the Democratic leadership's failure to kill the bill by roundfiling it in committee isn't representative of the tone of the country more than the votes of 400+ Senators and Representatives?

Quote:
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.
All the more reason we should be telling these Senators that the NRA is right and that we oppose the appointment of judges who can't read the plain intent of the Second Amendment and apply it in cases.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 11:29 AM   #21
pendennis
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2009
Posts: 572
Colt1911forever wrote:

Quote:
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.
She is hardly a scholar, since she cited the appeals courts justices as those who "set policy". This is a direct quote from her at a speech at Duke University. She has also been taken to task in writing, by another Hispanic justice, for failing to address constitutional issues in her reviews.

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.
pendennis is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 11:49 AM   #22
ammoeater
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
ammoeater is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 12:06 PM   #23
hogdogs
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
hogdogs is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 12:18 PM   #24
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
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!
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old May 26, 2009, 12:25 PM   #25
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,092
Ammoeater, that clip is very telling, and frightening, And I suspect (and hope) it will bite her in the rear-end.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.12896 seconds with 7 queries