Reply With Quote
nice. i see what you did there.
I'd actually be more afraid of someone who was unwilling to change his or her mind upon being confronted with additional facts that make an earlier choice seem to have been clearly incorrect.
Steadfastness to a wrong choice sure doesn't strike me as bespeaking great analytical thought or even particularly significant wisdom.
I'd much rather be right after changing my mind than be wrong and never have waivered on my position.
should be cleaning houses.
What does Chuck Shumer look for in a Supreme Court nominee?
her gun rights & 2nd Amendment opinions may be a problem now...
obama picks someone who would be bad for gun owners... who would have thought !?
You mean nunchuk owners.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 05-28-2009 at 04:42 PM.
doesn't she believe that the 2nd amendment does NOT apply to the states...? IOW, cities and town can do whatever they want in terms of gun laws.
full Reason article:As gun rights scholar and Independence Ins ute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."
http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html
She'll be confirmed.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Fox News attempt at making this an issue.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...tive-backlash/
This case was about a local ban on nunchuks.
It certainly is precedent -- from a 1984 appellate court case (United States v. Toner) which itself cited a precedent from 1939 (United States v. Miller). If people really had their panties in a wad over this legal reasoning, they have had seventy years to change the law.
Really, if this disingenuous article, the out of context quote about Latinas and demands for her to change the pronounciation of her name (it's true) are all the right has, this nomination is a sure thing.
OMG!!!!
Antonin Scalia cited US v. Miller in two separate opinions for the Supreme Court!
Impeach!
Don't forget her love of South American cuisine, which will affect her jurisprudence.
I quickly skimmed thru some of the Fox articles, but I didn't post anything from them.
I thought posting a Reason article would be better...
I said that too, the other day...now, I'm not so sure.
She's got some 'splainin' to do.
Questions are beginning to be raised from the left about her stance on abortion...which, is unknown. And, she being a Catholic, is giving the single-issue Pro-Abortion camp more than a little concern.
And, it doesn't help she's a racist that believes her ethnicity should have any bearing on interpreting the law. It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, quite another to let that be a factor in coloring your decision-making.
If you want to look up to someone that overcame a background full of "rich experiences," look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas. He rose from abject poverty, during a time of hateful and abusive racism -- perpetrated by the likes of Robert "Sheets" Byrd, to become the first Black Justice on the Court.
Was that celebrated by the diversity crowd in the Democratic Party? I don't think so. So, let's get past this iden y politics nonsense and really look at her judicial history. And, right now, she's on thin ice with most of the Right and many of the Left.
Her position on the 2nd Amendment has the NRA "gunning" for her, as well.
I wouldn't expect any concerted effort until the confirmation process begins but, I'm sure there'll be plenty leaked from her one-on-ones the Senators in the interim.
Yeah, demanding to know how a judge will rule in advance always works out.
So you still never read the full text of that. Choosing to remain ignorant doesn't help your case.And, it doesn't help she's a racist that believes her ethnicity should have any bearing on interpreting the law. It's one thing to be proud of your heritage, quite another to let that be a factor in coloring your decision-making.
Seriously, read the full text.If you want to look up to someone that overcame a background full of "rich experiences," look no further than Justice Clarence Thomas. He rose from abject poverty, during a time of hateful and abusive racism -- perpetrated by the likes of Robert "Sheets" Byrd, to become the first Black Justice on the Court.
Text. Read.Was that celebrated by the diversity crowd in the Democratic Party? I don't think so. So, let's get past this iden y politics nonsense and really look at her judicial history. And, right now, she's on thin ice with most of the Right and many of the Left.
What position? Be specific.Her position on the 2nd Amendment has the NRA "gunning" for her, as well.
The concerted effort has already begun, doofus -- you are regurgitating them all.I wouldn't expect any concerted effort until the confirmation process begins but, I'm sure there'll be plenty leaked from her one-on-ones the Senators in the interim.
Havent read the thread, I know nothing about her.
I care only about the 2nd Amendment.
CD, is she pro- or anti- as the amendment is currently interpreted?
I haven't seen anything from her that would really change the court one way or another.
The nunchuks case was a loser even in light of the er decision since they aren't common self-defense weapons. The ability of the state to regulate with its own laws is fairly well established, but could be more clearly constrained by future court decisions.
I believe her position is that states have the right to statutorily infringe on the 2nd amendment.
From what I understand, the ruling in which she concurred, relied on an 1889 Supreme Court decision that excluded the 2nd amendment from an "incorporation" ruling of an earlier court. But, that the finding completely ignored er.
She apparently has no problem with the incorporation of the First amendment -- even those it specifically says "Congress shall make no law...," which to the lawyers I've been reading is more dubious than the wording of the 2nd amendment which pointed states the "right...shall not be abridged..."
Apparently the argument hasn't come up before the court very often but, in light of the er case and that the 1889 ruling is probably faulty, and would be decided differently today (especially in light of er), the general feeling is that the 2nd Amendment would, in fact, be re-established as being part of the "incorporation" finding.
I'm paraphrasing several different sources but, that's the gist of it.
I've read the speech and I've read the ruling on Ricci. I'm not persuaded she's not a racist.
I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.
Which is accurate, since they already do and the Supreme Court has affirmed this right as recently as the er decision.
That's because your an idiot.
I've seen a bunch of weak that won't keep her from being confirmed. Apparently the concerted effort will consist of repeating the weak louder.I don't think you've seen a concerted effort.
You're use of capital letters in your other post confirmed that.
Like I said, it won't help her with Montanans, Democrat Senators in strong gun-rights states, and the NRA is a powerful lobby.
So those people are for the mentally ill and convicted felons possessing assault rifles?
the gun forums I'm a member of are, so far, ambivalent towards her. Many think that she will be "middle of the road" and would not be as bad as the other contenders for the seat. Others think she will be bad for gun owners.
So I am undecided until I know more facts about the whole matter.
I recuse myself from this thread...
So, and just to be fair, you're basing this racism on the "better" comment and the Ricci case? You think that's going to convince the Senate she's a racist and not worthy of a pick on the SC?
Unfortunately Jeff Sessions disagrees with you. you're an idiot.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
