#1 reason Sotomayer should NOT be confirmed

[jcr]

"I could be wrong, but I can't think of [a right to self-defense]"
--Sonia Sotomayer

She is wrong.

That was her response to the simple question by Sen. Coburn, "Do I have a right to self-defense."

Imagine that she couldn't offer a simple, "Yes."

What trouble could that have got her into? She could easily have qualified it after affirming it.

Instead, after the above, she went on to describe an absolutely ridiculous hypothetical describing a situation in which she would shoot the senator in a retaliatory strike after a lame insult/threat.

Really?!

You have to search pretty far to find any legal scholar (and loon) who would deny that individuals have a right to self-defense, even if it is not specifically stated in the Bill of Rights.

But, how about that other founding document, the Declaration of Independence? Though currently more often used in another context (perhaps the reason why Sotomayer didn't consider it), the phrase "right to life" would necessarily imply that one has the right to self-defense.

Truely pathetic. And sad that we've come to the day that this wouldn't instantly disqualify her from the Supreme Court.

 

[FeeBear]

Stupidity isn't a crime.

 

[Gonzo]

Stupidity isn't a crime.

No, but it will make us criminals.

 

[clinotus]

The question isnt that simple.

You have to give the woman slight credit, she knows that some incorporation issues are gaining quick momentum; so what she is doing is avoiding any answers to certain questions on the topic as the court that she (will) sit on is going to have to field the larger question as a group one day.

 

[BaldAssCat]

The question isnt that simple.

You have to give the woman slight credit, she knows that some incorporation issues are gaining quick momentum; so what she is doing is avoiding any answers to certain questions on the topic as the court that she (will) sit on is going to have to field the larger question as a group one day.

I admit that you know way more than I will ever know on this subject but isn’t the usual response to a question like that “It’s not appropriate for me to comment since it’s likely to come up while I’m on the bench”? Why the half answer and the hypothetical story that makes a criminal out of a gun owner? I could has sworn that I heard other nominees say the same thing before.

 

[kevin9]

One would be enough for me.

BAC has an addiitonal point. I got a strong sense of arrogance from what little I did see of the hearings in that she seemed to be trying to take the Senators on and out-argue them on every single question.

 

[Bob P]

I admit that you know way more than I will ever know on this subject but isn’t the usual response to a question like that “It’s not appropriate for me to comment since it’s likely to come up while I’m on the bench”? Why the half answer and the hypothetical story that makes a criminal out of a gun owner? I could has sworn that I heard other nominees say the same thing before.

Yes. I suspect she went off message there just because they were banging away at her so hard on that stuff. They were TRYING to get her to make herself look stupid. They succeded at least in part - that's a seriously dumb answer. Unfortunatly, for political resons the only way she WASN'T going to get confirmed is if she came off like a raving loon.

 

[jcr]

The question isnt that simple.

Sen. Coburn's question was simple. And the answer is simple too: "yes".

He wasn't asking whether the right to self-defense was incorporated under the 14th. Or whether a right to self-defense implies that a person has an absolute right to every gun imaginable.

The Heller disenters were able to find an individual right to arms, and still claim that DC's law didn't violate it. Sotomayor was a long, long way from being trapped in a contradiction by affirming a right to self-defense.

My goodness the question of self-defense will never appear before the Supreme Court because there's not one state that denies it's existence. There's not even enough a looney Democrat to submit a bill to outlaw self-defense.

Yet Sotomayor was unable to answer the question, "Do I have a right to self-defense?"

 

[terraformer]

I admit that you know way more than I will ever know on this subject but isn’t the usual response to a question like that “It’s not appropriate for me to comment since it’s likely to come up while I’m on the bench”? Why the half answer and the hypothetical story that makes a criminal out of a gun owner? I could has sworn that I heard other nominees say the same thing before.

Yes, and the fact that she didn't answer it that way is disturbing. But since all of the idiot republicants wasted all of their efforts, and what little cred they had, on calling a latino a racist, they have no cred left to actually attack this statement of hers. The whole thing has been a dog and pony show. A sickening waste of time.

 

[clinotus]

I admit that you know way more than I will ever know on this subject but isn’t the usual response to a question like that “It’s not appropriate for me to comment since it’s likely to come up while I’m on the bench”? Why the half answer and the hypothetical story that makes a criminal out of a gun owner? I could has sworn that I heard other nominees say the same thing before.

Sen. Coburn's question was simple. And the answer is simple too: "yes".

He wasn't asking whether the right to self-defense was incorporated under the 14th. Or whether a right to self-defense implies that a person has an absolute right to every gun imaginable.

The Heller disenters were able to find an individual right to arms, and still claim that DC's law didn't violate it. Sotomayor was a long, long way from being trapped in a contradiction by affirming a right to self-defense.

My goodness the question of self-defense will never appear before the Supreme Court because there's not one state that denies it's existence. There's not even enough a looney Democrat to submit a bill to outlaw self-defense.

Yet Sotomayor was unable to answer the question, "Do I have a right to self-defense?"

You have to realize (myself included) that she did answer the question, for her target audience of supporters, who are not we by any means.

Make no mistake, the gun lobby's histrionics about Judge Sotomayor ignore her record as a distinguished jurist who practices judicial restraint and who interprets the Second Amendment narrowly – unlike the activist majority in the Heller case.

Brady.org Source

 

[WILDCATT]

soto

It will sure be a waste of time when she and the next socialist judge declare that guns can be banned and confiscated.what do I care I will be gone,and buried.

 

[Bob P]

WOW

That Brady quote is Orwellian! Heller is an activist decision?

 

[Raoul Duke]

It will sure be a waste of time when she and the next socialist judge declare that guns can be banned and confiscated.what do I care I will be gone,and buried.

F@#king edited to keep myself out of jail.

 

[ranger4-7]

Sen. Coburn's question was simple. And the answer is simple too: "yes".

He wasn't asking whether the right to self-defense was incorporated under the 14th. Or whether a right to self-defense implies that a person has an absolute right to every gun imaginable.

The Heller disenters were able to find an individual right to arms, and still claim that DC's law didn't violate it. Sotomayor was a long, long way from being trapped in a contradiction by affirming a right to self-defense.

My goodness the question of self-defense will never appear before the Supreme Court because there's not one state that denies it's existence. There's not even enough a looney Democrat to submit a bill to outlaw self-defense.

Yet Sotomayor was unable to answer the question, "Do I have a right to self-defense?"

I agree 100% with your assessment.

 

[Bill Nance]

edited because I typed something stupid

 

[jcr]

You have to realize .. that she did answer the question, for her target audience of supporters,

Yet had she said yes, you have a right to self-defense, she wouldn't have alienated her target. Even the few who think there is none would not worry about this enough to abandon her.

She might have won over a few moderates (who would hang their hat on this with a "see, she is a moderate"), even if she knew her affirmation was an outright lie. She had no trouble contradicting the truth in the rest of her testimony.

Actually, I think she was trying to be too smart by half, and ended up sounding more stupid than she is. She walked herself into an absurdity, and she ought not be let off the hook.

 

[terraformer]

Actually, I think she was trying to be too smart by half, and ended up sounding more stupid than she is. She walked herself into an absurdity, and she ought not be let off the hook.

Well, the hearing is over so she spit that hook out and went to the bottom and coburn or whatever idiot was pushing her on 2A issues just reeled in an empty line, shrugging their shoulders the whole way.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Listening to Jay Severin, I LOVE how he can break down speech and grammar. I had to laugh when he played the following quote from the Affirmative Action Judge:

The question was on 2A and the right to self defense, and she stated something to the effect of being in "eminent danger, if I were in eminent danger would I believe in the right to self defense."

eminent! Like what, the Pope is going to come and whack you? LOL!
No wonder why she cannot make the proper rulings: She is either ignorant, cannot understand the English Language, or is dummer than a sack of hammers.

Affirmative Action: Ensuring the lowest qualified candidate trumps the most qualified since 1971.

 

[kevin9]

Actually, I think she was trying to be too smart by half, and ended up sounding more stupid [STRIKE]than she is[/STRIKE]. She walked herself into an absurdity, and she ought not be let off the hook.

Fixed it for you. My original opinion, unchanged by her testimony, is that she is an arrogant not-nearly-as smart-as-she-thinks-she-is see-you-next-tuesday who's out to outwit a bunch of not-so-wise white males to advance her and her benefactor's liberal activist agenda.

 

[Carguy]

Arrogance gets us arrogance thus Obama gives us Sotomeyer.

 

[K-DUB]

InGodWeTrust, she IS dumber than a sack of hammers.

She kept making grammatical errors while speaking. I really hate that.

 

[MA_Shooter]

I heard one of her interviews and she proudly declared to be a benefactor of affirmative action..something along the lines of getting into law school even though she didn't have the requisite grades or wasn't the smartest kids in class.

No kidding.

-MS

 

[Gadsden]

I heard one of her interviews and she proudly declared to be a benefactor of affirmative action..something along the lines of getting into law school even though she didn't have the requisite grades or wasn't the smartest kids in class.

No kidding.

-MS

She did indeed.. Welcome to the new America. I fear one day it will be an America where no longer will our personal innovation, our determination to succeed by our own skill, wit, and motivation allow us to be free and and proud. Soon, equality by mandate and entitlement by force will punish those whom try harder and reward those whom put forth less effort. Those of us that work hard to earn what we have will be forced to lend our labor and skill to those whom have not bothered to better themselves.

I hope I am wrong here, but I have a feeling that we will be seeing something out of "Atlas Shrugged" sooner than later. Excuses and tolerated incompetence will become the replacement for personal responsibility and accountability. We will see the barrier for the "haves" that are required to support the "have nots" get lower and lower, until it is not only the "rich" that have to pay up. It will get to the point where one can't buy a loaf of bread without being forced to share the slices. I have no problem helping others, but it should be at my discretion, not by law or force.

We need change alright.. a change of course. We need to vote these socialist out and not be complacent when we go from one end of the pendulum to another just because we get to keep our guns. There are very few problems that we cannot overcome if we only pay heed to the warnings or our forefathers and follow The Constitution. Until ALL parties, left and right, Democrat and Republican realize this we will not change course for the better. Promoting and rewarding someone because of their race or upbringing is just the start of the problems, but they are a damn good glaring example of foreshadowing of things to come.

//end rant