The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on July 15, 2009, 09:17:42 AM
-
Well this just changes everything! ::)
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103934
Sotomayor, 55, told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. I have friends who hunt."
She attempted to reassure lawmakers that she wouldn't bring "preconceived notions" about guns to the Supreme Court if she is confirmed as a justice.
Liar, liar, robe on fire!
-
I have watched maybe an hours worth of the hearings and every time she is challenged about a decision that she made the answer is always the same:
We made that decision on a very narrow part of the law, so the real law didn't apply.
I couldn't watch more than about 20 min before becoming ill. But from what I saw, she and Robert Gibbs should enter "Dancing with the Stars". I've never seen two people who could dance around issues like Soto, and Gibbs.
-
Reminds me of hearing Nazi era Germans say "Some of my best friends were Jews". >:(
-
Liar, liar, robe on fire!
You got that right.
hypocrite [hip-uh-krit]
–noun
• a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
• a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
-
I only watched for a few minutes, but I honestly thought that her and Chucky Schumer were gonna have to get a room.
-
You are correct that her statement was: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people."
She did not say that it was important to her or that she agreed with it. A typical slimy, elusive, political response. :-X
The portions of the hearings that I have watched, have shown me that Sotomayor will not give a direct answer to any question.
When asked today if she believed that people have a "right to self defense", she again danced around the topic and never gave a straight answer. She got off on a tangent about her experience with New York law and determining if a person acted properly in accordance with New York's laws regarding their use of force for self defense. That was in no way close to an answer about her belief in an individual's right to self defense. :-X
She seems to be doing everything possible to conceal her personal beliefs and adgenda. :-X This, in itself, is dishonest. Not a quality that I look for in a justice who will serve in the highest court in our land.
I was already deeply concerned about this nominee, based upon her prior rulings and her stated beliefs. The hearings have only caused me to be more certain than ever that she is NOT the right person to place on the SCOTUS for a (shudder) life term. >:(
-
You are correct that her statement was: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people."
She did not say that it was important to her or that she agreed with it. A typical slimy, elusive, political response. :-X
The portions of the hearings that I have watched, have shown me that Sotomayor will not give a direct answer to any question.
When asked today if she believed that people have a "right to self defense", she again danced around the topic and never gave a straight answer. She got off on a tangent about her experience with New York law and determining if a person acted properly in accordance with New York's laws regarding their use of force for self defense. That was in no way close to an answer about her belief in an individual's right to self defense. :-X
She seems to be doing everything possible to conceal her personal beliefs and adgenda. :-X This, in itself, is dishonest. Not a quality that I look for in a justice who will serve in the highest court in our land.
I was already deeply concerned about this nominee, based upon her prior rulings and her stated beliefs. The hearings have only caused me to be more certain than ever that she is NOT the right person to place on the SCOTUS for a (shudder) life term. >:(
I bet she carries!
Maybe a Taurus Judge?
-
I bet she carries!
Maybe a Taurus Judge?
I am 100% sure that she carries.............................a giant chip on her shoulder.
-
I bet she carries!
Maybe a Taurus Judge?
But it has no transfer safety, it's been "disbarred". ;D
-
I only watched for a few minutes, but I honestly thought that her and Chucky Schumer were gonna have to get a room.
The small portion I watched, had Soto and Sen. Dick Durbin, acting the same way.
She is telling the committee what the want to hear, and it won't matter anyway once confirmed.
The are only to ways to remove a SCOTUS Justice:
Take the body to the funeral home.
Impeachment by the Congress,...Uh, that won't happen either.
So she can say I love puppies and children, blah, blah, blah,.....
Nothing will happen to her after confirmation, and she can continue her far-left, mini BHO judicial agenda.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_can_Impeach_a_US_Supreme_Court_Justice
-
So she understands because she has friends who hunt? Whoopdie-freaking-doo!! I have friends who've given birth, but that doesn't mean I understand what it's like to shit a watermelon.
-
But it has no transfer safety, it's been "disbarred". ;D
********GROAN***************
-
So she understands because she has friends who hunt? Whoopdie-freaking-doo!! I have friends who've given birth, but that doesn't mean I understand what it's like to shit a watermelon.
You are forgetting what a "wise latina, with the richness of affirmative action, would always come to the best decision. >:(
-
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_12-2009_07_18.shtml#1247776726
On [1]Contentions, Jenifer Rubin recalls Jeff Rosen's preemptive
warnings about Judge Sotomayor:
After two days of Sotomayor testimony I thought of [2]Jeffrey
Rosenâs piece on Sotomayor back in May (before he had to backpedal
and support her so as not to embarrass the âteamâ). I donât think
much of his temperament criticism, but his analysis of her legal
and intellectual capabilities seems exactly on the money:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able
lawyer, was ânot that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,â as
one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. â
[. . .]
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors
as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for
the trees. Itâs customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges
to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of
views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her
colleagues by sending long memos that didnât distinguish between
substantive and trivial points, with petty editing
suggestionsâfixing typos and the likeârather than focusing on the
core analytical issues.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her
command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a
conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote
in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might
have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled
litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor
participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving
affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now
being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor
ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished
opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee,
to object to the panelâs opinion that contained âno reference
whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.â
(The extent of Sotomayorâs involvement in the opinion itself is not
publicly known.)
Has she said anything to dispel these concerns? Whether examining
her verbal skills, her command of the law or her intellectual
acuity, I come away thinking she is one of the least impressive
Supreme Court nominees to come along in recent memory. Judge Robert
Bork was obviously not everyoneâs ideal judge, but the manâs
intellectual prowess was undeniable and he refused to lie about his
views. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was frankly charming and
sharp-witted in her testimony and could march the senators through
the evolution of a number of strains of jurisprudence.
Then there is this passage:
Rosen was trying to warn his liberal compatriots that they could do
âbetterâ than Sotomayor. He was right and should get some credit
for his effort. Imagine if Diane Wood or Kathleen Sullivan, both
liberal in philosophy but undeniably impressive, had been up there
over the last couple of days. I suspect that conservatives would
have been staring at their shoes, struggling for reasons to say
ânoâ and grudgingly acknowledging that the nominee was going to add
something to the Court beyond her gender.
When Rosen published his critique, I knew very little about Sotomayor.
After forcing myself to watch much of the hearings, I wonder if those
who criticized him then are having any second thoughts today.
References
1. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/73431
2. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
-
You are correct that her statement was: "I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people."
She did not say that it was important to her or that she agreed with it. A typical slimy, elusive, political response. :-X
Actually Kid, you're wrong, it was the one honest and clear answer she did give, and it was scary. She said she saw the 2A was important to people, and I believe her. I would answer the same way if I was asked about the the pro-life position or the drug prohibition position. I do understand the reasoning, I just don't agree. Rastus would say the same about pro-choice or TW about drug legalization. She made herself very clear. I was pleasantly surprised when W nominated Roberts and appalled by Alito.I am appalled by Sotomajor ( I was hoping for a liberal version of O'Conner or Kennedy) and have let my senators know this. Unfortuneatly Nelson is up for reelection in Fl. and Martinez is voting for a Latina.
FQ13
-
Actually Kid, you're wrong, it was the one honest and clear answer she did give, and it was scary. She said she saw the 2A was important to people, and I believe her. I would answer the same way if I was asked about the the pro-life position or the drug prohibition position. I do understand the reasoning, I just don't agree. Rastus would say the same about pro-choice or TW about drug legalization. She made herself very clear. I was pleasantly surprised when W nominated Roberts and appalled by Alito.I am appalled by Sotomajor ( I was hoping for a liberal version of O'Conner or Kennedy) and have let my senators know this. Unfortuneatly Nelson is up for reelection in Fl. and Martinez is voting for a Latina.
FQ13
Agreed. Her response spoke volumes in what it did say. It was what she would not say that scares me. I felt that she very intentionally did not respond with something akin to, I personally support the Second Amendment and will seek to uphold it.
When she expressed her "understanding" of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms to many people, she managed to avoid telling us about her personal beliefs.
If I am reading you right, I believe that we are on the same page and that we both are unsettled about her 2A stance, or lack thereof.
-
Agreed. Her response spoke volumes in what it did say. It was what she would not say that scares me. I felt that she very intentionally did not respond with something akin to, I personally support the Second Amendment and will seek to uphold it.
When she expressed her "understanding" of the importance of the right to keep and bear arms to many people, she managed to avoid telling us about her personal beliefs.
If I am reading you right, I believe that we are on the same page and that we both are unsettled about her 2A stance, or lack thereof.
Exactly, only there's no lack thereof. Judicial hearings are Kabuki theatre and always have been even before TV and its attendant posturing. (Anyone notice how most Senators "questions" are about 3/4 speech and 1/4 questions)? Senators want to know how a justice will vote on A,B or C. Justices can't say or they would indicate bias and would have to recuse themselves. The best they can do is talk about legal reasoning or judicial philosophy, all with both parties sharing a nod and a wink. She made herself crystal clear. She will support Heller in a very limited fashion (National Parks no, AWB no, right to handguns yes, though with God knows what restrictions). She will not support incorporation of the 2A. With any judicial hearing its about what isn't said. That's tougher due to every senator's inability to ask simple questions, shut up, listen to the answer and then follow through. They cant resist making speeches rather than acting like attorneys during cross examination, which is what they SHOULD be doing.
FQ13
FQ13
-
Simple question here:
I have friends that don't hunt, friends that are afraid of guns, and in-laws that hate guns ... Does this make me a "Brady ???"
-
Simple question here:
I have friends that don't hunt, friends that are afraid of guns, and in-laws that hate guns ... Does this make me a "Brady ???"
Hmmm...I kinda noticed something strange about you when we were eating pizza. Now it clicks.
In the same vein, liberals support people who think they are gods, does that make liberals angels?
-
Hmmm...I kinda noticed something strange about you when we were eating pizza. Now it clicks.
In the same vein, liberals support people who think they are gods, does that make liberals angels?
LMAO. That's funny right there!!! Sad in its truth.....but still funny. ;D
-
"Soto says, 'I have friends who hunt'"
This is like George Wallace saying "I have friends who are Black "
Irrelevant and probably bullshit.
-
"Soto says, 'I have friends who hunt'"
This is like George Wallace saying "I have friends who are Black "
Irrelevant and probably 100% bullshit.
There, fixed it for ya. ;D
-
"Soto says, 'I have friends who hunt'"
This is like George Wallace saying "I have friends who are Black "
Irrelevant and probably bullshit.
Actully Tom, Wallace DID have friends that were black. But thats only when he got old and got scared of God. Maybe you could motivate her to look kindly on us poor hunters...(I never, ever, ever typed that). ;D :-X
FQ13 Who will say 10 hail marys and be in the corner
-
Actully Tom, Wallace DID have friends that were black. But thats only when he got old and got scared of God. Maybe you could motivate her to look kindly on us poor hunters...(I never, ever, ever typed that). ;D :-X
FQ13 Who will say 10 hail marys and be in the corner
Quakers say Hail Marys? ???
-
Actully Tom, Wallace DID have friends that were black. But thats only when he got old and got scared of God. Maybe you could motivate her to look kindly on us poor hunters...(I never, ever, ever typed that). ;D :-X
FQ13 Who will say 10 hail marys and be in the corner
I'm not shooting a SCOTUS nominee with out a court martial.
After that my only question would be, " Blindfold ?"
-
Quakers say Hail Marys? ???
Episcopalian. I just taught at a Quaker school for a few years. The football team's nickname was the Fighting Quakers.
FQ13
-
Episcopalian. I just taught at a Quaker school for a few years. The football team's nickname was the Fighting Quakers.
FQ13
Isn't Fighting Quaker kind of an oxymoron? Sorta like military intelligence or jumbo shrimp? ;D
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.librarything.com/work/712057
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/vb018.htm
As an additional note, the first 6 US Navy Frigates, Constitution, Constellation, Chesapeake, Congress, President, and United States, Were designed by a Philadelphia Shipwright who was a Quaker.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.librarything.com/work/712057
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/vb018.htm
As an additional note, the first 6 US Navy Frigates, Constitution, Constellation, Chesapeake, Congress, President, and United States, Were designed by a Philadelphia Shipwright who was a Quaker.
Damn Tom! Great find , and a couple of books on my to read list.
FQ13
-
I'm not shooting a SCOTUS nominee with out a court martial.
After that my only question would be, " Blindfold ?"
I appreciate the "can do" spirit, but I was just asking for an angry letter with one of your trade mark rants. ;D
FQ13
-
Actully Tom, Wallace DID have friends that were black. But thats only when he got old and got scared of God. Maybe you could motivate her to look kindly on us poor hunters...(I never, ever, ever typed that). ;D :-X
FQ13 Who will say 10 hail marys and be in the corner
Why don't you just come right out and say "After he got shot" ? ::)
I appreciate the "can do" spirit, but I was just asking for an angry letter with one of your trade mark rants. ;D
FQ13
Keep posting, I'm sure you'll inspire me. I have faith in you.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
http://www.librarything.com/work/712057
http://www.bivouacbooks.com/vb018.htm
As an additional note, the first 6 US Navy Frigates, Constitution, Constellation, Chesapeake, Congress, President, and United States, Were designed by a Philadelphia Shipwright who was a Quaker.
You should have stopped after the first link. From here on out FQs new name is Smedley.
I dub thee: Sir Smedley of West Palm ;D
-
You should have stopped after the first link. From here on out FQs new name is Smedley.
I dub thee: Sir Smedley of West Palm ;D
To makle it even worse , his middle name was Darlington.
He may have been a great Marine Hero, being one of only 2 Marines to be TWICE awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, but his politics sucked.
-
You should have stopped after the first link. From here on out FQs new name is Smedley.
I dub thee: Sir Smedley of West Palm ;D
Look, if you want to name me after a Marine Brigadier General with two Medals of Honor I'll take it, but I really think FQ13 is just fine.
FQ13
-
Look, if you want to name me after a Marine Brigadier General with two Medals of Honor I'll take it, but I really think FQ13 is just fine.
FQ13
FQ13 is good, but how many guys can pull off Smedley and still be cool? ;D
-
Why don't you just come right out and say "After he got shot" ? ::)
Keep posting, I'm sure you'll inspire me. I have faith in you.
I didn't say after he got shot because that didnt change his mind. Getting old did. Again, it was that fear of God thing. Something that you, my friend, when you are on a roll, can inspire. Hence my request for the letter. Any jakass can shoot someone. It takes particular talent to achieve the same result with the wriiten word. In this, I have faith in you.
FQ13
-
I didn't say after he got shot because that didnt change his mind. Getting old did. Again, it was that fear of God thing. Something that you, my friend, when you are on a roll, can inspire. Hence my request for the letter. Any jakass can shoot someone. It takes particular talent to achieve the same result with the wriiten word. In this, I have faith in you.
FQ13
You know what WC Fields said when he was in the hospital dieing , A friend came to see him and found him reading a Bible, the friend asked if he was getting religion Fields said , No, I'm looking for loop holes.