Caught between a rock and a Latina

[Yggdrasil]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/27/gingrich-sotomayor-racist-should-withdraw-nomination/

Well, this is a bit of a good laugh. Republicans are screaming their heads off bellowing that this woman is a racist liberal witch, but none of them can do a thing because they know that voting against her will cost them support with Hispanics and woman, groups with whom they've been slipping for years.What do you all think of the GOP's predicament, or of this woman, our soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor?

[Code Of Silence]

It is futile. If the Republicans were going to appeal to Latinos on this issue, they would have kept shut from the start - voting against her would just be a further insult to injury. Regardless, Republican ideology as it currently exists, is opposed to the general interest of Latinos in the U.S. Unless changes are made to the Republican dogma, Hispanics are not an immigrant group the right will win.

[Nightshade]

Personally, I hope the Republicans call on Sotomayor for what she is. She is a racist, plain and simple and I hope she is grilled hard on Ricci v. DeStefano. Her comments she made in 2005 at Duke University were improper as a circuit court judge. A judge interprets the law, not make policy.

Realistically, every democratic yahoo sitting in the senate will vote to confirm her to the Supreme Court, regardless of her activist and racist views unless the Republicans, through some miracle, embarrass her enough that she is forced to drop her nominiation.

[Rust]

A judge interprets the law, not make policy.

Thank you for exposing either how little you know of the law, or how fucking stupid you are.

By interpreting the law you are making policy. Namely the one you interpreted the law to mean...

[skyclaw441]

I thought Republicans didn't like Latinos? Not the ones I know, anyway. I'm a Democrat and sort of "eeughhmmm..." on it, if all of these stories of ruling against African Americans and Hispanics are true. But then again, it's probably all conservative hype on CNN.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

All the supreme court justices deserve to die. Including this nominee bitch.

[Nightshade]

Thank you for exposing either how little you know of the law, or how fucking stupid you are.

And I thank you for exposing yourself as how unprofessional you are as a moderator of this forum by putting down, via name calling, a member of of this forum who obviously has different views than your own.

Fortunately I am beyond such petty things and do not resort to those tactics. So with that said let's take a look at what you said.

By interpreting the law you are making policy. Namely the one you interpreted the law to mean...

Only the legislative and executive branches (and in some cases the people) have the authority to create policy via passing or repealing legislation. That is clearly stated in the Constitution. So I have no idea where you are getting that judges create policy by interpreting the law.

The judge's role is interpret the law, aka policy, based on a case by case basis. Judges inevitably shape policy as they interpret the law. But creating policy and shaping policy are two different things. One can't shape policy if there is no policy passed in the first place.

So with that said how can judges make policy by interpreting a policy, aka law, that already exists?

[Rust]

And I thank you for exposing yourself as how unprofessional you are as a moderator of this forum by putting down, via name calling, a member of of this forum who obviously has different views than your own.

Fortunately I am beyond such petty things and do not resort to those tactics. So with that said let's take a look at what you said.

Hilarious! As if you gave a flying fuck about "name calling"... You just accused a U.S. Supreme Court Nominee of being a racist and spread incredibly ignorant falsehood against them!

Please spare me your bullshit and keep your crocodile tears to yourself. Oh, and if you think that me using "bad language" makes me unprofessional and not fit to be a mod, then by all means complain to the administration. It would be entertaining. :)



Only the legislative and executive branches (and in some cases the people) have the authority to create policy via passing or repealing legislation. That is clearly stated in the Constitution. So I have no idea where you are getting that judges create policy by interpreting the law.

The judge's role is interpret the law, aka policy, based on a case by case basis. Judges inevitably shape policy as they interpret the law. But creating policy and shaping policy are two different things. One can't shape policy if there is no policy passed in the first place.

So with that said how can judges make policy by interpreting a policy, aka law, that already exists?

Except Sotomayor didn't say she was going to pass or repeal legislation. She said - all while acknowledging how bad it would sound out of context to people ignorant about how the legal system works.. how ironic - that she made policy. All judges undoubtedly do this by interpreting legislation and thus determining what the legislation does or does not entail.

What you call "shaping policy" is exactly what Sotomayor was referring to with the comment that she made policy.

"Eric Freedman, a law professor at Hofstra University, was equally dismissive of this emerging conservative talking point. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning. It is not a controversial proposition at all that the overwhelming quantity of law making work in the federal system is done by the court of appeals ... It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue.""

You can follow this link to see quotes from many other legal scholars that agree.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905270037

[Yggdrasil]

And I thank you for exposing yourself as how unprofessional you are as a moderator of this forum by putting down, via name calling, a member of of this forum who obviously has different views than your own.

Fortunately I am beyond such petty things and do not resort to those tactics. So with that said let's take a look at what you said.

:rolleyes:


Only the legislative and executive branches (and in some cases the people) have the authority to create policy via passing or repealing legislation. That is clearly stated in the Constitution. So I have no idea where you are getting that judges create policy by interpreting the law.

The judge's role is interpret the law, aka policy, based on a case by case basis. Judges inevitably shape policy as they interpret the law. But creating policy and shaping policy are two different things. One can't shape policy if there is no policy passed in the first place.

So with that said how can judges make policy by interpreting a policy, aka law, that already exists?

You're diving into semantics. You're right, the judicial branch can't propose new legislation, but they most certainly create policy by decreeing whether or not said legislation is constitutional or not. Rust took moulding policy and creating creating policy to be one and the same, something which is completely acceptable to assume. You can argue further if you want, but it would just be, as I said, semantics, and you'd be derailing my thread, which is meant to discuss the new justice, not to discuss the nature of the balance of power in between the three branches of government.

EDIT: Haha, Rust. We both posted at the same exact minute, even though I had had this window open for about 10 minutes

[el drewto]

The question is, does she have the most to offer America, or the most to offer Obama's popularity points?

I mean, what if she was picked over a better judge simply because of the headlines he could've grabbed electing her?

[Rust]

The question is, does she have the most to offer America, or the most to offer Obama's popularity points?

I mean, what if she was picked over a better judge simply because of the headlines he could've grabbed electing her?

Yet you could make that argument against all Supreme Court nominees in the history of the United States... There could always be some other judge that is more knowledgeable.

Moreover, how do you determine which judge is better? Their judicial experience? Because if so she has about the same experience (and plenty more in some cases) as the judges already on the bench. So at the very least we can say that in terms of experience (or in terms of how "good" she is if you determine that by experience) she is as good a nominee, if not better, that the rest:


John Paul Stevens
Took seat on court: Dec. 19, 1975, at age 55
Appellate court: 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1970-1975
Private practice: partner, Rothschild, Stevens, Barry & Myers, 1952-1970; associate, Poppenhusen, Johnston, Thompson & Raymond, 1949-1952
Teaching: Lecturer, anti-trust law, Northwestern University School of Law, 1953-54; University of Chicago Law School, 1955-58
Federal government experience: associate counsel to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Study of Monopoly Power, 1951–1952; member of the Attorney General’s National Committee to Study Antitrust Law, 1953–1955
Other experience: U.S. Navy, 1942-1945; clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Wiley Rutledge, 1947
Degrees: AB from the University of Chicago, 1941; JD from Northwestern University School of Law. 1947
Total federal court experience: 5 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 33 years


Antonin Scalia
Took seat on court: Sept. 26, 1986, at age 50
Appellate court: U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, 1982-1986
Private practice: associate, Jones Day Cockley & Reavis, 1961-1967
Teaching: professor, University of Chicago Law School, 1977-1982; professor, University of Virginia Law School, 1967-1974 .
Federal government experience: General Counsel, Office of Telecommunications Policy, 1971–1972; Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States from 1972–1974; assistant attorney general, Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Justice Department, 1974-1977
Degrees: AB, Georgetown University, 1957; LLB, Harvard University, 1960
Total federal court experience: 4 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 26 years

Anthony Kennedy
Took seat on court: Feb. 18, 1988 at age 51
Appellate court: 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1975-1988
Private practice: attorney, 1961-1967; partner, Evans, Jackson & Kennedy, 1967-1975
Teaching: professor, McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, 1965-1988
Other experience: California Army National Guard, 1961
Degrees: AB, Stanford, 1958; LLB, Harvard, 1961
Total federal court experience: 13 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 27 years

Clarence Thomas
Took seat on court: Oct. 23, 1991 at age 43
Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1990-1991
Private practice: attorney with the Monsanto Company, 1977-1979.
State government experience: assistant attorney general of Missouri, 1974-1977
Federal government experience: legislative assistant to U.S. Sen. John Danforth, 1979–1981; assistant secretary for civil rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982; chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1982–1990.
Other experience:
Degrees: AB, Holy Cross College, 1971; JD, Yale, 1974
Total federal court experience: 1 year
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 17 years

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Took seat on court: Aug. 10, 1993, at age 60
Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 1980-1993
Teaching: various research and teaching positions at Columbia University School of Law, 1961-1963 and 1972-1980; professor, Rutgers University School of Law, 1963-1972
Other experience: law clerk for federal court judge, 1959-1961; general counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union, 1973-1980
Degrees: AB, Cornell University, 1954; LLB, Columbia Law School, 1959.
Total federal court experience: 13 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 34 years

Stephen Breyer
Took seat on court: Aug. 3, 1994, at age 55
Appellate court: 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1980-1994 (chief judge, 1990-1994)
Teaching: various positions, Harvard Law School, 1967-1994; Harvard University Kennedy School of Government, 1977–1980
Federal government experience: special assistant to assistant attorney general (antitrust), U.S. Justice Department, 1965-1967; assistant special prosecutor, Watergate Special Prosecution Force, 1973; special counsel, US Senate Judiciary Com., 1974 - 1975; chief counsel, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, 1979 - 1981
Other experience: law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, 1964
Degrees: AB, Stanford University, 1959; BA, Oxford University, 1961; LLB, Harvard University, 1964
Total federal court experience: 14 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 30 years


Samuel Alito
Took seat on court: Jan. 31, 2006, at age 55
Appellate court: 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1990-2006
Federal government experience: assistant U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977–1981; Assistant to the Solicitor General, U.S. Justice Department, 1981–1985; deputy assistant attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1985–1987; U.S. Attorney, District of New Jersey, 1987–1990
Other experience: law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976–1977
Degrees: AB, Princeton, 1972; JD, Yale University, 1975
Total federal court experience: 16 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 31 years

John Roberts
Took seat on court: Sept. 29, 2005, at age 50
Appellate court: U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, District of Columbia, 2003-2005
Private practice: partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP, 1986–1989 and 1993–2003 (associate, 1986-1987)
Federal government experience: special assistant to the attorney general, U.S. Justice Department, 1981–1982; associate counsel, White House Counsel’s Office, 1982–1986; principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Justice Department, 1989–1993
Other experience: law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 1979–1980; law clerk for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1980-1981
Degrees: A.B., Harvard, 1976; JD, Harvard Law School, 1979.
Total federal court experience: 2 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 31 years

Sonia Sotomayor
Age: 54
Appellate court: 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1998-2009
Federal court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1992-1998
Private practice: partner, Pavia & Harcourt, 1988-1992; associate, Pavia & Harcourt, 1984-1987
Teaching: adjunct professor, New York University Law School, 1998-2009; lecturer, Columbia Law School, 1999-2009
Local government experience: assistant district attorney, New York City, 1979-1984
Degrees: BA, Princeton University, 1976; JD, Yale University, 1979
Total federal court experience: 17 years
PolitiFact's estimate of relevant experience: 30 years


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/26/barack-obama/sotomayors-experience-does-not-significantly-outst/

[Syphilis]

Oops, glancing at the thread title I thought it said "caught between a rock and a labia."

[The Better Version]

She seems like a hybrid between a democrat and a libertarian. She's definitely not racist and she seems to interpret the first amendment pretty explicitly. This will be interesting.

[Nightshade]

Hilarious! As if you gave a flying fuck about "name calling"... You just accused a U.S. Supreme Court Nominee of being a racist and spread incredibly ignorant falsehood against them!

Well if it quacks like duck, walks like a duck, then by god it's a duck.

From her speech at a ceremony commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal court in October of 2001.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

If that is not a racist comment then I got a bridge from the city she is from to sell to you, real cheap even. The speech also spews with sexism, yet another enduring quality of this judge. Face it the only reason Obama even picked her is because she is female and Hispanic, her bigoted views and sixty percent overturn rate be damned.

Please spare me your bullshit and keep your crocodile tears to yourself. Oh, and if you think that me using "bad language" makes me unprofessional and not fit to be a mod, then by all means complain to the administration. It would be entertaining. :)

Yeah it would be entertaining to complain to the administration that you began the derailment of a thread in a forum you moderate on top of your unprofessionalism towards a member of said forum. Actually it would be quite hilarious. :)

But you know what I won't. Why? Because you are doing quite an awesome job hanging yourself and making yourself look like a fool in front of everyone in this forum. That is enough satisfaction for me. Keep it up will you. It amuses the hell out of me you see you all butthurt when someone calls you on your bullshit.

Look, just because someone has a different viewpoint and opinion than yours does not mean their viewpoint and opinions do not have merit. If you resort to name calling and other related immaturity just because someone presents a different viewpoint than yours on a forum about politics then maybe you should step down as a mod. We all make mistakes but if you choose to continue to go down this path then you cannot handle being a mod of this forum. You can either grow up and appreciate, or care less, about other people's viewpoints and debate them, or not. It makes no difference to me. I am here to stay so deal with it.

Except Sotomayor didn't say she was going to pass or repeal legislation. She said - all while acknowledging how bad it would sound out of context to people ignorant about how the legal system works. how ironic - that she made policy. All judges undoubtedly do this by interpreting legislation and thus determining what the legislation does or does not entail.

But that is still shaping policy, not creating policy from scratch, which is where you are confused on and which is something Sotomayor clearly said. And no where did she say that the reason why she acknowledged how bad it would sound because of people who do not understand how the legal system works.

If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&NR=1

What you call "shaping policy" is exactly what Sotomayor was referring to with the comment that she made policy.

Then why didn't she say shaping policy instead of making policy, which are two different things. Again I refer you to the YouTube link posted above. Again judges can't create something out of nothing. To do so would overstep their bounds on being a judge

But Yggdrasil is right though, this thread has been derailed enough as it is. What you and I are debating about really belongs in another thread. Hmmm....Perhaps I should create a round table discussion about it. Should be interesting to see other people's viewpoints about it. :)

[Nightshade]

You can argue further if you want, but it would just be, as I said, semantics, and you'd be derailing my thread, which is meant to discuss the new justice, not to discuss the nature of the balance of power in between the three branches of government.

You're right Yggdrasil. Me and Rust are done here arguing. Sorry for derailing your thread.

[Rust]

Well if it quacks like duck, walks like a duck, then by god it's a duck.

I'm glad we agree I was completely justified in calling you stupid then!


If that is not a racist comment then I got a bridge from the city she is from to sell to you, real cheap even. The speech also spews with sexism, yet another enduring quality of this judge. Face it the only reason Obama even picked her is because she is female and Hispanic, her bigoted views and sixty percent overturn rate be damned.

Your bridge will have to wait, first we have to deal with your inability to understand that she meant she had experience that a white man could not possibly have; the experience of a hispanic woman in America. That's undoubtedly correct.

Even ignoring this to jump to the conclusion that she's a racist just because of one comment is utterly ridiculous. You're quick to indict because she you're against her politically. That's it. If the shoe were on the other side, you'de be crying for people to be reasonable.


Yeah it would be entertaining to complain to the administration that you began the derailment of a thread in a forum you moderate on top of your unprofessionalism towards a member of said forum. Actually it would be quite hilarious. :)

But you know what I won't. Why? Because you are doing quite an awesome job hanging yourself and making yourself look like a fool in front of everyone in this forum. That is enough satisfaction for me. Keep it up will you. It amuses the hell out of me you see you all butthurt when someone calls you on your bullshit.

My bullshit? What bullshit is that? Everything I've said was correct. It's you who has just utterly refuted in your incorrect accusations against Sotomayor, and whose hipocrisy - complaining about name calling when you had done it first yourself - was exposed.

If that's what entertains you then I'm sincerely glad! This will be fun! :D


Look, just because someone has a different viewpoint and opinion than yours does not mean their viewpoint and opinions do not have merit. If you resort to name calling and other related immaturity just because someone presents a different viewpoint than yours on a forum about politics then maybe you should step down as a mod. We all make mistakes but if you choose to continue to go down this path then you cannot handle being a mod of this forum. You can either grow up and appreciate, or care less, about other people's viewpoints and debate them, or not. It makes no difference to me. I am here to stay so deal with it.

I didn't say that just because someone has a different viewpoint it has no merit. Please read what I said and stop putting words in my mouth.

I said you either were ignorant of the law or stupid. That is pretty much accurate; the courts to make policy. You make policy - that doesn't mean out of thin air - by establishing what the legislation that has passed entials.
It might be harsh to call you stupid for not knowing that, sure, but I frankly don't give a shit about your feelings. I care about facts. The fact is you were spreading falsehoods.


But that is still shaping policy, not creating policy from scratch, which is where you are confused on and which is something Sotomayor clearly said. And no where did she say that the reason why she acknowledged how bad it would sound because of people who do not understand how the legal system works.

If you don't believe me, see for yourself.

Again, what she said was relating to how the courts shape policy. She used the word "create" in a way that means what you claim "shape policy" means. I already cited numerous legal scholars - endlessly more knowledgeable than you - that agree.

As for the context, this is what I meant:

"And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application"

She's acknowledging how bad is going to sound out of context on tape. It would only sound bad to an ignorant individual like yourself. To the long list of legal scholars that have heard it, they all agree that what she said was accurate.



Then why didn't she say shaping policy instead of making policy, which are two different things. Again I refer you to the YouTube link posted above. Again judges can't create something out of nothing. To do so would overstep their bounds on being a judge

Because she's human? Because she didn't expect morons on the internet taking things out of context? Because she did make it clear that she was talking about shaping the policy?

The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, 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. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application.

"Interpretation" and "application" clearly show that she's not referring to making laws out of thin air, but of shaping policy through the court's decisions.


Want more quotes? Sure!


"It's unfair to extrapolate that comment to suggest Sotomayor would mandate policy, he said.

"To anyone who knows the intellectual history of judicial decision-making, she's just being honest, not activist," Garrow said."



"She's not wrong," said Jeffrey Segal, a professor of law at Stony Brook University. "Of course they make policy ... You can, on one hand, say Congress makes the law and the court interprets it. But on the other hand the law is not always clear. And in clarifying those laws, the courts make policy."


Take particular note to this entry defining the role of the court of appeals:

"The courts of appeals have also gained prominence because of the substance of their caseload. For their first twenty-five years, these courts dealt primarily with private law appeals. Diversity cases (suits between citizens of different states), bankruptcy, patent, and admiralty cases made up most of their work. However, as federal regulation increased, first during the Progressive Era, then during the New Deal, and finally during the 1960s and 1970s, the role of the courts of appeals changed as appeals from federal administrative agencies became a larger part of their caseload. Other developments that increased these courts' policy-making importance were the increased scope of federal prosecutions, especially those dealing with civil rights, drugs, racketeering, and political corruption, increased private litigation over various types of discrimination; and litigation concerning aliens' attempts to gain political asylum. Also adding to their importance were their post-1954 use to oversee school desegregation and reform of state institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals, along with controversies like that over abortion."

-- Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States



"... it seems to be nothing more than an observation that, as a practical matter, many policy disputes are resolved in the federal courts of appeals. This is an indisputably true observation. Moreover, the fact that many policy disputes are resolved in federal appellate courts does not mean that judges are resolving those cases on policy grounds. Litigation over the interpretation or implementation of a federal statute will have significant policy implications -- and deciding the case will, in many instances, "make policy." But this is wholly consistent with the idea that a judge's responsibility is to interpret and apply the law without regard for those policy consequences. Further, given the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks, it is totally understandable why some prospective employers would want to hire individuals who are exposed to these sorts of cases. So, in sum, I don't think the statement on this video clip is a big deal. Move along."


But Yggdrasil is right though, this thread has been derailed enough as it is. What you and I are debating about really belongs in another thread. Hmmm....Perhaps I should create a round table discussion about it. Should be interesting to see other people's viewpoints about it. :)

Go right ahead. I do know that I'm not going to let you hide behind the banner of "derailing" when you're called on your baseless bullshit. So if you don't want to continue the discussion here, go make a thread. But I am going to discuss it.

[Struwwelpeter]

LOL @ the fucking IDIOT that said she has a "strand of Libertarian" in her.

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute 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."

As a respected jurist with an impressive legal resume, Sotomayor appears just as qualified to sit on the Supreme Court as any recent nominee. But from the standpoint of individual liberty and limited constitutional government, there are significant reasons to be wary of her nomination.



Yup - that's right, she believes the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. Real "libertarian".

She is a brown-power supremacist elected as part of BO's plan to brownify and destroy America.

And contrary to what this fucking fool Rust is saying, she is indeed a racist, and a member of the National Council of La Raza, a mestizo identity organization.

Goodbye America!

[Struwwelpeter]

And Yggdrasil I would appreciate it if your dumb ass stopped calling Sodomizer a Latina, Latinos are southern European whites, specifically the French, the Spanish, the Italians, Sicilians, Sardinians, and the Romanians, Sodomizer is a mestizo-asiatic not a Latina.

[Vladibus]

There is a book out that says Republicans have lost the entire generation and they may not win another presidency for 50 years. Think that's true?

[Nightshade]

Go right ahead. I do know that I'm not going to let you hide behind the banner of "derailing" when you're called on your baseless bullshit. So if you don't want to continue the discussion here, go make a thread. But I am going to discuss it.

It isn't my banner, it was Yggdrasil's and he's right. It isn't my fault that you are beyond any sort of capability of decency and respectability of the OP's wishes. And what I am saying isn't baseless. I look at what she said and what she has done and called it for what it is. It's not my problem that you can't see the forest for the trees. I rather be accused as a bullshitter than a blind fool. At least a bullshitter is entertaining, a blind fool isn't.

You are more than welcome to discuss it in the round table. Everyone is invited and that is what it's for.

[Rust]

It isn't my banner, it was Yggdrasil's and he's right. It isn't my fault that you are beyond any sort of capability of decency and respectability of the OP's wishes. And what I am saying isn't baseless. I look at what she said and what she has done and called it for what it is. It's not my problem that you can't see the forest for the trees. I rather be accused as a bullshitter than a blind fool. At least a bullshitter is entertaining, a blind fool isn't.

You are more than welcome to discuss it in the round table. Everyone is invited and that is what it's for.


1. I didn't say it was your banner. Whose it is, is irrelevant to me. It's the fact that you only cared about "the OP's wishes" the second your idiocy was pointed out that intrigues me. Just like your whining about "name calling", you're merely crying crocodile tears because it suits you. If you cared about no de-railing the thread for example, you wouldn't have made this other reply now either!

2. What you're saying is baseless. Judges do make policy when reaching decisions, particularly judges in the court of appeals. That's a fact verified by countless legal scholars.

If being in accordance with the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court and a myriad of legal scholars on a subject makes me "a blind fool" the I'm quite happy joining their company.

Oh, and I did "discuss" it (I use that word loosely because there's nothing really to discuss, it's basically an established fact) in that thread already.

[puzld]

LOL @ the fucking IDIOT that said she has a "strand of Libertarian" in her.

Yup - that's right, she believes the Second Amendment is unconstitutional. Real "libertarian".

Goodbye America!

That's a part of this concept of "incorporation", and I have no idea where it came from. It isn't in the Constitution.

[Nightshade]

1. I didn't say it was your banner. Whose it is, is irrelevant to me. It's the fact that you only cared about "the OP's wishes" the second your idiocy was pointed out that intrigues me. Just like your whining about "name calling", you're merely crying crocodile tears because it suits you. If you cared about no de-railing the thread for example, you wouldn't have made this other reply now either!

2. What you're saying is baseless. Judges do make policy when reaching decisions, particularly judges in the court of appeals. That's a fact verified by countless legal scholars.

If being in accordance with the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court and a myriad of legal scholars on a subject makes me "a blind fool" the I'm quite happy joining their company.

Oh, and I did "discuss" it (I use that word loosely because there's nothing really to discuss, it's basically an established fact) in that thread already.

The only reason why I am even responding to you right now is that I can care less about your views. What I will not tolerate is a fool insulting me, which you have been doing ever since I presented my views of Sotomayor and what I think the role of judges should be in the courts.

So do me a favor and pound sand. I am through with you. I have wasted enough time with you as it is. You have brought nothing to the debate from the beginning, rather you resorted to insults while I was being calm and collective and presenting the own words she said and cases to support my viewpoints. As far as I am concerned you lost the debate from the beginning.

Oh and saying there is nothing to discuss because it is established fact does not mean there is room to debate about it. People debate facts all the time.

[Rust]

Apparently you're under the very erroneous impression that I give a flying fuck why you are posting. I don't. What I do care about is what you're responding with.

As of now you've responded with nothing but hypocrisy ( e.g. complaining about name calling while you name-called yourself and complaining about derailing the thread while you continue to post off-topic replies yourself) and ignorance (e.g. being oblivious to the fact ,as attested by numerous legal scholars, that the court of appeals does in fact "make policy" just like Judge Sotomayor said).

Don't like being insulted? Don't say stupid shit. Simple. :)

P.S. It's not surprise that as far as you're concerned I've "lost". You're more concerned with courtesy than with the facts, as shown by your complete disregard of the facts concerning the judicial process and your constant crying about my naughty language!