PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor Master Thread


N6ATF
07-15-2009, 1:42 PM
Here's all the threads in the 2A forum with "sotomayor" in the title (oldest to newest):
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188099
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=187775
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=187997
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188300
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=189923
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=190041
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=190134
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=191989
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=192078
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193119
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=197484
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=197701
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=198896
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=202933
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203267
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203700
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=203901

And Off-Topic:
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=187886
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188432
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=188185
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193061
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=193567
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=195211
http://calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=198569

Untamed1972
07-15-2009, 1:43 PM
The only one I want to see is the one titled: Sotomayor confirmation denied!

Legasat
07-15-2009, 1:52 PM
The only one I want to see is the one titled: Sotomayor confirmation denied!

Me too, but let's not hold out breath...;)

Stan_Humphries
07-15-2009, 2:18 PM
Sotomayor tells Senators that she does not believe in guns....

Obama Nominee Defends White House Policy on Gun Control
<by Bob Woodward>
...

"To respond to the Senator from Wyoming's question, no I do not believe in guns. I do not believe in hand guns, nor shot guns, nor guns whose pistol grip allows the gunman to fire continuously without reloading (sic). Numerous studies have validated the fact that guns do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist. Therefore, there can be no constitutional right to keep, bear, own or even look at guns."

When later asked about the constitutional right to privacy, she responded:

"It's settled law. Privacy is right there in the constitution. All you have to do is look at the 4th amendment. It's like one of those 3-D image posters you used to see in the 90's. If you stare at the text long enough, and cross your eyes a little, the word privacy jumps out from behind 'places to be searched and the things and persons to be seized'."

Senator Schumer (D., NY) responded, "I don't think that's quite what the case law says about privacy, your honor."

To which Judge Sotomayor retorted, "You are a white male who has not lived the life of a wise Latina woman (redundancy sic) - your experiences cannot compare to the richness of my own. So where do you get off on telling me that the Bill of Rights isn't really one of the first "Magic Eye" puzzles to be made? Will you next presume to tell me that Congress wasn't originally established to make it easier for Waldo to hide amongst assembled masses of similarly dressed people?"

madmike
07-15-2009, 2:39 PM
Sotomayor tells Senators that she does not believe in guns....

Obama Nominee Defends White House Policy on Gun Control
<by Bob Woodward>
...

"To respond to the Senator from Wyoming's question, no I do not believe in guns. I do not believe in hand guns, nor shot guns, nor guns whose pistol grip allows the gunman to fire continuously without reloading (sic). Numerous studies have validated the fact that guns do not exist, have never existed, and will never exist. Therefore, there can be no constitutional right to keep, bear, own or even look at guns."

When later asked about the constitutional right to privacy, she responded:

"It's settled law. Privacy is right there in the constitution. All you have to do is look at the 4th amendment. It's like one of those 3-D image posters you used to see in the 90's. If you stare at the text long enough, and cross your eyes a little, the word privacy jumps out from behind 'places to be searched and the things and people to be seized'."

Senator Schumer (D., NY) responded, "I don't think that's quite what the case law says about privacy, your honor."

To which Judge Sotomayor retorted, "You are a white male who has not lived the life of a wise Latina women (redundancy sic) - your experiences cannot compare to the richness of my own. So where do you get off on telling me that the Bill of Rights isn't really one of the first "Magic Eye" puzzles to be made? Will you next presume to tell me that Congress wasn't originally established to make it easier for Waldo to hide amongst assembled masses of similarly dressed people?"

BRAVO!!!! Very well done!


-madmike.

yellowfin
07-15-2009, 4:32 PM
The only one I want to see is the one titled: Sotomayor confirmation denied! I'd like one with Sotomayor dismissed and disbarred.

gazzavc
07-15-2009, 6:10 PM
I'd like one with Sotomayor dismissed and disbarred.


What about the one "Sotomayer abducted by aliens" :43:

SimpleCountryActuary
07-15-2009, 7:41 PM
What about the one "Sotomayer abducted by aliens" :43:

I heard she wears her tinfoil hat to prevent that from happening. :TFH:

socal2310
07-15-2009, 9:03 PM
I heard she wears her tinfoil hat to prevent that from happening. :TFH:

Who says she has nothing in common with gun owners?:cool:

Kokopelli
07-16-2009, 6:05 AM
We were not abducted by aliens because we are armed. Hats have nothing to do with it. :p

kalguns
07-16-2009, 8:13 AM
I would like to see her to scoot around the 2A issue now.

DDRH
07-16-2009, 8:33 AM
:rofl:

Full Clip
07-16-2009, 9:01 AM
Awwwwwww, that's cold.
But funny.

megavolt121
07-16-2009, 9:06 AM
Ok, that was just cruel and unusual punishment.
:ban:

sepiid
07-16-2009, 9:08 AM
!!!GOONIES!!!

calixt0
07-16-2009, 10:34 AM
While I find it hard to say this (and yes I know politicians lie constantly) After watching most of her confirmation hearings if what she said is true then I would have a hard time not voting for her. I know that because she has to watch her words so carefully in this confirmation she didn't give a lot of infromation but if she truely tries to just interpret the law then we will be ok.

On a side note I wonder that since we can't take her out of office if the things she has said here was a lie, I wonder if things said in these hearings are found to be untruthfull if she could be prosecuted for perjury?

I think she made a good showing for herself even if I am not a personal fan.

N6ATF
07-16-2009, 10:42 AM
:iamwithstupid:

VegasND
07-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Bush 41 and Obama have both nominated her for office. Who could possibly support that?

yellowfin
07-16-2009, 11:21 AM
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTI5YmVkYzQ0YmNjZGE2YjE5ZDdiMGI5MWZlYzNhYTY=
July 16, 2009 12:00 PM

Law Schools’ Ward Churchill Moment
Sotomayor has exposed the misguided world of academic legal theory.

By Heather Mac Donald

Sonia Sotomayor’s shameless repudiation in the Senate of her past statements on gender, race, and judging is not just hypocritical, it is a lost opportunity. The airing of her many speeches on identity politics and the law had produced another Ward Churchill moment: An idea that is outright mundane within the academy escapes its hothouse environment and shakes the public temporarily out of its stupor regarding university culture. Now, unfortunately, Sotomayor’s bland denials that she ever meant what she said will allow the curtain to fall once more over the mad world of academic legal theory.

The claims that run through Sotomayor’s speeches on identity and the law — that the ideal of colorblindness is “confused” and in conflict with the proper celebration of “diversity”; that the white, male world of law suppresses the distinct “voices” of minorities and women; that those “voices” are “rich[er]” and “better” than those of white males — are utterly unremarkable within the legal academy. They form the core of feminist legal theory and “critical race studies,” the latter of which Sotomayor’s alma mater, Yale Law School, celebrated just this April. These twin theories reject the ideal of neutral legal analysis in favor of an uninhibited embrace of self-engrossed identity cultivation. Their practitioners produce law-review articles exploring how their experiences with their own hair and other markers of racial or ethnic identity shaped their understanding of the law. They specialize in the manufacture and exploitation of pseudo-incidents of sexism and racism.

Sotomayor graduated from law school before feminist and race theory reached their zenith, but she appears closely familiar with that body of ideas. Her “Wise Latina” speech approvingly cites leading feminist theorists, such as Harvard’s Martha Minow (“there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives”) and Yale’s Judith Resnik (“to judge is an exercise of power”). The New Deal–era theory of Legal Realism, about which she was asked on Tuesday, is a far less relevant source of her pronouncements than are feminist and race studies.

For all their self-indulgent wallowing in narcissism, however, critical race studies and feminist jurisprudence do rest clumsily on some truths that conservative boilerplate about the law ignores. There is inevitably a great deal of ambiguity in the law. “Original intent” is a much more problematic concept than its acolytes admit. Language rarely produces single meanings. And yes, judges sometimes cannot avoid making “policy” when they are called upon to extend statutes or precedents to unforeseen situations. The discourse about the law that conservatives routinely serve up in confirmation hearings is facile. But it is equally facile — and far more dangerous — to replace a recognition of the complexity of judicial decision-making with the equation of gender and race with particular perspectives, not to mention with virtue and insight. Sotomayor’s parroting of the academy’s identity theorists presents a real risk that she consciously or unconsciously sees her role as bringing her allegedly unique Latina “voice” to the highest court of the land, despite her present protestations to the contrary.

Sotomayor will be allowed to wriggle out of her past statements with excuses that are even worse. To dismiss her embrace of feminist and race jurisprudence on the ground that she was merely speaking to students betrays a disregard for the maintenance of our legal culture. As Sotomayor undoubtedly understood at the time but now pretends to ignore, there is in fact no more important an audience than students; they are the guardians of our traditions and ideals.

But while Sotomayor will march on to the Supreme Court, law schools should not be allowed to duck their responsibility for the ideas that Sotomayor’s nomination has brought belatedly into public consciousness. Anyone who found himself surprised by the ideology of Sotomayor’s “Wise Latina” speech has not been paying attention. That ideology is available to anyone who cares to look and forms part of the understanding of the law with which law schools imbue their students. As usual, parents and alumni donors have been bankrolling an education about whose radical excesses they are clueless. It is time that they and the rest of us wake up.

— Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor at City Journal and the co-author of The Immigration Solution.

She is but one sore out of the whole plague of leprosy upon our legal system.

stuckinhippytown
07-16-2009, 11:22 AM
How do we prevent her getting confirmed? She needs to go

Full Clip
07-16-2009, 11:32 AM
I look forward to openly and flagrantly denying any and all past public statements when presented with the right job opportunity. You know, one that far outweighs any shred of personal integrity or honor that may linger in my pathetic being. And for everyone involved to just look the other way as my pants spontaneously burst into flame.

yellowfin
07-16-2009, 11:46 AM
An answer to the matter of her being supposedly truthful, trustworthy, and well spoken:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjkwNjE2MGExOGNiMDZkZjdlZGVjYWMzYWU5MTA3Nzk=

Credibility Gap
Sotomayor asks the skeptics to believe some implausible explanations.

By Jim Geraghty

With three days of hearings under our belts, we can strongly suspect that several Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee will not vote to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. We can also strongly suspect that all 60 Senate Democrats will vote to confirm; the opaqueness of her answers on abortion and gun control probably provided sufficient cover for the relatively conservative Democratic senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.

So if there are any “swing votes” remaining in the Senate, they are among the 33 Republicans who aren’t on the judiciary panel. There are probably some GOP lawmakers who would prefer to earn bipartisan brownie points by voting for the first Latina nominee to the court: to win mainstream media praise for their broad-mindedness, and to avoid having to explain a “no” vote to Hispanic activist groups. Some senators may want to hold true to the idea that Supreme Court nominees should be judged on their qualifications, but that concept seems destined to become the mark of a bygone era.

But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:


That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.

That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.

That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”

That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.

That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”

That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”

That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”

That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”


That’s a lot to swallow. Essentially, the poised and affable judge who appeared before the cameras this week came across as almost completely unobjectionable — almost a photo negative of the judge portrayed in Sotomayor’s past speeches. “We’re left guessing as to what kind of judge she would be,” Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) said during a committee break. “We don’t know if we’re going to get Sonia Sotomayor the speech-giver or Sonia Sotomayor the judge. Once she’s on the Supreme Court, she can say anything she wants with no chance of reversal. The lack of clarity is creating some problems.”

Few Sotomayor opponents expected her nomination would be rejected; on the first day, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said she would be confirmed barring a major meltdown. Not only was there no meltdown through the first three days, the reactor’s core temperatures never got outside of the safe zone. To persuade Democrats to vote against the first Latino justice and turn against a new president, it would take more than Sotomayor’s lower-than-usual polling numbers (Rasmussen found that 37 percent said she should be confirmed, while 43 percent said no, while the Diageo/Hotline survey found 31 percent of respondents said they approve of her, and 24 percent disapprove). It would have required the nominee to explode like the large and loud protester who interrupted Sen. Charles Grassley on Tuesday.

The nomination will not be filibustered. Cornyn noted: “We don’t have the numbers to effect a filibuster, even if we were so inclined.”

Without help from an unprepared nominee, Senate Republicans never had any real shot of derailing the nomination. What they can do is articulate the case against her, and make a strong case to the senators who are persuadable. After all, opponents of John Roberts persuaded 23 senators to vote no, and he had no speeches or comments remotely as controversial as Sotomayor’s. The choice before the Republican senators is clear: Sign off on the list of implausible statements above, or vote “no.”

1BigPea
07-16-2009, 12:03 PM
While I find it hard to say this (and yes I know politicians lie constantly) After watching most of her confirmation hearings if what she said is true then I would have a hard time not voting for her. I know that because she has to watch her words so carefully in this confirmation she didn't give a lot of infromation but if she truely tries to just interpret the law then we will be ok.

On a side note I wonder that since we can't take her out of office if the things she has said here was a lie, I wonder if things said in these hearings are found to be untruthfull if she could be prosecuted for perjury?

I think she made a good showing for herself even if I am not a personal fan.

From the NRA-


Joint Statement

Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
And
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action
On
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court


Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.


- NRA -

Theseus
07-16-2009, 12:09 PM
"I am sorry I said I hate America, I didn't mean it. I was caught up in the moment when standing on a podium in Germany. I am sorry I said the Holocaust was good for the farm crop of Germany, and I am sorry that I blew up the abortion center. Can I please be the AG now?"

MasterYong
07-16-2009, 12:15 PM
The only one I want to see is the one titled: Sotomayor confirmation denied!

I was thinking more along the lines of:

"Sotomayor fatally struck by bus while crossing the street! Obama considers nationwide ban of public transportation, assembles special congressional committee!"

/I do not advocate bus accidents. :cool2:

calixt0
07-16-2009, 1:38 PM
From the NRA-

while i don't disagree with any of this and I think her record does show the things mentioned, I still think that when asked questions she stated that the law is the law and that has to be upheld. Now if she does that we will be ok, and that was my point...

again i will say while I'm not a fan of hers.... of what I saw of the hearings she made a good showing for herself.

Ifticar
07-16-2009, 9:12 PM
Joint Statement

Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
And
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action
On
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court


Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.

From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.

Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.

In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.

This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.

We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

N6ATF
07-17-2009, 4:13 PM
More dupes added to the OP.

Riodog
07-17-2009, 8:16 PM
It's no wonder that this country is in the state it is. After reading such pathetic opinions from those who are supposedly 'on our side' God help us.
I wasn't singling out calixt0 but he's damn close to it.
Rio

calixt0
07-17-2009, 8:58 PM
Rio, I'm not sure what you think? let me know what really think. LOL I have not looked at too much on her history, I did look at Her wise latina remarks and think she tried to give an explanation but didn't really. I think other that those question (if the one I heard) she continually stated that law is law and has to be honored. Do I believe that she will do that and nothing more. not really, I don't believe that many people in todays world would try to follow the letter of the law instead of what "what I believe is the better solution" thought logic.

Again if I had a vote for or against her I would vote against because she didn't answer the wise latina statements to my full liking... I was simply trying to say for someone who was not objective it would be very easy to say she deserves to be on the court.

she kept her cool and did a decent job of answering some of the questions. I am a bit troubled that we give anyone a nomination who refuse to answer questions like what do you feel the second ammendment means? I might have to hear a case like this so I can't comment... bull... If the constitution promises the persue life liberty and the happyness then why shouldn't Roe v Wade be overturned? I may have to hear this case so I can't be say how I feel... bull...In my mind no matter who you are you have thoughts on these things... I would hope someone especially getting elected to the highest court can say I have this feeling but laws says and supports this...

In my mind if they cant answer they don't deserve to be on the court.... In my opinion.