Totally Divorced from Reality or a Blatant Liar?(Sotomayor)

RimoftheWorld.net ^ | 29 July, 2009 | Dave Henderson

[marktwain]

During the recent confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Oklahoma Republican Tom Coburn repeatedly asked Sotomayor to explain her view if the Second Amendment gave every American a right to self-defense.

"Do I have a right to personal self-defense?" asked Coburn.

Sotomayor stated she couldn't recall a single federal law that dealt with that issue.

"Most criminal law statutes are passed by states," she said. "The issue of self-defense is usually defined in criminal statutes by state laws."

"Is it okay to defend yourself in your home when you're under attack?" Coburn insisted. "Those are the kinds of things people would like you to answer."

Sotomayor would not commit to an answer, refusing to express her opinion on any issue that "may come before the high court". Well judge, that's about any issue dealing with the Constitution now, is it not? I must ask judge, did you read the Heller decision of the Supreme Court, the very court of which you seek to be a member? How can she say "she couldn't recall a single federal law that dealt with that issue" when self defense is mentioned over 80 times in the recent Heller decision, just 18 months past?

When pressed, she said that she had "never given it much thought". How could a minority woman from a challenged past, who grew up in the Bronx of New York City, reach adulthood and have never thought about the need to defend ones own life? To make such a statement either proves that she is totally divorced from reality or is a blatant liar and evading the question under Congressional oath.

The right of self-defense is one of the most basic of all human rights and to say otherwise, or not have an opinion on such, is ludicrous. Do some people really believe that when your life is threatened, that you have no right to take action to defend yourself? Are you to sit by and do nothing while your wife or child is raped or murdered? How could any educated, rational person believe such a thing?

I need to ask you judge, as a legal scholar have you ever read the Supreme Court ruling that states that Law Enforcement has no legal obligation to provide individual protection? I must also ask judge, if Law Enforcement has no obligation to protect you, just who do you expect to provide such protection?

News flash judge; while the Washington elite may have 24-hour (armed) protection at the tax payer's expense; 99.9% of the countries population does not.

Lily Burk was one of the 99.9% who did not have armed protection when she drove her Volvo, in broad day light, into downtown Los Angeles. Lily Burk was only 17, a high school junior and just beginning her young life. On July 25th 2009, Charlie Samuel, a 50 year old parolee, released just last February, with an extensive history of violent crime including: assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping and robbery, when he allegedly kidnapped Lily. He allegedly attempted to rob her, by forcing her to go to several ATM machines and attempted to withdrawal money. When unsuccessful, he allegedly beat her, slashed her throat and left her to die! This Judge, is not some abstract theory, it is reality in today's society.

Charlie Samuel was arrested at 5:30 p.m. Friday, on suspicion of possessing drugs and drug paraphernalia on 3rd Street in downtown Los Angeles - at least 12 hours before Lily's lifeless body was discovered nearby in her black Volvo at 5th and Alameda Streets. He was later connected with Lily when his finger prints were found in her car.

All this happened in broad daylight in downtown Los Angeles. Judge, the very courts that you represent as a member of the judiciary left Lily a defenseless victim, unable to protect herself. While at the same time, the judicial system takes the easy road by plea bargaining violent criminals. These violent felons are released after serving only a fraction of their sentence. Why are they back on the street to pray on her and others?

I must ask judge:

-Why was this violent felon on the street?

-How can you NOT have an opinion on Lily's right to defend herself?

-Was Lily's life less valuable then the Washington elite?

Judge, if you cannot take a stand on such a basic fundamental human right, you have no business having a life appointment to the highest court in the land. For such a "Wise Latina Woman" you are totally out of touch with reality. While I may not have any say in your appointment, I do believe you do not deserve it. My opposition to your appointment has nothing to do with your Latina heritage; it has everything to do with your evasion of the issues that will impact my country, my life and that of my family. That does not make me a racist!

To the Senate, you took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemy's foreign and domestic. It's time to live up to your oath of office. We'll be watching!

[marktwain]

It is hard to believe that she actually said what she said about self defense. Tom Coburn did not ask if the 2nd Amendment "gave" us the right to self defense. It did not. We always have had the right to self defense. The right is part of being alive. The 2nd Amendment just guarantees us the means to exercise the right.

[screaminsunshine]

Simple. She is a Communist. Just like Obama.

[Jeff Head]

She is clearly hooked on the new product Obama is pushing.

OBAMA ENDORSES NEW PRODUCT...LIAGRA

[RightOnline]

As we are all painfully aware, her confirmation to the S.C. is a done deal. Yet another glaring example of Obama, the Democratic Party, and their thuggish, Communist cronies using the Constitution as so much toilet paper.

[Bahbah]

This business with Sotomayor, who is an obvious liar, has made one thing depressingly clear.

Being a liar is not seen as a bar to being a Supreme Court Justice by the likes of Lindsey Graham and Lamar Alexander and Mel Martinez. I think thay is a very frightening thing.

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 11B > § 229C
Prev | Next
§ 229C. Individual self-defense devices

“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any individual self-defense device, including those using a pepper spray or chemical mace.”
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000229-—C000-.html

[YHAOS]

"Totally Divorced from Reality or a Blatant Liar?"

Yes

[flowerplough]

Blatant liar. Saw and heard enough of her committee hearings to tell. WaPo's Michael Gerson sez:

Listening to Sonia Sotomayor a few years ago, say at a legal conference, one would have heard a mainstream liberal -- emphasizing the superiority of her bottom-up minority experience, hinting at the role of judges in making policy and expressing skepticism about the “aspiration to impartiality.”

Listening to Sotomayor before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I heard what often sounded like a card-carrying member of the Federalist Society.

( ... )

if Sotomayor eventually judges on the high court like Marshall or Brennan, it will mean that her testimony was deceptive. A blogger over at the liberal American Prospect, Adam Serwer, assumes such cynicism: “(Georgetown's) Seidman is accusing Sotomayor of dishonesty, and I think he's right: Sotomayor has been saying what she needs to say, backtracking on her previous insights, in order to get confirmed.” I hope this is not the case. But if it is, it will be the worst kind of precedent.

[freedomconservationist]

Nothing in the Constitution gives or expresses the right to life, if you look; only that the State should not take life, liberty, or property without Due Process. Nothing about the people or Federal Government. So why self defense? Just an observation. Maybe it needs to be changed to express some of these rights, regardless of what laws are passed (citing the wording of the 2nd Amendment).

[lonestar]

Both.

[Oldpuppymax]

As a typical leftist, she has no trouble finding a right to abortion in the Constitution, but none to defending one’s life. Astounding. It would have been SO EASY to get this silly woman to disqualify herself from the court, making it impossible even for the radical left to support her. Unfortunately, our spineless republican senators are more afraid of being attacked in the NY Times than of putting a radical, America hating racist on the court.

[freekitty]

She’s both and really a pro at gaming the system.

What a recommendation for SC Justice. Not

[ridesthemiles]

All of the above...

I would not trust her to feed my dogs. Feeding the horses is totally out of the question.

[freeangel]

Uh, just guessing here—blatant liar.

[Jack Hammer]

Totally Divorced from Reality or a Blatant Liar?

Easy - she’s both.

[marktwain]

“As a typical leftist, she has no trouble finding a right to abortion in the Constitution, but none to defending one’s life. Astounding. It would have been SO EASY to get this silly woman to disqualify herself from the court, making it impossible even for the radical left to support her. Unfortunately, our spineless republican senators are more afraid of being attacked in the NY Times than of putting a radical, America hating racist on the court.”

An excellent analysis and the crux of our problem. We have transformed into a Mediaocracy from a Democracy, and we have to fight our way back to being a Republic. Fortunately, the MSM is dieing. The question is, will enough Americans wake up? I will continue to fight. We are gaining ground in some ways. The record sales of guns and ammunition is a good sign.

[scrabblehack]

It’s hardly a precedent. Brennan was similarly deceptive at his confirmation hearing.

[kabumpo]

I’ve met Mel Martinez and he is a fool.

[Eagles6]

Has the format of FR homepage changed? Instead of the usual stories I'm getting what appears to be the last postings to numerous repeated stories such as the kenya birth cert.

Sorry to use your post for this question.

[Bahbah]

I’ve met Mel Martinez and he is a fool.

I have watched him in the Senate and I know that you are right.