Skip to comments.KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now
Posted on 06/29/2010 5:43:51 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.
Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Say it ain't so - the wise latina LIED?
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
Perhaps the liberal idiots that are playing lovey-dovey with “empty suit” Kagan will notice this and get a clue. But I doubt it. The mental disease of liberalism is pretty much chronic and incurable.
It seems they are going to keep on until they create a lot of undocumented guns.
You mean an obama flunkie lied? Who would have ever guessed? < /sarcasm>
are the nominees under oath?
are the nominees under oath?
There is no reason to hold hearings. No democrat will ever tell the truth under oath, and no Democrat will ever follow up on one who lies.
Kagan would swear on her Momma’s grave that she kisses a 44 Magnum revolver every night, if in return she can get on the Court and make up law for the next 40 years.
ANY Republican who doesn’t oppose her by every mean possible is unacceptable. Sadly, Kagan will get on the court and will try to ban guns for as long as she lives. And Christians. And babies. And freedom.
Wait until the GOP girlymen in the Senate send Barry’s latest pig up to the U.S. Pig Farm. The whole Bill of Rights is going to be toast.
Why does it matter that she lied. Sen Alexander of Tn knew she had 2nd Admendment issues. He endorsed and voted for her.RINO
Does the GOP have the nerve to challange them when they lie? I'm pretty sure they don't.
Now more than ever it should be apparent to everyone that liberals have very fluid, ever-morphing ethics. O’Reilly was just commenting on how the Rolling Stone reporter, Hastings, supposedly promised McChrystal that all comments would be “off the record” and then published every last word.
Liberals find it perfectly acceptable to flat out lie if they think the end justifies that mean. They have that in common with a certain religion that has a teaching that makes it A-OK to lie to infidels if it serves Allah (I won’t mention them for fear of Oh-Fending anyone, don’t want that, no sir-—you’ll just have to guess).
Yes, but unfortunately perjury (18 USC § 1001, Making a false statement, in this case) isn't a "forward-looking" offense. IOW, you're affirming under oath that the answers you're giving then are correct and truthful. She always has the "I changed my mind" defense.
Someone would need to find some evidence that she was being deceitful at the time of her testimony, and that's not likely.
Congress, OTOH, could still impeach her ass, although no one would dare, unfortunately.
“contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer. “
Was it Marx who said the end justifies the means? Or was it Engels? Lenin? Stalin? Khrushchev? Alinsky? Clinton? Dohrn? Obama?
IIRC, he's not a staunch second amendment fellow, himself. Talks a good game, and talks, and talks and talks.
They can do whatever ,But how are the Rats going to enforce it??
What I find most surprising about this is the number of people who seem to be surprised...
She’s a libtard. She will push the progressive agenda to the limits of her notion of the law. And, if she can’t see the logic, she’ll make it up.
It’s time to take back the country.
He! It will take guns to do that. You know that, right?
All of them. I’m re-reading Hayek’s `The Road to Serfdom.’
He covers socialist realpolitik and “the end justifies the means” in Chapter 6, “Planning and the Rule of Law.” (Keeping in mind their definition of “planning”: centralized control which does not contemplate an armed proletariat.)
They sure are. But, there's nothing we can do if they lie, short of impeachment. We already know how that's going to end.
There is no controlling authority. It may be illegal as all get-out, but there is no way to enforce it.
The wide Latina strikes again.
Leftists cannot lie as they are Marxists. Marxists deal with contradiction by using the technique of thesis, antithesis resulting in synthesis. (From Memory)
When you're smarter than everyone else, it's OK to lie to them for their own good.
It also applies to all levels of law enforcement in America from the beat cop to the prosecutors/lawyers and the president himself. So why not the members of the Supreme Court?
Deck Hand’s point is a good one. She can say virtually anything during hearings, and then “change her mind” later. It’s not perjury. And in any case, people being interviewed cannot guarantee how they will rule on later cases. The operative guideline is “the ends justifies the means.” Say anything, anything at all, just get the position, and then the rubber stamping can begin. The Constitution can then be changed at will to mean anything that the liberals find convenient at the time.
And your point would be what? I said electoral didn't I? That's a good place to start anyway.
Well, this November will be your last first chance to see how well that works out for you. Godspeed...
What will happen, is that these idiots will create a civil
war with the American citizens...they are so ignorant and have no clue of what they are doing....I say bring it on if they can handle it.......
I agree with you that impeachment would be appropriate and also agree that it is not going to happen.
We seem to have forgotten that members of the judiciary are not granted life tenure, but instead are to serve only during a period of good behavior.
Section 1 - Judicial powers
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...
Unlike the president, the standard for removal is not high crimes and misdemeanors, but is simply bad behavior. While occasional bad judgment or misinterpretation of a law or constitutional provision may not constitute bad behavior, the flagrant disregard or holding irrelevant of a constitutional provision or amendment clearly does.
Just as we voters need to impose discipline on congress, that body needs to step up and impose discipline on the courts. The founders provided for elections to enable us to control the behavior of congress and gave them the impeachment power to keep the courts from getting out of control. There is not a lack of tools, just a lack of will.
That doesn’t mean anything anymore. The entire process is pointless theater as the Democrat party is interested only in the raw exercise of naked power — and the destruction of America.
Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.
What’s Spanish for “Taqiyya”?
“What is clear is that Liberals must be removed from any ability to affect our freedoms. The leftist must be removed from the Executive, Justice and Education (including at the state & local level) it is becoming more clear everyday that a major electoral purge needs to occur with subsequent clean out of all government departments.”
I’ll pose this as a very serious question:
What happens when “major electoral purges” don’t work?
‘...contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.’
Hey, this is 2010 - just because you’re a judge, doesn’t mean you can’t lie like a criminal.
“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850.
The outrage is that 4 of America’s robed totalitarian mullah’s haven’t resigned yet.
On the plain language of it the 14th Amendment does NOT make the 2nf Amendment enforceable ăinst states and localities. It is ALREADY enforceable against the states and localities. The wording of the 2nd is absolute. It does not reference the Congress. It says "shall not be infringed" and does not say who shall not infringe. It allows no exceptions. The 1st Amendment is a stricture on Congress. It says so. It did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment "incorporated" it. The 2nd Amendment needed no such incorporation in order to apply to the states and localitiesand to employers and your neighbors and everyone else! It does not even allow of banning possession by felons. It is ABSOLUTE. Why are supposedly Constitutionalist Justices inventing the incorporation fantasy for the 2nd unless that makes it easier to strike it down later?
“What will happen, is that these idiots will create a civil
war with the American citizens..”
It’s been my opinion that the idiots on the SC precipitated the first Civil War with its Fugitive Slave Act ruling in 1851. The idiots on the court think they’re blessed with divine protection. If the court starts a second civil war, we’ll see.
wouldn't this be considered perjury and grounds for removal.
Really? We keep purging until it does work, because if things don't change what do you think will happen on the streets? We can't afford for things not to change can we? We have been here before.
This is one of my rare ping everyone pings. Kagan must be stopped!
"Ms. Sotomayor comfortably won confirmation, with nine Senate Republicans voting for her."
Alexander (R-TN), Bond (R-MO), Collins (R-ME), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), Snowe (R-ME) and Voinovich (R-OH) voted YEA for Sotomayor.
If you want to call the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action the number is 800-392-8683. When you start to get number options, click on 4. I had to wait a few minutes. I was told that they would probably score the Kagan vote.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
I don't like the 14th amendment argument. Unlike the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law..." the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (emphasis added) When the document says a right of the people shall not be infringed, rather than "congress shall make no law" then clearly you don't need a 14th amendment incorporation to extend the protection of the people.
Or drive off of it as Teddy would say.
Right, but remember, for a period of time in our nation's history, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. This is why states like MA and VA actually had official state religions. But, over time, and especially with Slaughter-House cases coming out of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, more and more of the BORs became incorporated.