Posted on 07/15/2009 11:04:13 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
She is a self admitted product of affirmative action.
I don’t think that was the question.
I thought that fact was solidly established in November 2008.
You have to use a lower standard. If you don't, it is discriminatory. She can read and does not arrive at work drunk. /nomination
she also stumbled a lot on the are we at war question, abortion, gun rights were thought by her to be hunting and then she says one of her God children is in the NRA
That is like saying I am not racist because I know a black guy at work.
Now this stumble by her.
If we got a list of the blue dog Dems and EVERYONE of us would send calls and e-mails to them then that would apply enough pressure for a vote of no.
However if we left it to just calling out local Reps then nothing I am afraid will be done.
1000 voters calling these Dems every day would put enough pressure on them regardless of Pelosi using her blackmail tactics
overturn precedent , then claim ‘stare decisis” and that you have to stick with the
precedent... reasoning of a libtard judicial metal midget.
being very honest here
she is not impressed me what so ever, even if I disagree wit her stances I can still respect her as an individual but thus far no way.
She is elusive, she has not presented herself very well with her answers and this has not even been a tough hearing compared to Roberts etc.
I really do fear if this woman is confirmed I really do.
The point was made that essentially guns are the great equalizer, and if you have the right to self defense, then you should have the right to bear arms
She tried to squirm out of that, but she finally had to concede that it makes sense to allow weaker individuals to carry firearms
And she conceded that since they're criminals, they will have weapons we don't want them to have, i.e. they won't be controlled by laws
Bottom line, if you have the right to defend yourself, then you should have that right irregardless of physical strength and that you will never be able to disarm the criminals, and therefore you should be allowed to have parity with them.
Right to bear arms is not the same as right to self defense if attacked. Under right to self defense, if you are attacked you can defend yourself with knives, bricks or bare hands, not just with guns. Under right to bear arms, you have a right to have firearms, regardless of whether you are under attack or under a reasonable fear of being attacked.
There is a constitutional right to bear arms as found in the 2nd Amendment.
I hate to say it but as asked, Sonia the Quota Queen is correct; there is no direct constitutional right to self-defense. That right existed at common law, and has been codified under various state statutes. There is no direct federal constitutional provision for the defense of one’s person.
That was the knock on her before the confirmation hearings started. They said she was inarticulate and rambling... an intellectual lightweight.
They were being generous. This woman is the embodiment of affirmative action.
Sadly, since the Bork fiasco, it is harder and harder to get someone of real quality on the bench. It is more about the stealth candidate, or the ideologically pure, or the mediocrity who won’t shake things up too much.
The days of great legal minds on the Court are for the most part over. All one has to do is read the muck that passes for an opinion these days to know that unwelcome truth.
I fear this woman is to the left of anyone now on the court. Like Obama, she does not believe in the U.S. Constitution.
To Republicans on the Judiciary Committee:
Please ask, in light of the non-answer or negative answer to the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed:
“Judge Sotomayer, does a US citizen have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?”
If a person doesn’t have the right to protect themselves, then the person has no rights to life. And if there’s no right to life, then . . . that leads to a very slippery slope, indeed, in this Country. Our BASIC rights are in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America with the Bill of Rights. We have a BASIC right to life and the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect our lives.
Pin her down to HER beliefs and how they coincide with what she’s said in public for the last 17 years. She keeps saying she can’t answer because she doesn’t know what the “intent” of the other judges’ were. C’mon, Senator.
I don’t think she REALLY understands the Constitution of the United States of America (or doesn’t want to) . . . because it was written by our “white male” Founding Fathers. And because it was written by those white males, she believes that it is a “living” document that can be changed according to the whim (background, race, ethnic origin of a Jurist) of the Courts. Honestly, Senator. I’ve listened to her answers. Or rather evasions in place of answers.
The other thing that galls me is how she modulates her voice and lengthens her speech patterns and talks DOWN to you Senators. Watch the video repeat and see if you don’t notice it, too.
Please argue for a NO vote for Sonia Sotomayor. She will be a dangerous jurist if approved due to her past history and her manner, demeanor, and the way she views herself.
Thank you, MyName, Retired
This is a play right out of Obummers book. Droll on and on with an answer so there is little time to get asked another question.
Anyone who’s taken a first year criminal law course in law school knows this: general criminal law allows for the use of necessary and proportionate force in self-defense anytime the victim reasonably believes that unlawful force is about to be used against him. “Proportionate force” can include deadly force if the victim reasonably believes deadly force is about to be used against him.
The question as reported was a personal one. “Do you believe that an individual has the right to self defense?” and not a legal one.
She dodged.
That dodge calls her personal decency into question.
That alone should be enough to sink her chances when we tell our senators why she is not qualified.
She is not qualified because “she lacks the courage or the decency to simply say that she believes I have the right to protect my own life.” That has always been an unwritten law except under tyrannies!
It’s a shame republicans are too spineless to ask if she believes—as Hussein does—in infanticide. That is, does she consider it OK for a doctor to throw the survivor of an abortion attempt in a dumpster??!! Hussein voted YES twice in Illinois. Why not ask her? Can you imagine her saying she can’t comment because it might come before the court??
Now those two are articulate, in a ‘strange’ way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.