Posted on 07/15/2009 11:04:13 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla
I agree that she’s not qualified to be a Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The left mocked Clarence Thomas, claiming that he “lacked intelligence” to be a Justice (the racist irony is too apparent to ignore) but as a legal thinker, this woman is dumber than a box of rocks.
Had this question been asked of me, sitting as a nominee, I would have answered:
“My personal opinion of whether a right to self-defense exists is not relevant to these proceedings. I personally do not see a specific right to self-defense enumerated in the Constitution of the United States, or in any of the Amendments to that Constitution. I cannot and will not create a Constitutional right out of wholecloth, where none specifically exists. The Amendments to the Constitution, which recognize the inherent liberties of the individual, only recognize those liberties as they exist and superceded any power of the government.”
I think you would find a similar answer would be provided by Justice Scalia. Whether you create a “liberal” right where none exists (abortion) or a “conservative” one (freedom of contract), you are engaging in the same improper conduct; judicial activism. Justice Scalia would frown upon those members of this forum who wish to create one. It’s no different from the logic used to create Roe v. Wade.
Now, did Sonia the Quota Queen articulate it that way? Heck no. She’s dumber than a box of rocks. Nor does she oppose judicial activism, because she favors it of the distinctly liberal bent.
Can the question be expounded upon to illustrate it? Yes.
But don’t go ga-ga because she says hedges on a right to self defense. It’s not enumerated in the constitution, and to a strict constructionist her personal opinion should not matter.
“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.”
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
It would have seemed pointless to the founders, the right to self-defense is like the right to breathe air, to drink water, to eat food, without it no other rights can be exercised. Totalitarian types know this all too well, it is why they don’t want people to own guns.
It says a lot about the pathetic state of modern thought to realize that there are some people who would question the right to self defense. It is the same as questioning the right to take a drink of water.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ah, so you have the right to keep & bear tools of self-defense as a fundamental pre-existing inalienable right, but actually using them for self-defense is a matter of codification by the whim of elected officials? Riiiiiight.
Well, actually, yes - you’re wrong.
To elaborate, the 2nd Amendment states RKBA in conjunction with defense of the state by members of the citizenry reasonably expected to do so when circumstances require it. The “state” being a collection of individual citizens, every one of us constitutes 1/300,000,000th of this nation - that fraction of which we are reasonably expected to defend as circumstances require by use of the explicitly enumerated RKBA.
See post 41
I have just learned that in Colorado it is illegal to collect rainwater without an annual license.
I agree. But np matter how far to the left , she still only gets one vote, so net change.
IT at least demonstrates the dangers of allowing a Marxist to be elected President.
The best we all can do is mail her a box of chocolate candy to celebrate.
The common law is applicable unless the legislative branch enacts a law that abrogates the common law.
Sorry; meant post 37.
Do I personally believe there is a right to self-defense? Break into my house tonight and find out.
Do I believe it is a constitutional right? No, I don’t see it there. I’m a strict constructionist. Because I think there is a right to something does not mean it should be enshrined in the Constitution. I also think I ought to be allowed to use contraceptives in my own home. But Griswold v. Connecticut is an absolute abomination as a matter of Constitutional Law. So are the Slaughterhouse Cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scot and Scheckter Poultry. They cover the political spectrum but all have one thing in common; judicial activism.
It is a Natural Right. From William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England,
"Those rights then which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the air of human law to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture."
The Natural Law philosophy of our Founders was expressed in our Declaration and put into practice in our Constitution.
We do not need positive law from government to justify the exercise of our Natural Rights. One of those rights is self defense.
The Constitution is not the only governing authority in this country. Nor was the question restricted to the Constitution - or more accurately, the Amendments.
If the Amendments are our only source for understanding our rights, we’re in sad shape. The framers understood this, and there was great resistance to appending a “Bill of Rights”, which would necessarily be not only an abridged version of our rights, but could easily be mistaken for an unabridged version and thus a limit of our rights.
But no, the question asks, “Do you believe that an individual has the right to self defense?”
To say (as some do) that a person has the right to life but has no right to defend it is like saying he has the right to earn his pay but no right to keep it. Or that he has the right to own his home but no right to live in it.
Utter nonsense and sophistic games played by tyrants. (Not you! :-)
What does the 2nd Amendment mean to you? Just to own guns but not use them? It implies and gives consent to citizens to bear and use arms in their self defense.
I disagree - there is an implicit if not explicit consent to use guns for self defense in the 2nd amendment. To say you are allowed guns but not allowed to protect yourself is non-sensical. The right is implied, even to the point of protecting yourself from the government as Thomas Jefferson spoke. It is to the individual, and the right to protect yourself is inherent in the 2nd Amendment and the reasoning behind it is very definitive.
What a stupid question to punt on. An overwhelming majority of the public realize that people have the right to defend themselves. And they are aware that this would still be true even if the legislatures and judiciary hadn’t blessed us with their imprimatur — which by and large they have. Evading this one seems like a political error as well as a Constitutional one.
Democrat voters like that she is devious and like the 'fooling the public' game.
Conservatives are disgusted but know the criminal enterprise democrat Seante will pass her onto the court like flushing yet another fecal flaoter into the septic tank. But I am proud of Sessions, Graham, and a coupel of others for pressing this slug to expose her to the public scrutiny albeit a fruitless effort.
The most noteworthy thing about the whole sham was the outing of deadhead Specter as he openly asked democrat querstions of the nominee. He looks like he might be losing his hair again ... demiwuss.
The signal sent with her convoluted answer regarding self defense i that she will judge the cases individually, applying her bias in each case, to determine if she will grant the right or not. The typical leftist/nazi mindset growing more bold with each passing day the affirmative action bastard figure is in power.
Listen people, the right of self defense is a defense to a criminal or civil charge of assault, murder, or wrongful death. In the real world the jury is instructed regarding this defense. It can mean use of a gun or knife or fists.
Juries are not instructed on natural law, at least in CA. All this is codified, as defined by the courts of appeal.
Trust me here - I’m not the enemy.
I have often noted that right of self defense is not explicitly noted in the Bill of Rights and that Second Amendment cases should have been buttressed by bringing in the Ninth Amendment. Self defense is universal across the entire animal kingdom and removing any means of self defense is diminishment of that right, i.e. a denial of that right.
Here we have another instance where the death cultists may gain control over the rest of us.
This one simply isn’t about our attitudes toward others.
This one is about your most fundamental right.
And even more than a few legalistic squishes want you to keep your anger in check rather than object to the SCOTUS candidate being unwilling to tell us whether or not she thinks we have a basic right to self defense.
Note, she tried to weasel out of the question by rewording it. As noted by one of our legal scholars here, there is no explicit mention of self defense in the Constitution. But the right to self defense has been effectively accepted throughout this country’s existence and even before the consgtitution: The stare decisis par excellence.
The question was “do you believe I have a right to self defense?”
She was not asked, as she deliberately rephrased it, of a right written in our constitutional. She was deliberately evasive, so our senators need to deliberately remove her evasion.
We live in world where one Justice has suggested that foreign law may be permitted a nose under our judicial tent.
We live in a world where British common law on self-defense has been whittled down to effectively zero in the UK and all its former commonwealth nations.
We live in a world where very many legal scholars believe that constitutional limits need not be changed through the legal process, but may be changed whenever they think it is ready to change on its own — like any other “living thing.”
In this bizarre world we need courageous people to ask tough questions.
Your life may be at stake. If you don’t challenge the pretenders today, how are you gonna challenge them when you’ve let them gain the power to decide that you cannot defend your own life?
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.