Sotomayor ducks direct second ammendment question

Trlsmn · Jul 15, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused yesterday to say whether or not she believes the Constitution guarantees that Americans can keep and bear arms.

fingolfen · Jul 15, 2009

It's worse than that...

<broken link removed>

Some "highlights"

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

Bajablast · Jul 15, 2009

Trlsmn said:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor refused yesterday to say whether or not she believes the Constitution guarantees that Americans can keep and bear arms.

Did you really expect a different conclusion?? This is OBAMA's pick, of course she is going to refuse to answer any question she can get away with not answering.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

Bark · Jul 15, 2009

This is nothing new, candidates for the supreme court from both sides have used this strategy for some time now. They refuse to comment on anything that may come before them as justices any any meaningful way.
I have already e-mailed my senators with my concerns and gotten responses from Merkly, about what I expected but at least they heard from a pro-gun democrat, more of us need to talk to them to reinforce the idea that people from both party's are concerned with our gun rights.

USMC1911 · Jul 15, 2009

Bajablast said:
Did you really expect a different conclusion?? This is OBAMA's pick, of course she is going to refuse to answer any question she can get away with not answering.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck.

I dont think its just Obama's pick. They all do it.

Jamie6.5 · Jul 15, 2009

USMC1911 said:
I dont think its just Obama's pick. They all do it.

I disagree. This woman has obviously been coached by the admin's people on how to talk in circles and NEVER answer definitively.
Unless of course it's a Durbin or Leahy softball.

aslinged · Jul 15, 2009

Jamie6.5 said:
I disagree. This woman has obviously been coached by the admin's people on how to talk in circles and NEVER answer definitively.
Unless of course it's a Durbin or Leahy softball.

You think some admin has to teach them how to do that?

99.9 of anyone who comes close to a political appointment in any way, Rep of Dem, knows instinctively how to dodge, lie and obfuscate. This is the only thing they have to be good at.

Substance is irrelevant, probably redundant, to these people.