Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Here come the Anti's...
When I read about his pick this morning I was thinking, "what happened to picking the most qualified instead of making a pure political choice." He is doing nothing here other than throwing his liberal buddies a bone. Especially since he has had to cave on some of their dream list promises.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals dont believe in either of them.
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Here come the Anti's...
Holy Crap. I was doing some reading on this women. Here is a line that really bothers me. She stated that the SCOTUS makes the laws. Makes the laws? What the frank? I thought they interpreted the constitutiion and made judgement on the legality of issues. Unbelievable.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals dont believe in either of them.
ipscshooter: Where did you read she would vote against incorporation? I rapidly scanned the link, but missed this reference.
I am alarmed at her statement -- recorded at UC Berkley -- that judges make policy. This clearly indicates she would be an "activist" style of judge, which is totally bogus in my view.
I am less alarmed by the quoted statement she made that a "wise Latina would make better decisions than a white man." or something to that effect. I think looking at the context and looking at other hedging statements she made, that the statement is reasonable. Sure, a judge is supposed to be totally objective. It is a fact of life, however, that all of us are imperfect and limited in our abilities to be objective. We all have our limitations and our specific experience of life is one of these. Just reading this statement on the face of it makes it sound like she thinks this experience is better or "truer" than the experience of a white male, but again, in context, I think that was not the intention of her statement.
Having said that, I sure hope the Republicans beat the living tar out of her and make hay out of everything they can. How about "Borking" her, in the best tradition of the Democrats, based on these bold and intemperate utterances?!!! Taking a play from the Democrats, it isn't the essence and substance that matters but rather the surface appearances that count. Maybe the Republicans can roll out a maleequivalent of Anita Hill to damage her? The Democrats have to realize these bad practices of government they have been rolling out over the last decade or two are teaching Republicans these same bad practices.
The link has been edited since I cited it earlier. Here's some stuff that I found:
Quote:
Second Amendment Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In this case, Maloney v. Cuomo, the court noted that the Supreme Court's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of the District's gun control law, did not invalidate this principle, and "to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle," earlier Supreme Court rulings took precedence in the case.
[/align] "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."
"Opinion of the court, including Judge Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)
Related documents Maloney v. Cuomo
We had all better hope that some dirt is found on her...enough for her not to be confirmed...or trouble will follow...pure political choice not the most qualified; but what did you expect from BHO?
__________________
Bowtech Destroyer 350,Elite XLR, Crimson Talon 125's and NAP Bloodrunners also 125 Grim Reapers
We had all better hope that some dirt is found on her...enough for her not to be confirmed...or trouble will follow...pure political choice not the most qualified; but what did you expect from BHO?
I wonder if such a rabidly activist piece of crap like Sotomayor might drive the other left-leaning judges to the right ?
I understand the court has a 'conservative' and a 'liberal' contingent, but I don't know how activist the liberal side may be, or how much a puke like Sotomayor might disgust even the libs on the court....(trolling for comments, here...)
So much for the claim by some on this board that Republican presidents pick only pro-gun federal judges.
I'm curious as to who made that claim. I suspect the claim is that Republican Presidents are more likely to pick pro-gun federal judges than a Democrat president, not that they pick only pro-gun judges.
Here come the Anti's...
