After watching the debates here on this piece of crap judge, it just makes laugh that some on here have so much trouble understanding if she is pro-gun or not.
If the question was posed to me, I would be walk around it. I would clearly and loudly proclaim it is a fundamental right to bear arms, or to own arms. And I am pro-gun. And even some on here have said I am moderate pro-gun. What does that make this witch?
I don't have a problem with Sotomayor's unwillingness to reply, at least based on the video I saw in your link. It was a very vague question with no facts to draw a judgment from. Of course she is going to hedge any answer she gives. It would have been nice to see a cogent, succinct question put to her about her view of the applicability of the "Incorporation Doctrine" to the second amendment. It seems she actually ruled on such a case -- Chicago gun ban -- where she wrote the incorporation doctrine does not apply to the second amendment!!!
Basically, the incorporation doctrine says not only can't the US government not abridge your right to free speech, neither can a state government or a municipal government. After all, it wouldn't be much of a protection, would it, if the state could willy-nilly prevent minorities from voting by reason of the color of their skin or their creed of beliefs. Why Sotomayor would catch at extending the same rational of the incorporation doctrine to the second amendment, I have no idea. But she did. I for one wrote my US senators specifically about this and urged them to NOT vote for Sotomayor on this basis alone. And I did it way back, maybe three or four weeks ago.
And I am pro-gun. And even some on here have said I am moderate pro-gun. What does that make [Sotomayor]?
A judge who deals with the law and precedent. If you want to call her anti-gun, you have to point to her rulings, which have not really been anti-gun and which were the same as the NRA v. Chicago ruling by conservatives on the 7th circuit.
It seems she actually ruled on such a case -- Chicago gun ban -- where she wrote the incorporation doctrine does not apply to the second amendment!!!
Wrong! Since she sits on the 2nd circuit (NY, CT and VT) and the Chicago gun ban in NRA v. Chicago was decided by a 7th circuit (IL, IN & WI) panel of conservative judges. It was based on the old Presser precedent. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel which decided Maloney v. Cuomo, which involved nunchucks, not a firearm. Folks call her anti-gun, regardless.
Wrong! Since she sits on the 2nd circuit (NY, CT and VT) and the Chicago gun ban in NRA v. Chicago was decided by a 7th circuit (IL, IN & WI) panel of conservative judges. It was based on the old Presser precedent. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel which decided Maloney v. Cuomo, which involved nunchucks, not a firearm. Folks call her anti-gun, regardless.
What you fail to understand as usual Beau, is I don't have to do jack. I don't have point to anything. See, thats what separates you from most on here. You want to know the difference? We can think, we can actually see things the way they are. We can see things with our eyes, not have to go to rulings. Where you need to be handfed (like a jury) info.
You follow the herd, I imagine you have always been sheep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beau Ouiville
A judge who deals with the law and precedent. If you want to call her anti-gun, you have to point to her rulings, which have not really been anti-gun and which were the same as the NRA v. Chicago ruling by conservatives on the 7th circuit.
Wrong! Since she sits on the 2nd circuit (NY, CT and VT) and the Chicago gun ban in NRA v. Chicago was decided by a 7th circuit (IL, IN & WI) panel of conservative judges. It was based on the old Presser precedent. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel which decided Maloney v. Cuomo, which involved nunchucks, not a firearm. Folks call her anti-gun, regardless.
Let's say, for the moment, that she is correct in relying on Presser (even though it relied on privileges and immunities incorporation rather than due process incorporation, which remains an open question), what do you think of her holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right"?
Let's say, for the moment, that she is correct in relying on Presser (even though it relied on privileges and immunities incorporation rather than due process incorporation, which remains an open question), what do you think of her holding that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right"?
She did not hold that. The panel in Maloney said that they were bound by precedent that the second amendment did not apply to the states and SCOTUS must decide the issue. Heller also stated that its ruling was very narrow and might not apply to the states. Presser found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right, but the second amendment does not apply to the states.
I think that if the issue ever gets to SCOTUS it will properly find that the second amendment does apply to the states.
Sotomayor on Gun Rights
