Sotomayor hearings begin as more gun groups oppose

imported post

Sotomayor hearings begin as more gun groups oppose

http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Sotomayor-hearings-begin-more-gun-groups-weigh-in-against-her



If that doesn't work, try this:

http://tinyurl.com/mvtuq7

imported post

I can't wait until she's confirmed so I never have to hear her name and the same old, tired quotesfrom the right-wingers again.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

I can't wait until she's confirmed so I never have to hear her name and the same old, tired quotesfrom the right-wingers again.

Click to expand...

They may be old quotes, run through the mill, drug through the mud, and slung all over the place...

But if we didn't hold people to what they say then what good is knowing it?

She actually said this stuff and it's very troubling what's going on with her, this county has had a long long battle for civil rights for minorities, and it's a s@#$y double standard that a Latina woman can say such a thing, imagine if Bush said he was more qualified than a black man in 1999 and 2003?...

ESPECIALLY since one of the opinions signed by her states "..."the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

She also said that the limitations of the 2nd amendment, the states aren't limited by it, only the fed...WHAT? States can ignore the 2nd amendment? Don't tell California...

I'm pretty much not to pleased with her signing any opinions like that, and wonder where should would swing the court in regards to MY rights to own a gun and the rest of the constitution.


I know it's 99.99% definite that she's the next SCOTUS justice, but damn, if people didn't TRY to fight, then how strong would we be when something MAJOR, like another gun ban, came rolling through the legislature?

imported post

Johnny_B wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

I can't wait until she's confirmed so I never have to hear her name and the same old, tired quotesfrom the right-wingers again.

Click to expand...

They may be old quotes, run through the mill, drug through the mud, and slung all over the place...

But if we didn't hold people to what they say then what good is knowing it?

She actually said this stuff and it's very troubling what's going on with her, this county has had a long long battle for civil rights for minorities, and it's a s@#$y double standard that a Latina woman can say such a thing, imagine if Bush said he was more qualified than a black man in 1999 and 2003?...

ESPECIALLY since one of the opinions signed by her states "..."the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

She also said that the limitations of the 2nd amendment, the states aren't limited by it, only the fed...WHAT? States can ignore the 2nd amendment? Don't tell California...

I'm pretty much not to pleased with her signing any opinions like that, and wonder where should would swing the court in regards to MY rights to own a gun and the rest of the constitution.

Click to expand...

Absolutely nowhere. She's replacing a liberal justice anyway.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

Absolutely nowhere. She's replacing a liberal justice anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree with you I'm not trying to say that she's going to majorly change the make-up of the court, but Heller was a 5-4 vote, if a conservative, or the moderate drops off within Obama's Reign, then what?...

But as an independent, conservative, gun-owning, voting, American citizen, I'm NOT happy with what she's had to say in the past in regards to my rights and her stance in putting minorities on a higher plateau than the country as a whole.

imported post

Johnny_B wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

Absolutely nowhere. She's replacing a liberal justice anyway.

Click to expand...

I agree with you I'm not trying to say that she's going to majorly change the make-up of the court, but Heller was a 5-4 vote, if a conservative, or the moderate drops off within Obama's Reign, then what?...

But as an independent, conservative, gun-owning, voting, American citizen, I'm NOT happy with what she's had to say in the past in regards to my rights and her stance in putting minorities on a higher plateau than the country as a whole.

Click to expand...

I understand, and I at least give you credit for sticking to the quotes that are offensive even when taken in context. It's this crap that I'm tired off...

PerhapsAlabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, put it best when he said during his opening statement Monday morning, “I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is the traditional American legal system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to their own personal views.

“Down the other path,” he continued, “lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political and social agenda.”​

Click to expand...

That's a load of bullshit. She's been quoted multiple times as saying that everyone is biased. Give her credit for admitting it. She's also said that she, and everyone else, should try their hardest to leave their bias at the door and rule impartially. Again, she must be given credit for that. Instead, all the right-winger nut jobs have latched on to her admittance of her bias (this just in: EVERYONE IS BIASED, at least she has the fortitude and honesty to admit it) and they're running wild with it.



So she doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 2A, big whoop. Not everyone is going to, in fact, most don't.

Again, I also give you credit for not taking the "zomg she's the devil and will end America!!!!" approach. You don't like her take on the 2A, so you're against her nomination. Fair enough.

I guess what it boils down to is that I really have no problem with people that oppose her like you do. It's when you get the extremists involved, and all of a sudden she's the reincarnation of Satan, that I part ways. Give her credit where credit is due. Keep her quotes and rulings in context. If, at the end of the day, you still disagree with her, more power to you for doing it reasonably and intelligently.

imported post

AWDstylez wrote:

SNIP...

That's a load of bull@#$%. She's been quoted multiple times as saying that everyone is biased.

SNIP...

So she doesn't agree with your interpretation of the 2A, big whoop. Not everyone is going to, in fact, most don't.

SNIP...

Again, I also give you credit for not taking the "zomg she's the devil and will end America!!!!" approach. You don't like her take on the 2A, so you're against her nomination. Fair enough.

SNIP...

I guess what it boils down to is that I really have no problem with people that oppose her like you do. It's when you get the extremists involved, and all of a sudden she's the reincarnation of Satan, that I part ways. Give her credit where credit is due. Keep her quotes and rulings in context. If, at the end of the day, you still disagree with her, more power to you for doing it reasonably and intelligently.

Click to expand...

Yes, she had been quoted saying that everyone is biased, because judges take an OATH to BE impartial...that's another thing that bothers me about it, it's not singularly about my second amendment rights, it's about how her interpretations of the law are applied.

As she is saying now in front of the judiciary committee they follow "precedent" which seriously bothers me, if the supreme court says X decades ago, said this, we follow it, I know that is how appeals courts generally work, but refusing to even hear a case because something like that irks me.

I know most people don't agree with my 2nd amendment interpretation, that's okay, I'll argue my point, but it mostly falls on deaf ears (BOTH ways )

I don't think she's the devil, I am bothered as well that she immediately backs away from her "groups" and "memberships" to certain clubs (I think it was that elitist womens club that bothers me the most, we found out about her being in it, and she resigned from it.)

She has had good impacts in the past as a prosecuter, and a judge, but again, when do we really follow the millions of GOOD things that people do, we focus on the bad because it's the most readily seen and people care because its easier for people to cling to the bad. She has had good things done, but at her current hearing she's going back on many things she's said and twisting it back into "context" when many things aren't taken out of context in the first place. We'll see after today how I feel.