Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Justice Sotomayor lied at confirmation, 'Sotomayor targets guns now', David Kopel TWT

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Justice Sotomayor lied at confirmation, 'Sotomayor targets guns now', David Kopel TWT

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...gets-guns-now/

    KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now, Justice's dissent contradicts confirmation testimony

    Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

    Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.

    The Breyer-Sotomayor-Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissent urged that Heller be overruled and declared, "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."

    Contrast that with her Senate testimony: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." And, "I understand how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans."

    Yet her McDonald opinion shows her "understanding" that those many, many Americans are completely wrong to think they have a meaningful individual right.

    To the Senate Judiciary Committee, Justice Sotomayor repeatedly averred that Heller is "settled law." The Associated Press reported that Sen. Mark Udall, Colorado Democrat, "said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases."

    So by "settled," she apparently meant "not settled; should be overturned immediately."

    In the McDonald case, the Breyer-Sotomayor-Ginsburg dissent recapitulated various arguments that had been made in Heller by the dissenting justices. The dissenters also said Heller should be overturned because some law-review articles had criticized Heller. If criticism by a handful of law-review articles were the criterion for overturning a precedent, almost every major Supreme Court precedent would be overruled.

    Besides, there also are plenty of law-journal articles that praise Heller and point out serious logical and historical errors that the anti-Second Amendment dissenters made in Heller.

    Another argument that Breyer-Sotomayor-Ginsburg made for getting rid of Heller pointed to a McDonald amicus brief by some legal historians. That brief discussed the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which was enacted by Parliament after the despotic Stuart monarchs were ousted in the Glorious Revolution. The Declaration guaranteed "[t]hat the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." This guarantee was an ancestor of the Second Amendment.

    According to the historians, the declaration didn't actually mean that Protestants (98 percent of the population) could have arms for their defense. It meant that Parliament could arm the militia.

    Those English parliamentarians apparently had great difficulty in straightforwardly expressing what they meant, as they forgot to say "Parliament" and "militia" in their new law about Parliament arming the militia.

    It's a creative argument, but it's not new. The same theory had been presented to the court in the Heller case.

    Justices Breyer and Ginsburg should be free to rail against Heller all they want. They never promised anyone that they considered Heller to be "settled law." To get confirmed to the court, they never touted their understanding of "how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans." Sonia Sotomayor, however, promised to do one thing and then did the opposite.

    The Sotomayor switcheroo highlights the necessity for the Senate to conduct a serious inquiry into Solicitor General Elena Kagan's views on the Second Amendment. Later this week, I will testify to the Judiciary Committee about Ms. Kagan's record on guns during her service in the Clinton administration. That record hardly inspires confidence that she has any respect for the rights of gun owners, but perhaps she has changed.

    The Senate should not let itself by pacified with non-answers, platitudes and evasions.

    Heller is one vote away from being overruled. Many senators from both parties strongly support the Heller decision and the right to bear arms. That's why 58 of them joined an amicus brief in McDonald urging that the Chicago handgun ban be declared unconstitutional.

    With four justices over the age of 70, President Obama may have several more Supreme Court appointments in the next two to six years. The Sotomayor experience shows why it's crucial for senators to demand serious answers about where a nominee stands on the Second Amendment.

    David Kopel is research director at the Independence Institute and an adjunct law professor at Denver University.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I don't really have the hang of this whole political process thing, yet. (But, I'm working on it, you fed bozo's.)

    It seems to me that the whole confirmation process is just theater. Neither party really cares about rights. They only care about their own personal interests and either their party staying in power, or their party getting back in power.

    All the Republicrats, every one, could yowl and yammer against Kagan and ask all sorts of damning questions; and they would turn right around and pass another bill sending the national debt beyond the orbit of Pluto. (I suspect the only reason they have any concern about the debt now is because it is so big any pro-bigger-debt bills will make it hard to get themselves re-elected, and they are starting to realize the debt is so huge it might ruin everybody's game, but especially their own. You can't play the ear-mark game when all the money is going out to pay interest on the debt. You can't buy the votes of more seniors with more entitlements if the money to pay for the entitlements is going out to pay interest on the debt.)

    I think Kagan will be confirmed with lots of noise for posturing sake. And, any attempted blocking will only be geared to supporting their own game later, the heck with the rest of us out here in recession land. As long as we are duped into supporting them because they "opposed" Kagan, they will be happy.

    I don't think more than maybe two Republicrats or Democans is going to lose any sleep over Sotomayor's switcheroo. Neither will they really care if Kagan does the same.

    I think this is all nothing more than the inter-faction fighting as power swaps back and forth between parties that Calhoun describes in A Disquisition on Government. The problem is that they have the ability to fight over something, and dupe the rest of us with it. Not the actual issue about which they are fighting.

    So, in closing, for the article Doug quotes to say there is some sort of necessity for the Senate to inquire closely into Kagan's views on the 2A is setting readers up for a loss. The Senate will not inquire closely, and even if they did, it would hardly be done for any legitimate purpose. Nor, would it benefit us peons in recession land except to build more public anger at liberals, which just plays into the Republicrats hands in wanting to get themselves back in power.
    Last edited by Citizen; 06-29-2010 at 11:13 PM.

  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    If the nominee is going to sit there and tell bold-faced lies to the Committee and to the American people, why even bother asking tough questions... or any questions at all?

    Why don't they just ask her how she's going to decorate the office? Or where she's going to spend her summer vacations?

    This absolutely infuriates me. "It's good work if you can get it." Apparently all you have to do is go tell a bunch of lies designed to moderately placate the middle, so you get that filibuster-proof margin, and you're on the proverbial "Easy Street".

    If evidence like this doesn't convince my two (Virginia) Senators, who both ran on pro-gun, pro-2A platforms that Kagan should not be confirmed, then nothing will. And I know that nothing will, even before I start.

    TFred

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    204
    Obama. Sotomayor. Kagan. Get it?

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Obama in la menage is sick.

    Kagan and Sotomayor I might 'get', their proclivities are known, but add Obama to la menage and that's just sick. Eww!

    But, Sotomayor told the lie to be confirmed and we cannot trust Kagan not to lie too.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Wasn't her Senate testimony under oath? Didn't she perjure herself? Doesn't that fall outside of the "good behavior" clause in the Constitution?

    Why oh why don't we start impeaching these justices? There are maybe one or two that don't deserve it.

    These justices need to be brought back in line. Without an impeachment process that's used when needed THEY are the usurpers and they have been consistently used as such ever since the 1800's.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    Wasn't her Senate testimony under oath? Didn't she perjure herself? Doesn't that fall outside of the "good behavior" clause in the Constitution?

    Why oh why don't we start impeaching these justices? There are maybe one or two that don't deserve it.

    These justices need to be brought back in line. Without an impeachment process that's used when needed THEY are the usurpers and they have been consistently used as such ever since the 1800's.
    Justice Sotomayor did not perjure herself. She expressed that she understood the individual right in Heller and that she saw it as settled law that would guide her decisions in the future. At worst she changed her mind (which does not make the pre-change statements lies). At best, the ruling did guide her decision: to plead that settled law be changed, which it can be. Clearly, McDonald changed what had been settled law.

    We throw the words "lie" and "perjury" around too much, diluting their meaning, making it easy to dismiss real lies and real perjury--to the nation's detriment.

    On a practical level, no way Sotomayor gets impeached or convicted. The Democrat House has to impeach (it won't), and the Democrat Senate has to convict (it won't). So, put that out of your mind.

    The way to deal with these nominations is to fight them before confirmation. Call your senator and urge him to participate in a filibuster of Kagan. It probably won't work, but it's the only real way we can try to make a difference now. In November, send more gun-friendly folks to DC and more folks who will actively oppose judges who will legislate from the bench, not just pay such opposition lip service.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    What agenda do the kagan/sotomayor apologists have? 400,000 G00gle hits on "lie".

    http://www.google.com/search?q=sotom...nfirmation+lie

    About 400,000 results

    What agenda do the Kagan/Sotomayor apologists have?

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    The way to deal with these nominations is to fight them before confirmation. Call your senator and urge him to participate in a filibuster of Kagan. It probably won't work, but it's the only real way we can try to make a difference now. In November, send more gun-friendly folks to DC and more folks who will actively oppose judges who will legislate from the bench, not just pay such opposition lip service.

    I disagree that fighting them before confirmation will do much good. It hasn't yet. They'll just "change their minds" as you put it, afterwards. There needs to be consequences when justices cease interpreting the law in light of the constitution. We need to use the impeachment process whether it actually removes them from office or not. When activism is clearly evident in an opinion that should be grounds for impeachment. Is it? Probably not, even though I'd call it treason.

    These justices are too much like kings, appointed for life, dictating the course of the country. We need to use our elected officials to get rid of these kings when they're naughty.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet View Post
    I disagree that fighting them before confirmation will do much good. It hasn't yet. They'll just "change their minds" as you put it, afterwards. There needs to be consequences when justices cease interpreting the law in light of the constitution. We need to use the impeachment process whether it actually removes them from office or not. When activism is clearly evident in an opinion that should be grounds for impeachment. Is it? Probably not, even though I'd call it treason.

    These justices are too much like kings, appointed for life, dictating the course of the country. We need to use our elected officials to get rid of these kings when they're naughty.
    I totally agree!! Lets start with King Obama!!!

  11. #11
    Regular Member Don Tomas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    106
    Honestly now, is anybody here really that surprised? Want to know an easy way to know if a Democrat is lying to you? Their lips move.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Grennsboro NC
    Posts
    5,358
    Kagan has apparently seen herself as a self-appointed elitist who knows better than everyone around her since she was a child. Apparently, even though she was raised in Conservative Jewish household, when time came for her Bat Mitzva, she didn't agree with the Conservative Rabbi as to how it should be done, and made a big stink about re-writing parts of it to suit her needs, desires and interpretations of this ancient ritual.

    Even at the age of 12, Elena Kagan saw herself as being superior to "established authority" ad comported herself with utter contempt for ancient traditions, historical precedent, and established legal precedent. Instead of reading from the Torah, as is the standard for millenia, Kagan, in her pubertal superiority, read from the Book of Ruth, and then proceeded to deliver a lecture analyzing the reading. She took a sacred Jewish traditional ritual, and turned it into a pseudo-feminist screed, politicizing one of the most sacred Jewish rituals into a bully pulpit.

    Apparently, even the Torah wasn't "settled law" for Elena Kagan's elitist 12-year-old mind. And so began her career. And thus has it ever been...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/13/ny...synagogue.html
    Last edited by Dreamer; 06-30-2010 at 10:41 AM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Huck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Evanston, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    647
    I doubt that anyone who's approved of by Hussein Okenya can be counted on to uphold the Constitution.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran Cavalryman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    308
    Seriously...Which part surprises people? The fact that Obama nominated a gun-grabber to the Supreme Court, or the fact that said gun-grabber looked right at the Senate and lied out her @$$ to get what she wanted?

    Neither part surprised me.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    137
    Elections have consequences. We reelect OBama in '12, the supreme court could turn from having 5 Constitutional scholars and 4 judicial activists to a majority of judicial activists. The five scholars are not going to live nor serve forever. If given the chance,the drunk with power president can change the makeup of the supreme court which will end the tide of pro second amendment victories. Sotomayor and Kagan are just the beginning.
    .

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by c45man View Post
    Elections have consequences. We reelect OBama in '12, the supreme court could turn from having 5 Constitutional scholars and 4 judicial activists to a majority of judicial activists. The five scholars are not going to live nor serve forever. If given the chance,the drunk with power president can change the makeup of the supreme court which will end the tide of pro second amendment victories. Sotomayor and Kagan are just the beginning.
    .
    One would think they would be concerned about destabilizing the country by wrecking the government system of checks and balances. Every book on government I have read points out that, historically, such factional infighting for control of the government ends in an appeal to force, the populace ripe for a demogogue who promises stability. There is no guarantee for either faction that they will come out on top.

  17. #17
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705
    Quote Originally Posted by c45man View Post
    Elections have consequences. We reelect OBama in '12, the supreme court could turn from having 5 Constitutional scholars and 4 judicial activists to a majority of judicial activists. The five scholars are not going to live nor serve forever. If given the chance,the drunk with power president can change the makeup of the supreme court which will end the tide of pro second amendment victories. Sotomayor and Kagan are just the beginning.
    .
    That's exactly right. In the article I posted yesterday, the author observed that the dissents in both Heller and McDonald were clearly written to form a platform in support of an eventual reversal, should the court ever gain the required ideological slant to do so. It's a very scary prospect.

    TFred

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    That's exactly right. In the article I posted yesterday, the author observed that the dissents in both Heller and McDonald were clearly written to form a platform in support of an eventual reversal, should the court ever gain the required ideological slant to do so. It's a very scary prospect.
    I'm scared that we may never get to the point where that reversal decision is being made.

    The rocket ride of rights infringements is accelerating. And, it is not just rights. They are eating out chunks of the constitutional architecture. Did anyone notice that one of the big stimulus bills originated in the Senate, even though the Constitution clearly says spending bills can only originate in the House. Congressmen and Senators vote on bills without even reading them for Christ's sake. How much further can this deteriorate before there is a crisis, before we reach the straw that broke the camel's back.

    The fighting and jockeying between both major parties is alarming as hell. According to history, this stuff ends in social chaos and bloodshed.

    Add in a recession so deep it is arguably a depression, and I wonder just how close we might be to social upheaval, to actually actually needing our guns, not to fight off an over-reaching government, but to fight off which ever wanna-be tyrant promises to step in and end the political fighting and deterioration. You can be sure whoever it is, or whichever cabal or faction, the first thing they will declare is that the constitution is broken and a new system needs to be arranged.
    Last edited by Citizen; 07-01-2010 at 12:04 AM.

  19. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    McDonald and Heller are reversals. Reversals happen. I think the inability to gain a reversal in Roe, together with the over-reliance on the claim of stare decisis during confirmation hearings, has somehow convinced the American public that reversals are stunningly rare.

    They are rare, but not that rare. All the more reason to be vigilant at the ballot box--and the main reason I think that the American voting public acted extremely foolishly in the last two elections.

    We need a president who will nominate justices who respect the Constitution and a Senate that will demand such nominees and reject activists.

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Can a Supreme Court Justice be forced to permanently recuse themselves from an issue for having LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE about it?

    How about lying to Congress? Does that carry any penalties? If I'm not mistaken, it most certainly DOES, and when she did so last summer, she was not yet a SCOTUS judge.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •