Did I say Elana Sotomayor? I meant Elana Kagan, my bad.Originally Posted by Desert News
You just ruined my breakfast. Now I'm nauseated. Why not have some SCOTUS Judges NOT from NY city. How many is this? Three? I think the "please help, God bless" transient by the interstate could do a better job of interpreting law.
LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting.
Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?
SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.
LEAHY: Thank you.
SOTOMAYOR: Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller."
Words mean a lot, especially when you're voting for someone. You're dealing with politicians here, not boy scouts.
Sotomayor said that she accepted the Heller decision and 'understood it'. She never said that she supported it.
Oh and also....
Nowhere in Kagan's statements will she say that she supports the majority decisions in either Heller or McDonald.
Last edited by Toymaker; 07-05-2010 at 11:10 AM.
I think to judges like Kagan and Sotomayor, a "compelling reason" would be ANY chance they have to overturn Heller or McDonald. I believe that if they had another case of similar type, the mere chance to overturn these rulings would be enough of a "compelling reason" for them. Since they are compelled by their gun-grabbing background, and they are beholding to Obama for their seats on the court, it's pretty obvious what a "compelling reason" would be for them...
There oughta be some sort of penalty for sitting in front of the Senate and lying out your @$$. But of course, as one of the senators said to Kagan, "When you're in, you're in" meaning that if/when she is confirmed, nothing she said in her confirmation hearing is binding.
Am I the only one who gets a little piss-shiver every time they show or mention her on TV?
To quote a movie, 'By the pricking of my thumbs, Something Wicked This Way Comes...'
The problem is that the word "lie" is being overused and misused. Broken promises, opinions with which one disagrees, changed opinions, etc. are not lies. In most cases, they are reprehensible, but not lies.
It is becoming a nasty habit in American politics to call many statements lies that are not. Before I use the "L-word," I use a three-pronged test.
1. Is the statement provably false as of the time it was made? (Note, opinions and promises can neither be true nor false.)
2. Does the person making the statement know that it is false?
3. Is the false statement being made for the personal gain of the person making it?
I see nothing wrong with criticizing Sotomayor's and Kagan's statements. I have no doubt that both set up situations where their positions on the issues could be spun to make them seem more harmless than they are. However, nothing either has said has been demonstrated as a lie.
When we misuse and overuse the word "lie," we get a lot of Rah-Rahs from those who think like us. However, if we want to change the hearts and minds of those who do not already agree with us, we ought to be more precise and rational, and less hyperbolic, with our accusations.
Ask Martha Stewart if there in a penalty for lying to congress. Always remember that the reason people should not steal is that the goverment hates competion and will retaliate.