SShepherd
New member
that lieing bitch should be asked to resign
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
-
Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/
told you so
- Thread starter SShepherd
- Start date
that lieing bitch should be asked to resign
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
As the article indicates, it is pretty obvious where Kagan would stand and how truthful her answers would be.
I'm glad the political make up of the court is not in jeopardy with the Kagan nomination.
Yes, I am. I'm shocked that Sotomayer didn't burst into flames during her lying testimony. But no, I'm not shocked that she is a liar or that she voted against the 2nd Amendment.
Now with Kagan it strikes me that there should be a Republican fillibuster. This lady does not deserve to be on the court.
Sotomayer reasonably had the qualifications to be considered, not saying she was a good choice because I don't think that was true, but she was at least minimally qualified so the President could stand behind her nomination as valid. I don't see that with Kagan. Kagan should not be on the court based on what she has written.
that lieing bitch should be asked to resign
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
Where is it shown that Sotomayor is deserving of the title "lieing bitch?"
SShepherd
New member
if she lied in her conformation hearings.........she deserves the title
What lie did she commit?
loboloco
Well-known member
FYI folks, these are the requirements for a Supreme court justice.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
loboloco
Well-known member
Now jpr, pls read the two quotes. They are directly contradictory, yet made by the same person on the same issue. Maybe, by a great stretch, one could think she was only confused, but most less charitable people would consider the first statement, given her actions, as a lie.
I read it myself and don't see a contradiction either in her statement pointing to a lie.
In the Heller case if I remember it the 2nd Amendment was applied to DC which is not a state and comes under Federal Law only so local laws must comply with Federal laws as in the Constitution. At that point there was no ruling on a states right to create their own rules on guns.
Now in the Chicago case it involved states rights in regards to the 2nd Amendment which she voted against but it was untested law, until it was up held by the recent SCOTUS with a 5 to 4 vote. Now I disagree with her vote on it as it applies to states right or cities within those states. There are other laws applied on a state by state level that also could be tested under other amendments under the Constitution. Not all have been tested in the SCOTUS as of yet. One that comes to mind is the one in regards to states creating their own laws on immigration. This is actually the right of the Federal laws over states but again it hasn't been tested all the way yet.
In the Heller case if I remember it the 2nd Amendment was applied to DC which is not a state and comes under Federal Law only so local laws must comply with Federal laws as in the Constitution. At that point there was no ruling on a states right to create their own rules on guns.
Now in the Chicago case it involved states rights in regards to the 2nd Amendment which she voted against but it was untested law, until it was up held by the recent SCOTUS with a 5 to 4 vote. Now I disagree with her vote on it as it applies to states right or cities within those states. There are other laws applied on a state by state level that also could be tested under other amendments under the Constitution. Not all have been tested in the SCOTUS as of yet. One that comes to mind is the one in regards to states creating their own laws on immigration. This is actually the right of the Federal laws over states but again it hasn't been tested all the way yet.
loboloco
Well-known member
Both cases hinged on the 2bd amendment right to bear arms. In both instances, local municipalities had banned the ownership of handguns. Heller, as the court stated it, also applied to the states. They only confirmed this in the Chicago case.
The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and as the constitution states "shall not be infringed".
The right to bear arms is the right to bear arms, and as the constitution states "shall not be infringed".
This:
Is still commensurate with this:
Since the Second Amendment reads:
Furthermore, the linked article links to another article which points out that Sotomayor voted consistently with the Heller decision in Maloney v. Cuomo. Link: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/07/sonia-sotomary-explicitly-supports.html
I still don't see a "lie" here. In fact, she appears to be upholding the law, and not taking an activist view (so far as her tenure on the 9th Circuit is concerned).
Is still commensurate with this:
Since the Second Amendment reads:
Furthermore, the linked article links to another article which points out that Sotomayor voted consistently with the Heller decision in Maloney v. Cuomo. Link: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2009/07/sonia-sotomary-explicitly-supports.html
I still don't see a "lie" here. In fact, she appears to be upholding the law, and not taking an activist view (so far as her tenure on the 9th Circuit is concerned).
Actually, Scalia specifically noted that they were not addressing the state issue in the Heller decision. Heller only applies to Federal restrictions on guns, not state law.
I am with you on this JPR.... The second quote lacks some punctuation (I think) to be grammatically correct which can make it seem contradictory when it isn't. The key word here is "insofar." I also don't see what makes her a "bitch" either... I usually reserve that title for women I actually know.. like my baby sister whom I love, but don't like most of the time...
loboloco
Well-known member
Oh, I wouldn't call her a bitch either, just a liar. Scalia was wrongfully ignoring the 14th amendment applications as well as the 10th amendment in that statement.
JMO. the first question every SCOTUS justice should ask themselves on a case, "does the 10th amendment apply?' second: "does the 14th amendment apply?" Only after that should the case be heard.
JMO. the first question every SCOTUS justice should ask themselves on a case, "does the 10th amendment apply?' second: "does the 14th amendment apply?" Only after that should the case be heard.
OT for sure ..., you look a little old to have a 'baby sitter' but I bet play time could sure be 'interesting'
SShepherd
New member
rotfl.........you can poo poo my use of the word "bitch " all you like
anyone who lies just to get elected is a bottom feeding, no account bitch--man or woman
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...gan-nomination-as-key-vote-against-gun-rights
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has called Sotomayor’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer a “confirmation conversion.”
Cornyn on Tuesday referred to Sotomayor’s recent dissent to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on guns in which she wrote that the “framers did not write the 2nd Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
“Now it is disconcerting to say the least,” Cornyn said. “It appears to be a direct contradiction to what Sotomayor said in her hearings.”
anyone who lies just to get elected is a bottom feeding, no account bitch--man or woman
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...gan-nomination-as-key-vote-against-gun-rights
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has called Sotomayor’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer a “confirmation conversion.”
Cornyn on Tuesday referred to Sotomayor’s recent dissent to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on guns in which she wrote that the “framers did not write the 2nd Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
“Now it is disconcerting to say the least,” Cornyn said. “It appears to be a direct contradiction to what Sotomayor said in her hearings.”
rotfl.........you can poo poo my use of the word "bitch " all you like
anyone who lies just to get elected is a bottom feeding, no account bitch--man or woman
http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...gan-nomination-as-key-vote-against-gun-rights
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) has called Sotomayor’s testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last summer a “confirmation conversion.”
Cornyn on Tuesday referred to Sotomayor’s recent dissent to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on guns in which she wrote that the “framers did not write the 2nd Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.”
“Now it is disconcerting to say the least,” Cornyn said. “It appears to be a direct contradiction to what Sotomayor said in her hearings.”
Or Senator Cornyn is engaging in intellectual dishonesty for purposes of political gain.
Explain please.
While I don't see any politician as honest, I don't see your point being made by the evidence in the story or other similar news stories about her seeming support of gun rights from the hearings to the McDonald v Chicago dissent where she says she sees no individual right.
SShepherd
New member
here's more to back up her anti 2nd amendment stance:
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/30/sonia-sotomayor-and-the-second
http://reason.com/blog/2010/06/30/sonia-sotomayor-and-the-second
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....
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."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/sotomayor-targets-guns-now//?page=1
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.
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."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jun/29/sotomayor-targets-guns-now//?page=1
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.
A clear infraction of
"The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"
She did not say she agreed with the concepts; all she said was she understood them. So, she told the truth.
A con job.
Where did she say that she supports individual gun rights, versus those expressly protected by the 2nd?
One and the same.
I was referring to this comment you made and asking you to explain why you believe that Senator Cornyn may have been intellectually dishonest: Or Senator Cornyn is engaging in intellectual dishonesty for purposes of political gain.
While I realize that, in the insulated bubble world of politicians and lawyers, people can and will professionally parse words for ill intent, I believe the "intellectual dishonesty for purposes of political gain" charge should be leveled at Justice Sotomoyer not as Senator Cornyn. She is the one who used very selective wording to gain politically.
However back to your post where you asked "Where did she say that she supports individual gun rights, versus those expressly protected by the 2nd?" (which is a point I was not addressing) it is clear that Justice Sotomayer stated this: "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." Now it doesn't say she agrees with it, or supports it, it just says she understands it. See my paragraph above about intellectual dishonesty.
Until Heller & McDonald, the SCOTUS disagreed with you.
Why is this statement dishonest, even though it's entirely accurate, while Cornyn's comment is ok, even though it's entirely inaccurate?
Clearly I do not understand what you are saying.
You say that Cornyn's statement is dishonest because he is speaking in plain language but that Sotomayer is being honest because she is parsing and manipulating to intentionally deceive people.
This is why I am not a fan of lawyers.
You say that Cornyn's statement is dishonest because he is speaking in plain language but that Sotomayer is being honest because she is parsing and manipulating to intentionally deceive people.
This is why I am not a fan of lawyers.