Sotomayor

[dbrodin]

Sotomayor just stated in her confirmation hearing that the 2nd amendment applies to Federal law only.

[bcj1755]

Yet another one of Barry's people that hasn't even read the Constitution I guess she's a "Constitutional scholar" just like The Hussein

[USMC-03]

Therefore so does the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc... Let her argue that.

[ponycar17]

Any politician that votes for her is committing a crime against our Republic. It's too bad that hardly anyone will hold them accountable at the voting booth. I don't see any better way to put it... She openly advocates an interpretation of The Constitution of our United States that is subjective and progressive. In other words, she'd like nothing better than to continually shape, and not interpret law. What's more troubling is that Obama said that Sotomayor's interpretation of the Constitution closely matches that of his own, as if we needed to be told...

[Lori Mick]

She's lying thru her teeth....
just my two cents....

sigh

[dbrodin]

Originally Posted by Lori Mick

She's lying thru her teeth....
just my two cents....

sigh

Senator Graham all but called her a Jekyll and Hyde. He gain a lot of points with me this afternoon.

[user]

She is a member of a cultural group that regards rationalization as truth. What I want to know is how a sixth such member on the Court will contribute diversity.

[dbrodin]

Originally Posted by USMC-03

Therefore so does the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, etc... Let her argue that.

Actually, if you read it, the 1st could be interpreted to be only Federal. "Congress shall make no law" doesn't say anything about the states, and is pretty specific.

[USMC-03]

Originally Posted by dbrodin

Actually, if you read it, the 1st could be interpreted to be only Federal. "Congress shall make no law" doesn't say anything about the states, and is pretty specific.

True, but there is plenty of president to shows it applies to the states and localities.

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by dbrodin

Senator Graham all but called her a Jekyll and Hyde. He gain a lot of points with me this afternoon.

Don't give him too many points. He would be the one to know about saying one thing and doing another thing entirely.

It's sickening that he keeps getting elected here. I did like what he said to Sotomayor but he's a full-time campaigner. What he said will be used as campaign sound bytes regardless of whether he votes to confirm her or not...

[jacksonco]

Originally Posted by dbrodin

Actually, if you read it, the 1st could be interpreted to be only Federal. "Congress shall make no law" doesn't say anything about the states, and is pretty specific.

Dang if you ain't sharper than a tack on steroids. Do you have any law schooling behind you? Just curious because I have never read it that way before. So as that is written and your interpretation of it the Federal Government has no authority to make any laws regarding the manufacture and sale of firearms. It seems like it would be an issue left up to the States to make law regarding firearms.

That would be cool in West Virginia because in our State Constitution we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. But for the states that restrict firearms it would not be so good.

Mind you this is a just what if scenario.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by Lori Mick

She's lying thru her teeth....
just my two cents....

sigh

She's only lying in regards to her "Latina Women" statement. She really believes we have no right to keep and bear arms. She is just another racially & minority motivated legislate from the bench equal results required liberal b_ _ _h.

So, how was your day?

Honorable John Cornyn had better vote no on this feminazi or I will campaign against him and write him every day and bug the S out of him and make his days so long and miserable that he will want to quit. I'm sure Kay will vote for her, but if she wants to run for Governor of Texas she better not.

Good Lord, look at what we have become.

[kingchip]

Originally Posted by 45nut

She's only lying in regards to her "Latina Women" statement. She really believes we have no right to keep and bear arms. She is just another racially & minority motivated legislate from the bench equal results required liberal b_ _ _h.

So, how was your day?

Honorable John Cornyn had better vote no on this feminazi or I will campaign against him and write him every day and bug the S out of him and make his days so long and miserable that he will want to quit. I'm sure Kay will vote for her, but if she wants to run for Governor of Texas she better not.

Good Lord, look at what we have become.

I think Cornyn will vote no. As for Kay, I'm not sure. We are in bad shape for Guv next time around.

Either way, I'm pretty sure we're stuck with this bigot for a long time. It's just the next step towards obamageddon.

[45nut]

Dear Honorable Cornyn,

I think Judge Sotomayor may be a good person, but she is the wrong person to serve on the Supreme Court.

She doesn't believe that the Second Amendment applies to the states, only DC. Clearly she does not understand the basic tenants of our Founding Documents. The United States Constitution is not a living document. It states the tenants of our Founding Fathers and is the Foundation of our lives. It must not be rendered ineffective by judges legislating from the bench.

Even if 25% of your constituents are Hispanic or Latino, I bet 75% of your constituents are gun owners. You owe the gun owners of Texas a stand up vote to deny another liberal gun grabber the power to threaten our Bill of Rights.

Please do not vote to confirm this woman to the Supreme Court so she can ram more Socialism down the throats of your countrymen.

Respectfully,
Steve

That was hard. I would really like to spout fire and cast that harlot into the lake of fire....... but what'cha gonna do?

[bcj1755]

Originally Posted by kingchip

I think Cornyn will vote no. As for Kay, I'm not sure. We are in bad shape for Guv next time around.

Either way, I'm pretty sure we're stuck with this bigot for a long time. It's just the next step towards obamageddon.

You have the old 50/50 split from your two Senators, too? I'm pretty sure Burr will vote against her, just as I'm sure that Hagan will vote for her.

[kingchip]

[QUOTE=bcj1755;474918]You have the old 50/50 split from your two Senators, too? I'm pretty sure Burr will vote against her, just as I'm sure that Hagan will vote for her.[/QUOTE


Actually, both are republican, but one has gone strictly politician on us, and at a really bad time.
I've voted for K several times, but I'm afraid she is becoming or is just another cog in the DC wheel. she is supposed to be running for Guv and will play the PC thing until the election .

On the governor level, if Perry would keep the secession thing going, I might just go for him, but bottom line, a conservative can't win this time.

[lynxpilot]

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 14th

Bill of Rights (1-10) defines privilges and immunities. Right of 'the people' to bear arms is one of those. It addresses individuals and is an inalienable right. Couldn't be any more clear.

[Bobitis]

I'm going to ask again, as NO ONE has been able to answer the question.

Judges are sposed to be non-partisan. NO?

That's the way it works here.
Voter pamphlet says 'Non-Partisan'.

That's the way I WANT it.

Any bias in interpreting the law is grounds for rejection!

This woman has bias flying out of her, um........

[ponycar17]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

I'm going to ask again, as NO ONE has been able to answer the question.

Judges are sposed to be non-partisan. NO?

That's the way it works here.
Voter pamphlet says 'Non-Partisan'.

That's the way I WANT it.

Any bias in interpreting the law is grounds for rejection!

This woman has bias flying out of her, um........

This is the way I see it... (maybe I'm wrong?) Judges wear black as a symbolic gesture to show that they're masking their personal opinions. Justice wears a blindfold because she does not care to see and feel empathy; only to interpret the law. So, how does feeling empathy in the decision-making process uphold The Constitution of The United States? The answer is that it doesn't... That's why I say that anyone who votes for this lady is guilty of crimes against our once-great Republic.

Barack Obama is quoted as saying that he's looking for a Justice with empathy...

But President Obama, who will choose the nominee, focused not on volatile ideological questions but on personal character, saying he wanted someone with "empathy" for "people's hopes and struggles."

Making a surprise appearance in the White House press briefing room, Obama told reporters that he had just talked with Souter by phone about his retirement, which is to take effect at the end of this court term, probably in June. It was the first official confirmation of the justice's departure.

Obama said that in considering a successor for Souter, he was looking for a "sharp and independent mind" and a sense of compassion.

"I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook," he said. "It's also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/may...-court-souter2

Sorry Mr. Obama but that's not a Judge's job!!!

[momo]

This woman stands for nothing, she just wants to get confirmed and will say anything to that end. That should scare the crap out of the rest of us!

[kingchip]

Kinda reminds you of the appointor.........appointer.....whatever.

[45nut]

Originally Posted by kingchip

I've voted for K several times, but I'm afraid she is becoming or is just another cog in the DC wheel. she is supposed to be running for Guv and will play the PC thing until the election .

On the governor level, if Perry would keep the secession thing going, I might just go for him, but bottom line, a conservative can't win this time.

The way I see it, Perry is acting more conservative because Kay is going to run and he needs to appear more conservative than her. If he meant the secesh talk, I'd really get exited, but he is just a sorry @$$ politician in his own right and not much better than Kay.

I wish Chuck Norris or Ted Nugent would run for Governor.

[alhefner]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

I'm going to ask again, as NO ONE has been able to answer the question.

Judges are sposed to be non-partisan. NO?

That's the way it works here.
Voter pamphlet says 'Non-Partisan'.

That's the way I WANT it.

Any bias in interpreting the law is grounds for rejection!

This woman has bias flying out of her, um........

Yes, judges at all levels are supposed to be non-partisan. That isn't the case but that is the intent.

I agree, any bias on the bench is grounds for immediate removal / rejection!

The job of judge is to apply the law as it is written. No more and certainly no less.

[Kieran McCaig]

could someone explain it to me is it about federal and state laws or them just wanting our gun up north and out of the loop

[alhefner]

Originally Posted by Kieran McCaig

could someone explain it to me is it about federal and state laws or them just wanting our gun up north and out of the loop

The supreme court is about federal law and how that law applies to the several states.

Sotomayor has made public her stance that the second amendment does not apply to state law but only to federal law as in the Heller case of D.C.

If that stance gains support in the supreme court, your state can outlaw the private ownership of all firearms.

The 14th amendment was supposed to ensure that basic rights, and firearms ownership and possession is one of those basic rights, are not infringed by state or local law. We are still fighting that battle!