Sotomayor named as Obama's pick

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

Sounds like a racist c*nt!

But yes, it sucks being white now. I don't get jack shit. My mexican friend got a full ride to A&M, just for being a semi-smart mexican. Ended up dropping out. But sure wouldn't want to help me because Im white and have above average grades!

[RA]

oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.

[quarry206]

oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.

i looked up for that in her past, and i did see where people claimed she has implied something close to that in one of her theses papers. but could not find any text supporting claims... but i will say i have learned other things about her that i have decided for myself i hope she doesn't get appointed because of a view of her past ruling..

her is a good page for people wanting to educate themselves about her general history. and if gives her court case history at the bottom from a view of cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor ...

as i have said many times before, its not that i approve or dis-approve of any political figure or in this case judge. i only defend the arguments that have no true merit. if you dislike somebody, or disapprove of them do it based on facts not feelings..

[Kratos]

oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.

yeah she doesn't like guns, it was more like
"the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

but aren't you happy that the supreme court looks a little more like a 30 year reunion of MTV real world? that's progress, don't stand in the way.

[Kratos]

oops I heard she, as a judge, said it was unconstitutional to own a gun...she can officially eat shyt and die.

Consider affirmative action. Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Ricci v. Destefano, which centered on charges of reverse discrimination at the New Haven, Connecticut fire department. In 2003 the department administered a test to fill 15 captain and lieutenant vacancies, but when the results came in, no African Americans made the cut (14 whites and one Hispanic earned the top scores). In response to local pressure, the city then refused to certify the results and decided instead to leave the positions open until a suitable new test was developed. This prompted a lawsuit from a group of white firefighters who had been denied promotion, including lead plaintiff Frank Ricci, a 34-year-old dyslexic who says he spent months preparing for the now-voided test by listening to audiotape study guides as he drove to work.

Ricci's suit was initially thrown out at the district court level, prompting an appeal to the Second Circuit. At that point Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion embracing the district court's analysis without offering any analysis of its own. This prompted fellow Second Circuit Judge Jose Cabranes—a liberal Democrat appointed by President Bill Clinton—to issue a stern rebuke. "The opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case," Cabranes wrote. "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."

It's an important point. Ricci gets at the very heart of the debate over whether the Constitution should be interpreted as a colorblind document. As the liberal legal commenter Emily Bazelon noted at Slate, "If Sotomayor and her colleagues were trying to shield the case from Supreme Court review, her punt had the opposite effect. It drew Cabranes' ire, and he hung a big red flag on the case, which the Supreme Court grabbed." Given that the Court is likely to side with Ricci and his fellow plaintiffs, Sotomayor's silent endorsement of New Haven's reverse discrimination is certain to come back to haunt her during her confirmation hearings.

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

[RA]

The fact that a very far left socialist nominated her would probably be enough for me even if I didnt know anything else.

i looked up for that in her past, and i did see where people claimed she has implied something close to that in one of her theses papers. but could not find any text supporting claims... but i will say i have learned other things about her that i have decided for myself i hope she doesn't get appointed because of a view of her past ruling..

her is a good page for people wanting to educate themselves about her general history. and if gives her court case history at the bottom from a view of cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor ...

as i have said many times before, its not that i approve or dis-approve of any political figure or in this case judge. i only defend the arguments that have no true merit. if you dislike somebody, or disapprove of them do it based on facts not feelings..

[RA]

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Game, set, match. She sucks.

[SMCengineer]

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/133722.html

Haha, is she really contending that the Constitution strictly applies to the Federal government?

And Kratos, Reason's a great magazine and website glad to see you reading it.

[quarry206]

hey this is not high jacking the thread.. because i'm asking based on her views..

can somebody better explain to me the actual legal meaning of fundamental right.... i read wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right) definition of it and it seemed weak for a clear cut and dry answer.... so does anybody know one or is it one of those terms that has been miss used so much its been r!pped apart over time it isn't clear anymore....

[Kratos]

hey this is not high jacking the thread.. because i'm asking based on her views..

can somebody better explain to me the actual legal meaning of fundamental right.... i read wikipedia's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_right) definition of it and it seemed weak for a clear cut and dry answer.... so does anybody know one or is it one of those terms that has been miss used so much its been r!pped apart over time it isn't clear anymore....

sure

A basic or foundational right, derived from natural law; a right deemed by the Supreme Court to receive the highest level of Constitutional protection against government interference.

Basically if it is a fundamental right it can't be regulated out of existance. Although, this doesn't make it an absoloute right...ie it can be regulated within reason. For example the right to own property doesn't mean they can't tax you on it. Well the right to a gun doesn't mean you can ride around with machine guns mounted to the hood of your car.

She does not feel gun ownership is protected by the constitution or is a basic right. Although, the supreme court ruled 5-4 in 2008 that it is.

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

You can take this to mean she has said gun ownership is unconstitutional, but there isn't a direct quote as far as I know.

She has confirmed these feelings from the bench through such quotes as gun ownership not being a fundamental right.