Scotus pick

[MikeWaters]

What's her record on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't some liberal blogger already make a snarky comment about her diabetes and life expectancy?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

What's her record on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't some liberal blogger already make a snarky comment about her diabetes and life expectancy?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BlueK

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

So a state can ban all guns within its borders, and the 2nd Amendment offers no protection, because it does not apply to state law?

Well, golly, gee-whiz, what a wonderful advocate of states' rights.

Does that apply to all civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

[MikeWaters]

Now we have our first real controversy: is Sotomayor is confirmed, is she the first Hispanic on the court.

One argument says Cardozo was the first Hispanic, as he was of Portugese descent.

Some arguments about the definition of "Hispanic": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

Maybe modern day Hispanics don't care for the fact that the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court was a Jewish white male. Who knows.

So now, it is agreed by all, that Sotomayor would be the first "Latina" on SCOTUS.

Meanwhile Asian-Americans shake their fists at the sky.

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Meanwhile Asian-Americans shake their fists at the sky.

Let me go grab my assault rifle right now...

[MikeWaters]

Axelrod, interviewed today, said that Obama prayed last night about his decision to choose Sotomayor.

I thought that was interesting.

I don't think many people here have a problem with Obama praying about his decisions, right?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Axelrod, interviewed today, said that Obama prayed last night about his decision to choose Sotomayor.

I thought that was interesting.

I don't think many people here have a problem with Obama praying about his decisions, right?

I don't, though I find it interesting the notion of GWB praying about stuff threw the left into a tizzy.

[Venkman]

I have a problem with the whole empathy thing in a supreme court justice. Doesn't that go against the idea of that lady with the blindfold and the scales?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Venkman

I have a problem with the whole empathy thing in a supreme court justice. Doesn't that go against the idea of that lady with the blindfold and the scales?

That line in that speech is going to be a big problem for her. But let's not forget that we have a president who prefers his judicial nominees to base their decisions at least in part on considerations other than the law. He said as much during the campaign, so we can't be too surprised that he's delivering on that promise.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by Tex

That line in that speech is going to be a big problem for her. But let's not forget that we have a president who prefers his judicial nominees to base their decisions at least in part on considerations other than the law. He said as much during the campaign, so we can't be too surprised that he's delivering on that promise.

No, I'm not surprised. I really hate that the SCOTUS is so important nowadays. I think they wield far too much power, much more than the founding fathers intended. An unelected, largely unaccountable body of nine people essentially setting policy for this country on a variety of issues - I've gotta believe this isn't what the founders had in mind.