Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
time for a Joe Wilson here.This shows that she lied to get a government job and she committed a felony in lying to congress under oath. She should be held accountable since she has lied about her stance on the right to bear arms.
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
The news is in: Sonia Sotomayor explicitly endorses and supports the individual right to bear arms as decided in the Supreme Court case DC v. Heller. The following are direct quotes from her testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
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.
Read more:
Blue Steel Democrats: Sonia Sotomayor Explicitly Supports the Heller Decision
Today (June 28 2010) she said:
I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendments Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As Fundamental Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.
Sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
You seem perceptive, so how come you have not come to the realization that permission to lie is a perq of being a progressive?
Documentation to follow:
1. Antinomianism (Greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in Christ frees the Christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the Old Testament. So, Christian heretics thought themselves free by Gods grace from an obligation to the moral law.
2. A constituent of the difficulty in dealing with the left-wing radicals, and the New Left value system, was the habitual lying. This version of antinomianism has resulted in the acceptance of lying by both omission and by commission, as in it depends upon what the meaning of is is.
3. So radicals, imbued with the political grace of the Left, were also freed of the restraints of morality, specifically honesty: one could lie in a noble cause.
4. We can see the same religious absolution in Georges Sorels belief that it was not wrong to break heads as well as laws.
We should, therefore, be pleased that the liberal justices don't resort to breaking heads, merely the Constitution.
I agree. The last thing we need on the supreme court is a bald faced lying judge.
This shows that she lied to get a government job and she committed a felony in lying to congress under oath. She should be held accountable since she has lied about her stance on the right to bear arms.
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
The news is in: Sonia Sotomayor explicitly endorses and supports the individual right to bear arms as decided in the Supreme Court case DC v. Heller. The following are direct quotes from her testimony this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee:
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.
Read more:
Blue Steel Democrats: Sonia Sotomayor Explicitly Supports the Heller Decision
Today (June 28 2010) she said:
I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendments Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As Fundamental Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.
Libs and the Lies they need to tell:
WASHINGTON A poised Elena Kagan on Tuesday spent the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing fending off Republican efforts to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she'd be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a "legal progressive."
"I honestly don't know what that label means," she said.
She's either lying or stupid.
Kagan pushes back on GOP questioning - Yahoo! News
Libs and the Lies they need to tell:
WASHINGTON A poised Elena Kagan on Tuesday spent the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing fending off Republican efforts to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she'd be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a "legal progressive."
"I honestly don't know what that label means," she said.
She's either lying or stupid.
Kagan pushes back on GOP questioning - Yahoo! News
Since we all want to know the truth about prospecive Supreme Court Justices, I see the only viable course is to water board all candidates.
Libs and the Lies they need to tell:
WASHINGTON A poised Elena Kagan on Tuesday spent the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing fending off Republican efforts to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she'd be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a "legal progressive."
"I honestly don't know what that label means," she said.
She's either lying or stupid.
Kagan pushes back on GOP questioning - Yahoo! News
Since we all want to know the truth about prospecive Supreme Court Justices, I see the only viable course is to water board all candidates.
Or we could reduce Dems to a party of maybe 5 Senate seats and 40 House seats
Libs and the Lies they need to tell:
WASHINGTON A poised Elena Kagan on Tuesday spent the second day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearing fending off Republican efforts to paint her as a liberal activist, saying she'd be a fair, open-minded justice and refusing to call herself a "legal progressive."
"I honestly don't know what that label means," she said.
She's either lying or stupid.
Kagan pushes back on GOP questioning - Yahoo! News
Do you have any idea how disingenuous of an assumption that is to make? If I can understand why someone would be against abortion, or for national health care, or what have you does that make me automatically for those positions even though I've only said I can understand people who do? No, because then I'd be holding numerous contradictory positions, so you simply cannot base it off "I understand why people like it" or some similar statement.
She called it a RIGHT.
Example. I am against abortion, but I understand that some women feel it's important, but I point out that it is not a RIGHT. She may have misspoken, but I doubt it.
You do realize, what people would say and what words they would use to get across a point is incredibly subjective, especially when she mentions at the end of the quote, that she understands the right recognized in the Heller case? As it was recognized as such in the case.
At any point, it's really silly to assume, that from this quote soley, she must be pro-gun, especially since as I pointed out, she was anti-gun to begin with.
Maybe she changed her mind about the issue? I didn't realize changing your political stances was grounds for impeachment, or counted as 'lying under oath.' Although let's be honest, this quote that's being bandied around:
She understands people who want to bear arms. But that's all she says. She understands it, in this quote she never says she supports it. Plus, she has a history against gun ownership.
By the way, anyone else notice the website the OP linked to cribbed their layout and look from an old BBC News one?
How can someone go from this
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.
to this in a little more then a year?
I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendments Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As Fundamental Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.
It could be because you're misconstruing the quote, and ignoring her past history of anti-gunship. This quote hardly has her say "I support gun rights!" it just says she understands why people hold views that way. Empathy of why someone feels that way does not mean you feel the same way.
Warning, Will Robin! Warning!
Danger! Danger Danger!
You gun queers sure are scardie-cats.
Your guns are safe.
She might hate guns.
Won't matter an iota.
this shows that she lied to get a government job and she committed a felony in lying to congress under oath. She should be held accountable since she has lied about her stance on the right to bear arms.
http://news-political.com/2010/06/2...nd-amendment-before-she-didnt/comment-page-1/
the news is in: Sonia sotomayor explicitly endorses and supports the individual right to bear arms as decided in the supreme court case dc v. Heller. The following are direct quotes from her testimony this week before the senate judiciary committee:
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.
read more:
blue steel democrats: Sonia sotomayor explicitly supports the heller decision
today (june 28 2010) she said:
i can find nothing in the second amendments text, history, or underlying rationale that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental insofar as it seeks to protect the keeping and bearing of arms for private self-defense purposes.
sorry, but you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
You seem perceptive, so how come you have not come to the realization that permission to lie is a perq of being a progressive?
Documentation to follow:
1. Antinomianism (greek anti,"against"; nomos,"law") is the doctrine that faith in christ frees the christian from obligation to observe the moral law as set forth in the old testament. So, christian heretics thought themselves free by gods grace from an obligation to the moral law.
2. A constituent of the difficulty in dealing with the left-wing radicals, and the new left value system, was the habitual lying. This version of antinomianism has resulted in the acceptance of lying by both omission and by commission, as in it depends upon what the meaning of is is.
3. So radicals, imbued with the political grace of the left, were also freed of the restraints of morality, specifically honesty: One could lie in a noble cause.
4. We can see the same religious absolution in georges sorels belief that it was not wrong to break heads as well as laws.
We should, therefore, be pleased that the liberal justices don't resort to breaking heads, merely the constitution.
“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.”
Where's the lie? If she was against it before she was for it, in plain English, that would be controversial. But those words clearly say she "understands" why it's important to some people. There is no "lie" there.
God you people are dumb. Do you spend all your waking hours scouring the Internet for bits and pieces of unimportant crap that you THINK will become a big fucking deal? This ain't one of them. Get a life.
The use of "fundamental" here refers to whether or not the right can be incorporated (i.e. applied to levels of government below the federal level), not whether the right exists--that's what this whole decision was about. Sotomayor joined in Breyer's dissent:
Rather, it directs its attention to this Courts incorporation precedents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is fundamental so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. [...]
In my view, taking Heller as a given, the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of private self-defense. Under this Courts precedents, to incorporate the private self-defense right the majority must show that the right is, e.g., fundamental to the American scheme of justice, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149 (1968); see ibid., n. 14; see also ante, at 44 (plurality opinion)(finding that the right is fundamental and therefore incorporated). And this it fails to do.
Their answer was "no," which doesn't imply an argument for overturning Heller or that the right to bear arms doesn't exist (note Breyer specifically takes the Heller decision as a given there). There's no lie or even contradiction in your quotes.
To reiterate:
The use of "fundamental" here refers to whether or not the right can be incorporated (i.e. applied to levels of government below the federal level), not whether the right exists--that's what this whole decision was about. Sotomayor joined in Breyer's dissent:
Rather, it directs its attention to this Courts incorporation precedents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is fundamental so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. [...]
In my view, taking Heller as a given, the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for purposes of private self-defense. Under this Courts precedents, to incorporate the private self-defense right the majority must show that the right is, e.g., fundamental to the American scheme of justice, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149 (1968); see ibid., n. 14; see also ante, at 44 (plurality opinion)(finding that the right is fundamental and therefore incorporated). And this it fails to do.
Their answer was "no," which doesn't imply an argument for overturning Heller or that the right to bear arms doesn't exist (note Breyer specifically takes the Heller decision as a given there). There's no lie or even contradiction in your quotes.
She called it a RIGHT.
Example. I am against abortion, but I understand that some women feel it's important, but I point out that it is not a RIGHT. She may have misspoken, but I doubt it.
You do realize, what people would say and what words they would use to get across a point is incredibly subjective, especially when she mentions at the end of the quote, that she understands the right recognized in the Heller case? As it was recognized as such in the case.
At any point, it's really silly to assume, that from this quote soley, she must be pro-gun, especially since as I pointed out, she was anti-gun to begin with.
How can someone go from this
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.
to this in a little more then a year?
I Can Find Nothing In The Second Amendments Text, History, Or Underlying Rationale That Could Warrant Characterizing It As Fundamental Insofar As It Seeks To Protect The Keeping And Bearing Of Arms For Private Self-Defense Purposes.
It could be because you're misconstruing the quote, and ignoring her past history of anti-gunship. This quote hardly has her say "I support gun rights!" it just says she understands why people hold views that way. Empathy of why someone feels that way does not mean you feel the same way.
Who's misconstruing her statement?
Like you, I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.
I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.
Don't be stupid. SHE LIED stop covering for her.
verb (used with object)
1.
to perceive the meaning of; grasp the idea of; comprehend: to understand spanish; I didn't understand your question.
2.
to be thoroughly familiar with; apprehend clearly the character, nature, or subtleties of: to understand a trade.
3.
to assign a meaning to; interpret: He understood her suggestion as a complaint.
4.
to grasp the significance, implications, or importance of: He does not understand responsibility.
5.
to regard as firmly communicated; take as agreed or settled: I understand that you will repay this loan in 30 days.
6.
to learn or hear: I understand that you are going out of town.
7.
to accept as true; believe: I understand that you are trying to be truthful, but you are wrong.
8.
to construe in a particular way: You are to understand the phrase literally.
9.
to supply mentally (something that is not expressed).
verb (used without object)
10.
to perceive what is meant; grasp the information conveyed: She told them about it in simple words, hoping they would understand.
11.
to accept tolerantly or sympathetically: If you can't do it, I'll understand.
12.
to have knowledge or background, as on a particular subject: He understands about boats.
13.
to have a systematic interpretation or rationale, as in a field or area of knowledge: He can repeat every rule in the book, but he just doesn't understand.
