Obama's Supreme Court Pick is.........

[Nik]

Actually the piece is mainly about how she hasn't fleshed out her intellectual thoughts on a range of issues. That is NOT the same as an intellectual lightweight, and in fact that she hasn't fleshed out those thoughts will, in the end, help her get the nomination.

O.K....

Intellectually lazy and incurious, then....Which, from where I stand, is even worse.

Intellectually lazy? Umm, judges are trained not to rule on random shit just for fun. Rulings aren't like a book where people look at them and go "oh, well, thats an interesting theory, I agree or disagree". They end up being binding law. Intellectual curisosity has little to do with it.

 

[Oddball]

Right.

Which means you apply intellectual curiosity to research all pertinent case law and precedents to make your decisions, and maybe some you hadn't even thought of, rather than merely being "empathetic" and ruling by emotional fiat....Which is part of the thrust of the Turley piece.

 

[Nik]

Right.

Which means you apply intellectual curiosity to research all pertinent case law and precedents to make your decisions, and maybe some you hadn't even thought of, rather than merely being "empathetic" and ruling by emotional fiat....Which is part of the thrust of the Turley piece.

Really?

Please quote from the Turley piece where he makes that point. I must have missed it.

 

[Oddball]

Covered obliquely in reference to her lack in depth of legal philosophy, and in the notation that her decisions and dissents are limited in scope.

Turley isn't a ham-handed boor, like Hannity or Keith Olberdink....His stuff is just a tad more subtle.

 

[Nik]

Covered obliquely in reference to her lack in depth of legal philosophy, and in the notation that her decisions and dissents are limited in scope.

Turley isn't a ham-handed boor, like Hannity or Keith Olberdink....His stuff is just a tad more subtle.

As I stated before, her lack of depth is attributable to the fact that she hasn't needlessly ruled on a whole host of issues. He doesn't address whether her rulings come from emotion, empathy, or from legal precedent. In fact the words "empathy", "empathetic", and "emotion" never once appear in his piece.

Nor does Turley say, implicitly or explicitly, that she has not exmained prior caselaw. If anything, his objection is that she hasn't expanded on caselaw to a sufficient amount. Her problem, in his eyes, is that she relies on prior caselaw too much and doesn't expand on her own intellectual thoughts about the issues.

 

[GHook93]

Sotomayor, "States don't need to follow the 2nd Amendment!"

Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment! NOWHERE you judicial fraud. The 9th and 10th amendment specifically prohibits the power you say the States have in regards to the 2nd amendments!

CNSNews.com - Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

Run down the line:
(1) A Judicial Activist of the worst kind!
(2) A reverse racists!
(3) Called incompetent by her immediate colleagues in her juridiction!
(4) Member of the anti-american, reverse racist and succession group La Raza!
(5) Stated she likes to legislate from the bench, which goes against the articles of the constitution!
(6) Now she doesn't respect the bill of rights!

This is Obama's worse decision yet! People feared his Supreme Court pick, I thought it would be a liberal, but I never thought we would get the most radical member to ever sit on the bench! This is scary stuff folks!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sotomayor


Actually... for this piece of shit President making the choice, it could have been MUCH worse... I don't have any super objections to this woman as a judge

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

 

[Yurt]

Sotomayor


Actually... for this piece of shit President making the choice, it could have been MUCH worse... I don't have any super objections to this woman as a judge

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Sotomayor


Actually... for this piece of shit President making the choice, it could have been MUCH worse... I don't have any super objections to this woman as a judge

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

 

[Yurt]

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

thanks for proving me right hypocritical liar

1. you are a hypocrite on respecing the president

2. you just brought up race when someone might disrespect the president

you deserve MORON of the morning award

 

[Vel]

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

Your side set the rules by 8 years of calling George Bush everything but a man. Now reap that which you've sown.

 

[DiveCon]

you should respect your President, unless you hate America of course

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

it didnt stop you when there was a white man in the office
why should a black POTUS get any different

thats why you are a fucking moron hack

 

[SpidermanTuba]

lmao...from the one who constantly disrespected bush, you're nothing but a dishonest hack

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

it didnt stop you when there was a white man in the office
why should a black POTUS get any different

thats why you are a fucking moron hack

I'm just trying to get the rules straight. Is it OK or not OK to disrespect a sitting President?

 

[Meister]

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

it didnt stop you when there was a white man in the office
why should a black POTUS get any different

thats why you are a fucking moron hack

I'm just trying to get the rules straight. Is it OK or not OK to disrespect a sitting President?

We have rights that say we can disrespect the president, nobody has been knocking on my door saying to knock it off

 

[DiveCon]

So its OK to disrespect a sitting President now that there's a black one in office?

it didnt stop you when there was a white man in the office
why should a black POTUS get any different

thats why you are a fucking moron hack

I'm just trying to get the rules straight. Is it OK or not OK to disrespect a sitting President?

you fucking morons set the precedent
you made the bed, now you gotta sleep it in
you should have known better than to short sheet it

 

[Nik]

Sotomayor, "States don't need to follow the 2nd Amendment!"

Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment! NOWHERE you judicial fraud. The 9th and 10th amendment specifically prohibits the power you say the States have in regards to the 2nd amendments!

CNSNews.com - Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

CNSNews.com) – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

The Maloney v. Cuomo case involved James Maloney, who had been arrested for possessing a pair of nunchuks. New York law prohibits the possession of nunchuks, even though they are often used in martial arts training and demonstrations.

The meaning of the Second Amendment has rarely been addressed by the Supreme Court. But in the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia, the high court said that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone.

The Second Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled, “guarantee(s) the right of the individual to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”

“There seems to us no doubt,” the Supreme Court said, “that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.”

Sotomayor, however, said that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

“And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In its 2008 case, the Supreme Court’s took a different view of its own 1886 case, saying that Presser had no bearing on anything beyond a state’s ability to outlaw private militia groups.

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

The Second Amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights that the Supreme Court has not specifically extended to the states through a process known as incorporation, which involves interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to read that no state can deprive its citizens of federally guaranteed rights.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States … nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Sotomayor’s decision rejected the Fourteenth Amendment’s incorporation doctrine as far as Second Amendment was concerned, saying any legislation that could provide a “conceivable” reason would be upheld by her court.

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action. Legislative acts that do not interfere with fundamental rights … carry with them a strong presumption of constitutionality,” the appeals court concluded. “The Fourteenth Amendment,” she wrote, “provides no relief.”

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” said the Ninth Circuit court of Appeals. “We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.”

Gun Week Senior Editor Dave Workman told CNSNews.com that the Nordyke and Maloney decisions are at odds and the Supreme Court, possibly with a Justice Sotomayor, may soon sort them out.

Run down the line:
(1) A Judicial Activist of the worst kind!
(2) A reverse racists!
(3) Called incompetent by her immediate colleagues in her juridiction!
(4) Member of the anti-american, reverse racist and succession group La Raza!
(5) Stated she likes to legislate from the bench, which goes against the articles of the constitution!
(6) Now she doesn't respect the bill of rights!

This is Obama's worse decision yet! People feared his Supreme Court pick, I thought it would be a liberal, but I never thought we would get the most radical member to ever sit on the bench! This is scary stuff folks!

Way to make shit up, but USSC precedent disagrees with you. Until a court says that an amendment applies to the states, it doesn't. In fact, in Heller, the recent USSC 2nd amendment decision, they explicitly left the question of whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states open.

 

[Coyote]

Sotomayor, "States don't need to follow the 2nd Amendment!"

Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment! NOWHERE you judicial fraud. The 9th and 10th amendment specifically prohibits the power you say the States have in regards to the 2nd amendments!

Didn't the Supreme Court recently rule in favor of the 2nd Amendment but still recognizing that it was not an unlimited right and that states could still impose some restrictions? Supreme Court proclaims 2nd Amendment guarantees right to keep guns - Los Angeles Times

Run down the line:
(1) A Judicial Activist of the worst kind!

What is a "Judicial Activist"? That word gets thrown about all the time.

(2) A reverse racists!

Racist. Another over used word. Why do you call her a racist?

(5) Stated she likes to legislate from the bench, which goes against the articles of the constitution!

How is she legislating from the bench?

This is Obama's worse decision yet! People feared his Supreme Court pick, I thought it would be a liberal, but I never thought we would get the most radical member to ever sit on the bench! This is scary stuff folks!

No...it's hyperbole....