Judge Sotomayor should be impeached for lying under oath about the 2nd Amendment

[USArmyRetired]

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 Amendment’s 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.”

 

[WillowTree]

I agree. The last thing we need on the supreme court is a bald faced lying judge.

 

[theHawk]

It just goes to prove that liberals all have to lie through their teeth in order to get into office.
All four that voted against should be removed from the bench.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That would be a partisan battle, but I would enjoy watching it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 Amendment’s 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.”

She needs to go. I guess when she said "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." she meant the highest court in the land.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It just goes to prove that liberals all have to lie through their teeth in order to get into office.
All four that voted against should be removed from the bench.

Liberals are losers and liars and they prove it time and again.

 

[edthecynic]

It just goes to prove that liberals all have to lie through their teeth in order to get into office.
All four that voted against should be removed from the bench.

Liberals are losers and liars and they prove it time and again.

CON$ervoFascists are whining, crying, sore losing, America-hating scum and they prove it time and again.

 

[Woyzeck]

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:

“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.”

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?

 

[ConHog]

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:

“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.”

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?

That's a cop out, she recognized it as a right when she understood how important the right was to most americans.

However,what she said in regards to THIS case seems to be that she doesn't buy personal protection as a reason to own guns. Least that's how I took it.

 

[Woyzeck]

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:

“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.”

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?

That's a cop out, she recognized it as a right when she understood how important the right was to most americans.

However,what she said in regards to THIS case seems to be that she doesn't buy personal protection as a reason to own guns. Least that's how I took it.

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.

 

[rightwinger]

Quit being a whiney little bitch...

You won the case...now go away

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It just goes to prove that liberals all have to lie through their teeth in order to get into office.
All four that voted against should be removed from the bench.

Liberals are losers and liars and they prove it time and again.

CON$ervoFascists are whining, crying, sore losing, America-hating scum and they prove it time and again.

Why didn't Sonia "Wise Latina Vagina" Sotomayor come out and say she favors a gun ban? Why lie about it? Why pretend she pro-Second Amendment?

You know why? Because Liberals HAVE to lie about who they are and what they want to do because their agenda is at odds with American values

 

[ConHog]

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?

That's a cop out, she recognized it as a right when she understood how important the right was to most americans.

However,what she said in regards to THIS case seems to be that she doesn't buy personal protection as a reason to own guns. Least that's how I took it.

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 Amendment’s 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 God’s 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 Sorel’s 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.

 

[Greenbeard]

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 Amendment’s 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.”

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 Court’s “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 Court’s 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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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:

“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.”

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 Amendment’s 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.”

 

[Woyzeck]

That's a cop out, she recognized it as a right when she understood how important the right was to most americans.

However,what she said in regards to THIS case seems to be that she doesn't buy personal protection as a reason to own guns. Least that's how I took it.

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:

“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.”

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 Amendment’s 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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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:

“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.”

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 Amendment’s 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.”

Liberals HAVE to lie.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"...there is nothing proportionate between the armed and the unarmed; and it is not reasonable that he who is armed should yield obedience willingly to him who is unarmed, or that the unarmed man should be secure among armed servants. Because, there being in the one disdain and in the other suspicion, it is not possible for them to work well together." - Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[Father Time]

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 Amendment’s 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 God’s 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 Sorel’s 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.

Do you ever get tired of of your partisan wholly irreverent gobble-de-gook? None of this proves that most or even some progressives lie. All you did was state some falsehoods about what progs believe and just keep repeating that they lie.

Do you really think any of us here are going to be persuaded with 'progs lie because PC says so'?