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

[edthecynic]

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.

time for a Joe Wilson here.

YOU LIE!

Two can pontificate the same game.

Lying is the Holy Eucharist of the hate religion of CON$ervoFashism.

Documentation to follow:

CON$ like to say that their "talent for lying is on loan from Gawwwwwd-da." They rationalize that God would not give them a talent for lying if he didn't want them to lie, so they lie to give glory to God.

 

[traveler52]

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

So is there a Chief Justice Roberts at the SCOTUS? He lied his ass off at his hearings.

 

[Sarah G]

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.”

You're a liar and you don't know what you are talking about.

Even if she got anywhere near being impeached by some stretch of the imagination, Obama would nominate another that you would hate.

Your congressional nominees are falling apart for 2010 too. I hear Crist is 11 pts. up on Rubio and that Nebraska thing is losing as well so don't expect you are going to shake things up as far as judicial nominees go anytime soon.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

While I do appreciate the attempt at quaquaversus, I tend to lean toward my suggestion...


alright- I anticipate it gleefully.

 

[ConHog]

Ok, admit it , everyone laughed when dude asked her where she was on Christmas day, and she answered that like all good Jews she was at a Chinese restaurant. That was awesome.

 

[Woyzeck]

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

She admits to being progressive right below the portion of the article you posted. Sounds to me like she doesn't want to be labeled something she's not entirely familiar or comfortable with being labeled as. Truth be told, does anyone really know what the Republicans means by 'legal progressive?'

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 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.

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.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Go to hell dick sucking queer. Go whine to 50 plus million who were killed because they could not defend themself from their own goverment.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

wtf?

 

[MaggieMae]

“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.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

“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.

I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller

“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.”

Are you to stupid to see it?

 

[52ndStreet]

Her statement proves the point that liberal activists Judges will say anything to get a power judge position, so they can implement their activist agenda upon us all.
She is pathetic.

 

[Greenbeard]

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 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]

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 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.

I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller

“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 said that she can see nothing in the text or history of the second amendment Anyone with a little common sense should see the lie that she spoke. The Suereme court ruled in Heller that the American citizen does have the individual right to self defense.

 

[Woyzeck]

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 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.

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.

I like how you call me stupid when you think the word "understand" means "support." There isn't a definition to back it up:

–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.

The word just doesn't mean that in the English language. You've got thirteen definitions there, and none of them can mean what you're claiming here.

But hey, don't be stupid.

 

[Charles_Main]

over reaching guys, People are entitled to change their opinions. Maybe she just wised up and finally understood the law, and decided to respect the intent of the 2nd amendment.