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

[Zona]

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

I agree, I mean she actually said complany's are people and should have unlimited money being thrown at any politician they wanted.


Oh wait, never mind. That was the republicans on the supreme court. The prefect examle of them putting corporations over people. By the way, if corporations are like people, why is it no one from BP is in jail?

 

[Brubricker]

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.”

Only one problem here. Those are the words of Justice Stephen Breyer. Look it up.

You need to get your facts straight.

 

[Political Junky]

Cons must really be pissed at Roberts and Alito for lying under oath in their hearings.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah well, cheer up, bunkys, after Kagan is confirmed, our President will more than likely get to appoint two more Supreme Court Justices due to natural attrition. Might even be three before 2016.

 

[R.C. Christian]

You people complain like you actually believe that your government is honest. I don't get it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.



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.

holy fucking shit the liberal word play game.
She said:
“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.”

But you failed to add what she later said when she ruled on the McDonald case

“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.

 

[Old Rocks]

You people complain like you actually believe that your government is honest. I don't get it.

I don't get what you mean by that. That our government is inherintly dishonest? That just our present government is dishonest?

Whichever the case, since we have a government that is elected from the people, why don't you run for a government office on an honesty platform?

And what of our other institutions? Are all our businesses also lacking in honesty? How about the Clergy? What of the scientific and academic establishments?

Or is it that you just cannot stand that your fellow human beings are 'human'?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

I agree, I mean she actually said complany's are people and should have unlimited money being thrown at any politician they wanted.


Oh wait, never mind. That was the republicans on the supreme court. The prefect examle of them putting corporations over people. By the way, if corporations are like people, why is it no one from BP is in jail?

BP means British Petroleum, which means it's not an American company that obama can take over. And since you want to press charges maybe someone from the obama administration should be imprisioned for not doing their job.

 

[editec]

I find it amusing that so many of you people worksip at the alter of capitalism, but continue blaming the government (which CAPITAL owns lock stock and barrel) when it fails to cuub the excesses of of the masters of capital.

Your inconsistency indicates just how very confused your thinking really is.

Corporations have RIGHTS, and Money equals free speech.

The SHIT rolls downhill from those basic assumptions, folks.

Fucking groveling peasants.

 

[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.

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?

What part of I UNDERSTAND don't you grasp? Perhaps she should have said I EMPATHIZE... Better?

In any event, thinking THAT nonsense is enough to impeach her is what's stooooooopid.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

"Liberal" activist judges? What a fucking joke. The USSC is now comprised of a majority of ACTIVIST conservatives.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

It's a waste of time to put up any kind of intelligent debate against a bunch of yahoos. There ARE a few members here who can intelligently and articulately debate the Constitution, but they're not posting in this thread.

 

[Woyzeck]

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.

holy fucking shit the liberal word play game.
She said:
“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.”

But you failed to add what she later said when she ruled on the McDonald case

“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.

It isn't a 'liberal word game' the word just doesn't mean what you want it to mean. Stop crying. She understands the Heller ruling, but that doesn't mean she agrees with the ruling and would rule the same way. Understand does not mean "support," none of the thirteen definitions I supplied agree with the way you think the word means.

I didn't realize 'liberal word game' was code for 'I disagree with the reality of the situation so I'll assign a political label to it so I'll look better.'

 

[Zona]

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

I agree, I mean she actually said complany's are people and should have unlimited money being thrown at any politician they wanted.


Oh wait, never mind. That was the republicans on the supreme court. The prefect examle of them putting corporations over people. By the way, if corporations are like people, why is it no one from BP is in jail?

BP means British Petroleum, which means it's not an American company that obama can take over. And since you want to press charges maybe someone from the obama administration should be imprisioned for not doing their job.

Will they be allowed to give money to politicians they like? If so, how can you with a straight face say the righty's were right saying company's are people. ????