PDA

View Full Version : Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick



Loki
May 26th, 2009, 12:54 PM
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick

by Ken Blackwell (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/blackwell_ken_obama_sotomayor/)

Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

—————

According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

—————

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.


:thumbsdown:

Steve
May 26th, 2009, 01:01 PM
The justice she'll replace voted with the liberal minority against the Heller decision, so this changes things how? :shrug:

Loki
May 26th, 2009, 01:08 PM
Not sure it changes anything, just went looking for her stance on the 2nd amendment, and found this opinion.

It will change when one of the conservative Judges wants to retire. Out of all his potential nominee's from what I've been reading he picked the most liberal one.

Brutus
May 26th, 2009, 02:28 PM
Not sure it changes anything, just went looking for her stance on the 2nd amendment, and found this opinion.

It will change when one of the conservative Judges wants to retire. Out of all his potential nominee's from what I've been reading he picked the most liberal one.

Any conservative judge that wants to retire need only wait another 3.5 years.

1BGDOG
May 26th, 2009, 08:24 PM
But wait GHWB got the ball rolling on her.

Rando
May 26th, 2009, 09:16 PM
But wait GHWB got the ball rolling on her.

even if thats true, whats it matter?

1BGDOG
May 26th, 2009, 09:42 PM
even if thats true, whats it matter?

Oh it's true. GHWB as a conservative must of sensed the impartiality in her. But it doesn't matter since she is filling a "liberal's" shoes, both ends of the spectrum are going to bitvh and moan while most of America will decide that she isn't too bad.

Loki
May 26th, 2009, 09:47 PM
But wait GHWB got the ball rolling on her.

So Obama needs to perpetuate the mistake??? :shrug:

potter
May 26th, 2009, 10:19 PM
lol

omg man, you really need to lay off the koolaid

1BGDOG
May 26th, 2009, 10:22 PM
So Obama needs to perpetuate the mistake??? :shrug:

No you are right, IF she gets confirmed I hear she will sway the "conservatives" to her side with her Latin feminine hawtness and Obama will then win, step 2 billion in his master plan to dominate the world. :P

OrangeCrush
May 26th, 2009, 10:30 PM
Nah she is just another liberal racist typified by this administration

Loki
May 26th, 2009, 10:47 PM
So Obama nominates a liberal judge to the Supreme court that believe the states, have the right to put in place any gun control measure they deem necessary, and not be in violation of the 2nd Amendment... and the libtard gun owners don't think thats a problem?

Wow...Just. Wow!

So just change that a little bit, and say she believes that the States have the right to limit free speech when they deem necessary. Would you see a problem with it then? :confused:

Or Is this just more of the same...The :hail: Obamamessiah :hail: can do no wrong??? :rolleyes:

1BGDOG
May 27th, 2009, 07:56 AM
So Obama nominates a liberal judge to the Supreme court that believe the states, have the right to put in place any gun control measure they deem necessary, and not be in violation of the 2nd Amendment... and the libtard gun owners don't think thats a problem?

Wow...Just. Wow!

So just change that a little bit, and say she believes that the States have the right to limit free speech when they deem necessary. Would you see a problem with it then? :confused:

Or Is this just more of the same...The :hail: Obamamessiah :hail: can do no wrong??? :rolleyes:


Reread post 2 and 10. I also hear she is anti everything.

Loki
May 27th, 2009, 09:16 AM
Reread post 2 and 10. I also hear she is anti everything.

Reread the 2nd Amendment.

potter
May 27th, 2009, 09:52 AM
The justice she'll replace voted with the liberal minority against the Heller decision, so this changes things how?


Not sure it changes anything

You almost had it for a second with this one. But then you went back to your koolaid induced rants on the second amendment.


But wait GHWB got the ball rolling on her.


So Obama needs to perpetuate the mistake???

So now Obama is perpetuating a mistake? I thought Obama was declaring war on the second amendment?

:rolleyes:



Reread the 2nd Amendment.

Naw, why reread the rational pieces of information since it's clear you had skipped over them. Let's just reply again with some irrational fear and paranoia.



:rolleyes:

Let's keep ammo prices up up UP! Spread this BS around as much as possible. Mass email all your friends and relatives. Let's screw ourselves, come on! Ignore the truth, perpetuate blind fear!

:thumbsdown:

Steve
May 27th, 2009, 10:02 AM
Reread the 2nd Amendment.

Read up on incorporation of the Bill of Rights making them enforceable against the states. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm) There is a lot of disagreement about whether the entire Bill of Rights applies to individual states. I find it amusing that conservatives in general tout states' rights, but then want it the other way around on issues like this.

Seriously, read up on incorporation. The entire Bill of Rights does NOT automatically flow down to, and therefore be enforceable against, individual states.

_CJ
May 27th, 2009, 11:28 AM
:popcorn:

OrangeCrush
May 27th, 2009, 11:32 AM
Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three judge panel that decided in favor of the city's decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam because not enough minority candidates scored well.


Hope that sits well with the barry fanbois

Loki
May 27th, 2009, 11:47 AM
Read up on incorporation of the Bill of Rights making them enforceable against the states. (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/conlaw/incorp.htm) There is a lot of disagreement about whether the entire Bill of Rights applies to individual states. I find it amusing that conservatives in general tout states' rights, but then want it the other way around on issues like this.

Seriously, read up on incorporation. The entire Bill of Rights does NOT automatically flow down to, and therefore be enforceable against, individual states.

The incorporation Debate. :rolleyes: Is essentially a power grab by the Judicial Branch. Come on, either the entire Constitution and Its amendments are the law of the land, or they are not.

How we let the Judicial branch, say they have power over deciding (thus being able to pick and choose which ones apply and which ones don't) is a Farce.

While I do believe in State rights, there are things that cannot be decided on an individual basis in each and every state. This is one of them.

Steve
May 27th, 2009, 11:54 AM
The incorporation Debate. :rolleyes: Is essentially a power grab by the Judicial Branch. Come on, either the entire Constitution and Its amendments are the law of the land, or they are not.

I forgot, you're a lawyer and Constitutional scholar. :rolleyes:

I gotta give you one thing; you have your opinions on a wide variety of subjects and you're always right, regardless of facts, court rulings, or other evidence to the contrary.

Loki
May 27th, 2009, 12:15 PM
I forgot, you're a lawyer and Constitutional scholar. :rolleyes:

I gotta give you one thing; you have your opinions on a wide variety of subjects and you're always right, regardless of facts, court rulings, or other evidence to the contrary.

I knew you'd eventually figure that out. :thumbsup:

:flipoff2:

Its a "debate"...Right?

I just told you which side of the "Incorporation Debate" I was on. If I was the only one holding this opinion... would it even be a debate? I'd think not, so obviously I'm not alone, and not the most educated of those on my side of the debate.

Yucca-Man
May 27th, 2009, 04:54 PM
Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three judge panel that decided in favor of the city's decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam because not enough minority candidates scored well.


Hope that sits well with the barry fanboisBO wants to push this through quickly - all the better to avoid public inspection of his candidate's record.

al24
May 27th, 2009, 06:52 PM
So Obama nominates a liberal judge to the Supreme court that believe the states, have the right to put in place any gun control measure they deem necessary, and not be in violation of the 2nd Amendment... and the libtard gun owners don't think thats a problem?

Wow...Just. Wow!

So just change that a little bit, and say she believes that the States have the right to limit free speech when they deem necessary. Would you see a problem with it then? :confused:

Or Is this just more of the same...The :hail: Obamamessiah :hail: can do no wrong??? :rolleyes:

Umm just one minor point...the case cited in the original post had nothing to do with guns.

Loki
May 27th, 2009, 09:54 PM
Umm just one irrelevant point...the case cited in the original post had nothing to do with guns.


Fixed...

If she'd have ruled Nunchukas weren't covered under the 2nd amendment then this thread wouldn't exist.

But her ruling was that the 2nd amendment only applied to the Federal Govt, and not to states, so essentially...In her opinion the states are free to do what they wish when they wish and aren't encumbered by the constitution or the bill of rights.

Yea to me that's a scary view for someone on the SC.

_CJ
May 27th, 2009, 10:42 PM
I think you guys are spelling it wrong.......

http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0308/husseinspdImage13.jpg

DaleD
May 28th, 2009, 03:46 AM
GHWB as a conservative

He was? thats news to me

scottycards
May 28th, 2009, 09:50 AM
While I do believe in State rights, there are things that cannot be decided on an individual basis in each and every state. This is one of them.


In her opinion the states are free to do what they wish when they wish and aren't encumbered by the constitution or the bill of rights.

Yea to me that's a scary view for someone on the SC.

Uh, yeah, ok.........you're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

Sorry, Lok's, you're losing credibility- I appreciate (and agree with) your pro-2nd amendment views, but to say this is a "war on gun owners" is patently false, and this particular candidate is exceptionally well-qualified.

Any anti-gun stance you're sensing here is a stretch..............

I'm actually quite surprised how middle of the road this nominee is.

I do not see this nominee as any kind of a threat to gun owners.

OrangeCrush
May 28th, 2009, 09:52 AM
Sorry, Lok's, you're losing credibility- I appreciate (and agree with) your pro-2nd amendment views, but to say this is a "war on gun owners" is patently false, and this particular candidate is exceptionally well-qualified.

.

This racist is very well qualified only 60% of all her judgements that reach teh supreme court have been reversed

Loki
May 28th, 2009, 10:20 AM
Scotty the author of the article said it war on the gun owners of America, I posted it as a way to begin the discussion, of the nominee's views.

I don't see how I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. My opinion is that the states have control over anything not specified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But since the 2nd amendment is in Bill of Rights the states do not have the power to enact their own gun control laws.

One opinion, one side of my mouth.

OrangeCrush
May 28th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Scotty: Can states enact their own versions of the other rights?

I think on November 13, 1956 the court ruled they could not

noahfecks
May 28th, 2009, 11:55 AM
Sure she has a feel good personal story, hard work and success, yeah! The supreme court should consist of the nine brightest constitutional legal minds in the country, she doesnt even make the top 10% in this category. Pro or anti gun she is not qualified for this position but rather a political pick.

She may not be an all out decleration on gun rights but she is a piece. Anyone ever do one of those 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle? You have a bunch of very small seemingly insignificant pieces but when you put them all together you get a big picture. The border pieces are showing me the big picture and I dont want to finish the puzzle.

al24
May 28th, 2009, 05:43 PM
Sure she has a feel good personal story, hard work and success, yeah! The supreme court should consist of the nine brightest constitutional legal minds in the country, she doesnt even make the top 10% in this category. Pro or anti gun she is not qualified for this position but rather a political pick.

So name the top 10%.

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 02:15 AM
So name the top 10%.

Not the whole 10% but a few that have equal education and experience but are also proffessors in constitutional law, not intillectual property rights (which has a place but come on the job of a supreme court judge is constitutional law):
Robert Smith-NY-Appeals
Allison Eid-CO-supreme
Debra Stevens-WA-supreme
Randall Shepard-IN-supreme
William Koch-TN-supreme
Marian Opala-OK-supreme
Robert Cordy-MA-supreme

I would prefer an appiontment of someone who understands and specializes in constitutional law. There are many specialties in the field of law that are important and worthy but lets put people in the right positions.

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 11:33 AM
Scotty the author of the article said it war on the gun owners of America, I posted it as a way to begin the discussion, of the nominee's views.

I don't see how I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. My opinion is that the states have control over anything not specified in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But since the 2nd amendment is in Bill of Rights the states do not have the power to enact their own gun control laws.

One opinion, one side of my mouth.

I'll buy that. :thumbsup:

Still don't think she's particularly waging a war on gun ownership, but each is entitled to their opinion.

As for the racist thing, after reading the full context of the speech in which that line is taken from, I see nothing racist. Standalone, I can see how some might interpret it differently, but in context, and looking at her whole realm of experience, she's not racist, IMO.

I think she was more making a point that white men seem to be some sort of generally accepted standard for people who can make impartial judgments, which is not at all the case. She was merely pointing out that a latino woman may posses experience that would make her more aware of some issues, particularly ones affecting latinos or women.

No, not racist.

DaleD
May 29th, 2009, 12:20 PM
Ya. she"ll make a great supreme court judge scotty.

"the court of appeals is where policy is made"

Hmmmmm,I wonder who said that?

OrangeCrush
May 29th, 2009, 12:37 PM
I'll buy that. :thumbsup:

Still don't think she's particularly waging a war on gun ownership, but each is entitled to their opinion.

As for the racist thing, after reading the full context of the speech in which that line is taken from, I see nothing racist. Standalone, I can see how some might interpret it differently, but in context, and looking at her whole realm of experience, she's not racist, IMO.

I think she was more making a point that white men seem to be some sort of generally accepted standard for people who can make impartial judgments, which is not at all the case. She was merely pointing out that a latino woman may posses experience that would make her more aware of some issues, particularly ones affecting latinos or women.

No, not racist.


And it is better for Scotus to be attuned to those "issues" than to decided on the applicability of the law?

Obama damn sure isn't judge people by the content of their character but by the color of their skin

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 12:40 PM
As for the racist thing, after reading the full context of the speech in which that line is taken from, I see nothing racist. Standalone, I can see how some might interpret it differently, but in context, and looking at her whole realm of experience, she's not racist, IMO.

I think she was more making a point that white men seem to be some sort of generally accepted standard for people who can make impartial judgments, which is not at all the case. She was merely pointing out that a latino woman may posses experience that would make her more aware of some issues, particularly ones affecting latinos or women.

No, not racist.

People seem to love to talk about all the great things MLK had to say but are unable to live them. her remarks should reflect the content of her character not the color of her skin. The vetting process should also focus on the content of her character (although her remarks can speak to her character). I dont think she is qualified for the job based exclusivly on her lack of understanding of constitutional law. Lets get a constitutional expert for the job. If you needed a personal injury lawyer would you hire someone who specializes in tax law? Then why put someone who specializes in intillectual property law into a job requiring a constitutional law expert? She is not qualified for the job, pick someone who is.

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 12:43 PM
Hey, I know you guys are adopting the general pundit/Limbaugh strategy of having to sink to taking single lines of text from throughout a person's entire career, removing them from context, and then attacking them individually.

Not a problem.

But the majority of people see right through that, and it's just those tactics that have the GOP where it is today.

This candidate is about as good as anyone on the right could have hoped for from Obama, and I know you're obligated to moan about it, and I respect that, but her confirmation is a shoe-in, most likely.

Good luck, tho. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 01:03 PM
Hey I wish more people would focus on her ineptitude and not one of her many stupid remarks. I had hope for some change and actually picking someone who was qualified for the job. Lets not forget other more qualified appiontees have been turned down for exactly the same reasons we are supposed to be celebrating about Sotomyor.

Gizmo42
May 29th, 2009, 01:05 PM
and looking at her whole realm of experience, she's not racist, IMO.


Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three judge panel that decided in favor of the city's decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam because not enough minority candidates scored well.

Nope, not racist at all. She apparently doesnt have a problem with any race, as long as you arent white.

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 01:12 PM
We should be looking for someone more like Sandra Day O'connor when she said, a wise old woman and a wise old man looking at the law should come to the same conclusion at the end of the day.

Loki
May 29th, 2009, 01:41 PM
When, you don't qualify for wise...you use skin color, and "rich life experiences." :thumbsup:

:rolleyes:

Loki
May 29th, 2009, 01:45 PM
It doesn't get any clearer than this...

Judge Sotomayor's Identity Problem (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/27/judge_sotomayors_identity_problem_96682.html)

By Ronald Cass

Ronald A. Cass is Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press).

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 02:34 PM
Judge Sotomayor was a member of a three judge panel that decided in favor of the city's decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam because not enough minority candidates scored well.



Racial and gender bias in testing is not a theory.......here's some reading. Numerous studies have shown that some testing procedures, as well as the content of the exams, do show both racial as well as gender bias.

Is anyone really questioning that fact? It's well established.

Here is one of many examples:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/38/14/70.pdf

Here's the abstract:
Abstract:
A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Recent empirical evidence concerning sex and racial bias in testing is discussed in terms of three primary sources of bias: (1) content of the test itself, (2) atmosphere in which the test is administered, and (3) the use to which the test results are put. Test content that is demonstrably more difficult for one group than another should be (1) eliminated in any setting in which equal difficulty is assumed or (2) perhaps more important, the biased content should be examined closely for possible causes of the difference, leading to modification of educational practices for the low-scoring groups. Special care should be taken routinely to see that minority groups are made to feel comfortable and are not intimidated by their surroundings. Pertaining to fairness in test use, methodological developments undermining the traditional statistical model of fairness previously accepted without question are described in some detail. The "new measures" approach to test bias is seen as essentially an abandonment of, or a reduced emphasis on, the traditional measures of status of aptitude and achievement. (Author/RC)

So for her to recognize the fact that some tests have been scientifically shown to be biased, only further reinforces her qualifications.......

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 02:35 PM
We should be looking for someone more like Sandra Day O'connor when she said, a wise old woman and a wise old man looking at the law should come to the same conclusion at the end of the day.

You know that the "racist" quote for Sotomayer comes from a speech that directly addresses the O'Conner quote, right?

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 02:41 PM
It doesn't get any clearer than this...

Judge Sotomayor's Identity Problem (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/27/judge_sotomayors_identity_problem_96682.html)

By Ronald Cass

Ronald A. Cass is Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, and author of “The Rule of Law in America” (Johns Hopkins Univ. Press).

That's actually a pretty good article!

I guess if the point is that she's not perfect, it's well made. Part of the reason we have more than one judge in the SC.

What I see is that no one doubts her base credentials. What some are doubting are the "toppings". The extra stuff. Personally, I think the extra stuff won't detract from her ability to do the job in the least.

DaleD
May 29th, 2009, 02:42 PM
She is also a member of La Raza. A non-racist org. to some i'm sure?

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 02:53 PM
Found this. Kinda interesting.


Sotomayor uproar: "New racism" nothing like the old racism

By Barb Shelly, Kansas City Star editorial page columnist

Tom Tancredo, the former Congressman whose need for attention drives him to ever more bizarre pronouncements, says that the National Council of La Raza, the Hispanic civil rights organization, is "a Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses."

Really? Who exactly has La Raza lynched? How does a forceful stand for political and economic equality get mixed up with the foulest stain on our nation's tapestry?

In the delusional world of Tancredo and some other bigmouths who are costing the Republican Party dearly, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor must be racist because she's a member of La Raza.

They're also keying on a remark she made at a conference: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

"New racism is no better than old racism," former House Speaker Newt Gingrich opined in a Twitter post.

I like the way Denver Post columnist Mike Littwin rebuts that nonsense:

Forget about a post-racial America. Now we've moved to some new kind of racial world, in which the R-word is no longer reserved for, say, Bull Connor or someone standing on schoolhouse steps shouting "segregation forever," but also for a Supreme Court nominee making a point about gender and ethnicity on the bench at a conference about, yes, gender and ethnicity on the bench.


Sotomayor wasn't exactly artful when she made that remark in 2001. But if the new racism is claiming that a Latina judge's experience might lead her to a more informed decision in some cases than a white male's experience, we've come a long way.

Unfortunately, vestiges of the old racism are still with us. This false spotlight of outrage on Sotomayor's remark is a nice distraction from things like lousy schools in minority neighborhoods and racial inequities in health care. But maybe that's the point?

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 02:55 PM
I believe the firefighter test was examined and found to be racially equal but somewhat irrelevant for the department in question. Yes test have been show to have a bias, show me evidence that this test was bias, that should have been the issue in the case.

Do you have a link to the speech in question. like I said before I dont think its that big of an issue, she isnt qualified for the job.

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 02:57 PM
Here you go. From your favorite news source........HA! ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html

Loki
May 29th, 2009, 03:25 PM
Yea the La Raza thing is another concern.

Maybe we'll get a Mexican Flag to Fly beside the US Flag (if the US flag isn't to Offensive) :shrug:

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Wow Scotty after reading it in context it sounds like the comment was even more racially driven than before. She in fact says that she diagrees with O'conner and that people of color are supirior in their decision making ability. She seem to identify as a Puerto Rican first, a latina second, a woman and somewhere on down the line even an american. i cant understand why someone of her background would claim that the playing field isnt level with all the opportunity that has been afforded her. Why she would feel the need to join agroup that narrows her association of colleagues by identifying herself as anything other than an american success story. I now believe she doesnt live the MLK principal of accepting people based on the content of their character not the color of her skin.

Thanks for the link, now she is not only unqualified but also racially bias.

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 03:39 PM
Interesting how people can draw different conclusions.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 03:46 PM
Interesting how people can draw different conclusions.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Agreed. I do apreciate the fact that your at least informed in your incorrect interpretation of the facts:flipoff2:sarcasm smiley here

scottycards
May 29th, 2009, 04:14 PM
This has been a pretty decent thread, considering both you and Loki have been participants. Sarcasm smiley here, too.

Christ, next thing we know- and let's not get carried away here- we might run a trail sometime this summer? I even found myself inviting your boy Loki for an upcoming run.

Maybe HC later in the year, when it melts out?

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 04:33 PM
We have alot of great trails on the WS. Might go to Rangely next weekend, lets do it.:beer::beer::beer: Im not street legal.

1BGDOG
May 29th, 2009, 06:48 PM
We have alot of great trails on the WS. Might go to Rangely next weekend, lets do it.:beer::beer::beer: Im not street legal.

How is that possible? What is making it not street legal? No VIN. Curious.

noahfecks
May 29th, 2009, 11:17 PM
How is that possible? What is making it not street legal? No VIN. Curious.

I drive an F-Toy. Something that I built not bought.:D No headlights or tail lights, no winshield or wipers, no spedometer, no mirrors, and im sure annother violation or two.

Enough of your liberal diversionary tactics, this thread is about Sotomyor's incompetence, racism, and distain for our constitutional rights.

1BGDOG
May 31st, 2009, 09:26 AM
I drive an F-Toy. Something that I built not bought.:D No headlights or tail lights, no winshield or wipers, no spedometer, no mirrors, and im sure annother violation or two.

Enough of your liberal diversionary tactics, this thread is about Sotomyor's incompetence, racism, and distain for our constitutional rights.


Gotcha!!
Back on target and your paranoia! :beer:

_CJ
May 31st, 2009, 06:17 PM
My biggest concern with this woman isn't gun rights, it's her association with La Raza.....which seems to be the latino equivilant of the NAACP. Both racist groups in my opinion.

It's time to bring all this affirmative action crap to an end. We're all Americans, regardless of race, religion, age, or sexual orientation.

IH8PVMNT
June 1st, 2009, 02:25 PM
Wow Scotty after reading it in context it sounds like the comment was even more racially driven than before. She in fact says that she diagrees with O'conner and that people of color are supirior in their decision making ability. She seem to identify as a Puerto Rican first, a latina second, a woman and somewhere on down the line even an american. i cant understand why someone of her background would claim that the playing field isnt level with all the opportunity that has been afforded her. Why she would feel the need to join agroup that narrows her association of colleagues by identifying herself as anything other than an american success story. I now believe she doesnt live the MLK principal of accepting people based on the content of their character not the color of her skin.

Thanks for the link, now she is not only unqualified but also racially bias.

Not sure about her racially bias although I can see where that might be a conclusion one would draw. But I have to agree with noah in she is plain not qualified for the position, end of story. Intellectual Property Law and Consititutional Law are very different aspects and this postion needs someone who is versed in Constitutional Law. I am sure she is well qualified for her current position (well maybe not considering her rulings are overturned on a regular basis). I can't go out and be a doctor because I design and manufacture medical devices I am not qualified, same thing applies here. She will get the job though because the Republicans will toe the line due to the hispanic vote being at risk, not because its right but because of votes. I would love to see a politician do something because its right not because it will help them get votes.

Yucca-Man
June 1st, 2009, 04:40 PM
Well go figure - White House Damage Control has gone into full spin mode...
http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=87705709085&h=26U22&u=QpZz3&ref=mf


"In a bit damage control, the White House on Friday said Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor acknowledges she chose her words poorly by saying in 2001 that a female Hispanic judge would often reach a "better" conclusion than a white male judge.

"I think if she had the speech to do all over again, I think she'd change that word," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. "I "think" she would?


Since Tuesday, when President Barack Obama announced Sotomayor's nomination, the White House had answered questions about Sotomayor's comment by telling reporters to read the speech and not dwell on one sentence.

That changed on Friday, when Gibbs was asked about it again. The White House clearly had a new message.

"I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor," Gibbs said at the end of his daily briefing.

"She was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging, that your personal experiences have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts in certain cases, that your experiences affect your understanding," Gibbs said. "I think we agree with all that."

Asked how he knew Sotomayor wished she would have chosen a different word, Gibbs said he learned that from talking to people who talked to her. So now she DID use that phrase, in the racist contaxt it has been taken, but we're not supposed to dwell on it because you THINK that some people who actually have talked to her believe that she would have spoken differently?

How much of their BS do these fools think we are going to believe? Or maybe Pravda got it right and as long as we have our 'American Idol' to satisfy the masses, we'll gladly ride the handbasket to hell?

ZappBranigan
June 1st, 2009, 05:16 PM
"I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor," Gibbs said at the end of his daily briefing.

If Judge Sotomayor wants to say it, she should say it.

But of course she hasn't said it, Obama's mouthpiece has said he thinks she'd say it...:rolleyes:

Damn, even Lance Armstrong can't backpedal that fast! :P

Trango
June 1st, 2009, 06:37 PM
Bigotry and all that, who here is Pro-Scalia? Just curious.

This thread brings teh awesome.

IH8PVMNT
June 2nd, 2009, 11:39 AM
Bigotry and all that, who here is Pro-Scalia? Just curious.

This thread brings teh awesome.


Scalia is highly qualified for the position he is currently in as associate justice, and he was when he was nominated to the court in 1986. Is he a complete asshole, yup he is but you can't argue his qualifications and experience for the position. And yes he has published some interesting opinions on homosexuality that are not popular and some classify as bigotry. Does it make it right not really but this is the very reason there are 7 and not 1 justice. I tend to think that its not about moral or immoral but should have been left to Texas to decide the matter its not something the Supreme Court should have been involved with. Could Sotomayer be a justice and a racist I would say yes due to she is not the only one on the bench, again I have to go with can she be a racist and not qualified for the job, absolutely not.

As for Scalia's stance on the constitution and that he believes in careful adherence to the text of both the Constitution and federal statutes as that text would have been understood to mean when adopted well I have to agree with him. There is a system for amending the Constitution that is slow and cumbersome by design to help ensure the amendment is right for the country as a whole. The Consistution is not meant to be constantly evolved from the bench.

Pilot
June 3rd, 2009, 11:32 AM
As for Scalia's stance on the constitution and that he believes in careful adherence to the text of both the Constitution and federal statutes as that text would have been understood to mean when adopted well I have to agree with him. There is a system for amending the Constitution that is slow and cumbersome by design to help ensure the amendment is right for the country as a whole. The Consistution is not meant to be constantly evolved from the bench.


Bingo! This is the bottom line for me. "Conservative" judges interpret the Constituion narrowly and pay attention to the word of law. Liberal judges are activists and attempt to legislate from the bench by ignoring the word of law or bringing personal views, gender, race, economic situation, foreign law and foreign precedent into the equation.

Like Obama, Sotomayor is a FAR left wing, activist judge who wants to use legislation to social engineer the country. If you can't enact "Change" through legislation, use the courts. Typcial lib move.

1BGDOG
June 3rd, 2009, 03:59 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/03/borger.newt.gingrich/index.html

noahfecks
June 3rd, 2009, 11:48 PM
Guys give up on the racist thing. You arent going to change anyones mind about her with that line. The prevailing mentality in this country is that its ok to be anti white, it's not right, but hopefully your momma told you that life isnt fair. Look at Big Dog's link even the most liberal media outlets notice that her record by itself is enough to disqualify her. People will see your point if you make a good case that she just isnt qualified, few will care if she is anti white, its socially acceptable.

_CJ
June 4th, 2009, 08:31 AM
Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, and why should we even try? This woman can't lose, but that shouldn't stop us from voicing our disapproval and/or reasoning.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the day that the white firemen's case comes to visit her again.

al24
June 17th, 2009, 03:29 PM
Look at Big Dog's link even the most liberal media outlets notice that her record by itself is enough to disqualify her. People will see your point if you make a good case that she just isnt qualified, few will care if she is anti white, its socially acceptable.


Hmmm...



"Is calling her names our best talking point?" asks GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio. "It's a symptom of being leaderless; it's every man for himself these days." The point, he says, is not to question whether Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the court (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/U_S_Supreme_Court). After all, after 17 years on the bench, there's no doubt she has the right resume. The right question to ask, Fabrizio rightly argues, is this: How is she going to fill that seat?
And then there's this: Instead of throwing around terms like "judicial activist," why not actually examine her record and look for things that might have some real meaning for the American people?
In these economic times, the old culture wars arguments against judges as a group of evil-doers ready to 'legislate from the bench' holds much less sway. "It's got to be about a question of fairness when people are suffering economic anxiety," says Fabrizio, who looks to the New Haven firefighters case as good fodder for discussion. In that case, the city denied promotions to a largely white group of firefighters after a civil service exam in which none of the black employees who took the test would have been promoted.
"These people studied for a test, passed it and didn't get their promotions," Fabrizio says.




Show me where it says her record is enough to disqualify her?

Jake_Blues
June 18th, 2009, 04:07 PM
her record (of making decisions that don't agree with a particular political group) by itself is enough to disqualify her (in the minds of radical supporters of said political group)

Just reading between the lines...

-E

_CJ
June 18th, 2009, 05:34 PM
"Radical supporters of a particular political group"?

Sorry, registered independant over here. :rolleyes:

Yucca-Man
June 18th, 2009, 06:06 PM
Hmmm...
The point, he says, is not to question whether Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the court. After all, after 17 years on the bench, there's no doubt she has the right resume.No - just because she has 17 years on the bench does NOT mean she's got the right resume. It just means she hasn't been recalled, and doesn't have the common decency to die off/retire.

There are plenty of examples of long-term employees who are never ready to take the step up to the next level. Is Sotomayor one of them? My money is on 'yes'.

al24
June 18th, 2009, 06:43 PM
GOP pollster dude thinks she has the "Right stuff".

:shrug:

al24
June 18th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick

by Ken Blackwell (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/blackwell_ken_obama_sotomayor/)

Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

—————

According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

—————

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.


:thumbsdown:

Conservative Judges Echo Sotomayor in Gun Ruling

By Robert Barnes (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/articles/robert+barnes/)
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been called an "anti-gun radical" by some gun rights activists for joining an opinion this year that said the Second Amendment does not prevent state and local governments from restricting arms ownership.











But yesterday a panel of conservative luminaries on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit reached the same decision. The unanimous ruling rejecting a challenge to Chicago's tough handgun law could complicate efforts to portray Sotomayor as a judicial activist trying to undermine the Supreme Court's landmark decision last year holding that the amendment protects the right to own a gun for self-defense.
It also tees up the issue for review by the high court and raises questions about whether Sotomayor would be able to participate, should she be confirmed to the court.


Gun rights advocates have criticized Sotomayor for a decision by a panel of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit of which she was a member. The unsigned opinion dismissed a challenge to a New York law that banned nunchakus, a martial arts weapon.
The challenger had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Heller v. District of Columbia, which struck down Washington's ban on handguns and said individuals have the right to keep arms at home for self-defense.
But the panel on which Sotomayor served said it was clear from Supreme Court precedent that the Second Amendment could be applied only to the federal government, or in a federal enclave such as Washington. It said only that the Supreme Court has "the prerogative of overruling its own decisions."
Gun rights advocates pointed to the decision in Maloney v. Cuomo as Exhibit A in their description of Sotomayor as an "anti-gun radical."
"Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power (as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into counter-attack mode against the Heller decision," said a statement by the Gun Owners of America.
But yesterday, a panel of the 7th Circuit, hearing a challenge to gun laws in Chicago and the suburb of Oak Park, came to the same conclusion. "We agree with Maloney," said the opinion, referring to the 2nd Circuit's decision. The 7th Circuit's decision was written by the circuit's chief judge, Frank H. Easterbrook, one of the nation's leading conservative judges, along with two Republican-appointed judges, including conservative favorite Richard A. Posner.
The 7th Circuit opinion said it was not up to appeals courts to evade the Supreme Court's precedents by agreeing with unique arguments from lawyers that tried to undermine them.
If that were the case, Easterbrook wrote, the court's decisions "would bind only judges too dim-witted to come up with a novel argument."
The issue touches on the question of whether the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments.
Lawyers challenging gun restrictions and some legal scholars contend that they do, through the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment. And that was the finding of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit earlier this year. The Supreme Court's 5 to 4 decision in the Heller case last year, which for the first time found that the Second Amendment provided an individual right to bear arms, specifically left the decision of whether it applied to the states for another day.
The conflicting opinions among the various circuit courts could bring the issue to the Supreme Court, raising the question of whether Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be able to participate.
"I don't think a justice should sit in review of her own decision," said Steven Lubet, a judicial ethics expert at Northwestern University Law School. But the situation could be different if the court were considering the 9th Circuit or the 7th Circuit cases. Justices make their own decisions about recusal.
Walter E. Dellinger III, who argued the Heller case for the District and who has worked with the White House in supporting Sotomayor's nomination, said yesterday's decision should end the attack on her over gun rights.
"When two of the most highly regarded, conservative judges agree that courts of appeal should not reach out and make new law on this issue, it renders Judge Sotomayor's opinion on this subject beyond criticism," Dellinger said.
But David B. Kopel, a lawyer who has supported the proposition that the Second Amendment applies to the states and who has been sharply critical of Sotomayor, said the 7th Circuit decision is not likely to change the views of gun rights activists that the New York judge is "anti-gun" and that the opinion in Maloney was intellectually "dishonest."

Loki
June 18th, 2009, 10:17 PM
Two words....La Raza..."The Race."

La Raza's major policy positions include the following:

It supports access to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.


It opposes the REAL ID Act, which requires that all driver's license and photo ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law "opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations."


It opposes the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act (CLEAR), which would empower state and local law-enforcement authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. La Raza argues this would "result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations."


It lobbies for racial and ethnic preferences (affirmative action) and set-asides in hiring, promotions, and college admissions.


It supports bilingual education and bilingual ballots.


It supports voting rights for illegal aliens.


It supports stricter hate-crime laws.


It opposes the Aviation Transportation and Security Act requiring that all airport baggage screeners be U.S. citizens.


It opposed President Bush's signing of the "Secure Fence Act of 2006" which authorized 700 miles of new border fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Just what we need on the Supreme Court of the United States. :rolleyes:

DaleD
June 19th, 2009, 04:44 AM
They won't get it Loki till it's too late I'm afraid..

ZappBranigan
June 19th, 2009, 09:23 AM
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

That's actually correct. Until and unless the Supreme Court tackles the issue of incorporation the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.

The issue of incorporation could not be addressed in the Heller decision because it was not raised: Because DC is a Federal Enclave the issue of incorporation was not part of the case nor was it part of the decision.

Loki
June 19th, 2009, 10:26 AM
That's actually correct. Until and unless the Supreme Court tackles the issue of incorporation the 2nd amendment does not apply to the states.

The issue of incorporation could not be addressed in the Heller decision because it was not raised: Because DC is a Federal Enclave the issue of incorporation was not part of the case nor was it part of the decision.

and that is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

To believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to every citizen in every state across the board is Laughable.

But lawyer types like to keep the water muddy, instead of applying common sense to the intentions of our founding fathers... its called a cash cow and the more they can intangle the interpretation the more they can milk it.

:rolleyes: x1000

ZappBranigan
June 19th, 2009, 10:45 AM
and that is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS. :rolleyes:

To believe that the Bill of Rights doesn't pertain to every citizen in every state across the board is Laughable.

Read Barron v. Baltimore (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore)


Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held "[t]hese [first ten] amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.


Also read the Federalist Papers (and consider that the Federalist Papers were written by the three of the people who were most instrumental in drafting the Constitution: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.) The Federalist Papers advance the notion that each state should be free to make its own laws, and that each state would then be a "laboratory of democracy." If people thought the laws in Virginia too restrictive, they would either work to make them less restrictive, or they would "vote with their feet" and go to a state with less restrictive laws.

Eventually the states with the restrictive laws would realize that it was in their best interest to make laws that reflect the attitudes and opinions of the citizens of that state.

The Bill of Rights didn't start applying to the states until after the Civil War, when the protections of the BoR started being applied to the states via the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

ZappBranigan
June 19th, 2009, 10:55 AM
BTW, the incorporation issue will almost certainly be decided in the next Supreme Court session. There are several lawsuits pending which raise that very question.

My guess is that based on Heller, the Supreme Court will have to finally incorporate the 2nd Amendment, but it will probably be a somewhat limited incorporation (even the Heller decision is pretty limited because it allows for "reasonable" restrictions on the ownership and carrying of firearms.) It will not invalidate most state/local gun control laws except for the outright bans enacted in some cities or towns. It will almost certainly allow for registration, background checks, ownership requirments, etc.

Loki
June 19th, 2009, 11:20 AM
Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall held "[t]hese [first ten] amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them." Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250.

Chief Justice John Marshall understood way back in 1833, that vague rulings like this open up centuries of lawsuits and court cases, which in turn benefits lawyers and the legal profession.

Again intangle, confuse and Milk that cash cow. :hail:

ZappBranigan
June 19th, 2009, 12:06 PM
Chief Justice John Marshall understood way back in 1833, that vague rulings like this open up centuries of lawsuits and court cases, which in turn benefits lawyers and the legal profession.

Again intangle, confuse and Milk that cash cow. :hail:

Yeah, that's what John Marshall was all about: Guaranteeing employment for future lawyers. :rolleyes:

noahfecks
June 23rd, 2009, 03:39 PM
Zap so if a states rights are greater than the US constitution could a state take away freedom of speech? or allow slavery? I understand your reference to the Federalist (recently reread) but didnt that change after the civil war. The premise of the civil war was that the Fed had greater power than the State but was there ever any legal change? And when anyone is interpreting the constitution they should remember that the authors of the Federalist were the most out there liberals of the time. If the most out there liberals among our founders said we have the right to keep and bare arms without restriction where the hell do modern liberals find any traction in the constitution for anti gun law?

ZappBranigan
June 23rd, 2009, 04:06 PM
Zap so if a states rights are greater than the US constitution could a state take away freedom of speech? or allow slavery?


No. Freedom of speech was incorporated to the states by the 14th amendment. Can't remember the exact decision off the top of my head (google "1st amendment incorporation decision" and you should be able to find out) but until the 1st was incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment, yes, the state could take away your right to free speech (but keep in mind that the state would still be bound by it's own constitution. So if the State constitution explicitly recognized the right of free speech the state legislature could not pass a law restricting that right unless the state constitution was modified.)

Slavery was outlawed by the passage of the 13th Amendment. The 13th amendment, incidentally, is the only part of the Constitution that can be applied against individuals. IOW, not only does the 13th amendment prohibit states from enacting laws that allow for slavery, it actually outlaws the practice to any person.



I understand your reference to the Federalist (recently reread) but didnt that change after the civil war. The premise of the civil war was that the Fed had greater power than the State but was there ever any legal change?


There was a huge legal change after the civil war: The 13th, 14th and 15th amendments (often called the "reconstruction amendments") were ratified by the states and completely changed the nature of Federalism in the United States. The 13th abolished slavery, the 14th prohibited the states from infringing on the civil rights of individuals, and the 15th was a punitive measure that reduced the representation of any state that did not allow all adult males to vote (there were some other issues in those amendments but those were the big 3.)

Before the civil war, the bill of rights simply did not apply to the states. The states were constrained in other ways by the Constitution but they were not constrained by the Bill of Rights.

It was after the 14th amendment was ratified that the individual amendments to the Bill of Rights were, one by one, "incorporated" to the states. That is, the Courts declared that one of the rights stated in the Amendment (right to speak freely, right to assemble peaceably, right to a jury trial, etc) was a "fundamental" right, and because "Fundamental" rights cannot be violated by the states, the amendment was said to have been "incorporated" through the 14th amendment and therefore applicable to states as well as to the national government.
[/QUOTE]

noahfecks
June 23rd, 2009, 06:56 PM
If all other nine amendments in the bill of rights were incorperated as written by the 14th then why not the second? No offense Zap because I do really apreciate your insight into the nooks and crannys of the law but it seems like a few fast talking litigators are screwing up a good thing here.

ZappBranigan
June 23rd, 2009, 09:28 PM
If all other nine amendments in the bill of rights were incorperated as written by the 14th then why not the second? No offense Zap because I do really apreciate your insight into the nooks and crannys of the law but it seems like a few fast talking litigators are screwing up a good thing here.

Well, all nine amendments are not incorporated (think of the 3rd) and amendments have to be specifically incorporated on a case by case basis.

What has to happen is that someone who believes that a state or municipal law violates one of their fundamental liberties has to challenge the law on that basis.

They then have to argue that even if the state Constitution permits the action, the action is still prohibited because it is a "fundamental right" under the US Constitution and therefore should be incorporated via the 14th amendment.

If the lower court holds that the action is permitted because the amendment has not been incorporated, then the losing petitioner can take that issue to the next level of appeals.

The US Federal Courts are divided into 12 or 13 circuits (Colorado is in the 10th Circuit.) Once the circuit court of appeals adopts a certain view of incorporation all courts within that circuit are bound by it (this is called Binding Precedent.) Courts in other circuits that have not made a formal ruling on the issue may consider it, but they are not required to adopt it (this is sometimes called "persuasive precedent.")

It takes 4 votes for the US Supreme Court to grant Certiorari (a fancy word that means the Supreme Court will hear the case, usually shortened to the abbreviation "Cert.") Normally if there is a "circuit split", that is, one circuit has ruled one way and another circuit has ruled a different way, the Supreme Court will almost always grant cert because it's not good for the Constitution to be applied one way in one part of the country and a different way in a different part.

Right now the extremely-liberal 9th circuit (believe it or not!) has ruled that the 2nd amendment IS incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment which means that in Hawaii, CA, OR, WA and AK (I think) the 2nd is incorporated but in the other circuits it's not incorporated until and unless that circuit appeals court rules on the issue.

noahfecks
June 23rd, 2009, 11:52 PM
Again thanks for the insight and explanation Zap. So there is hope that soon it will be incorperated.