Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gmofftarki

Fwee: Sotomayor?

Rate this topic

10 posts in this topic

I got this on an email forward from a crazy super-rightwing email forward list that I somehow got signed up for:

 

Fwee: I trust you on stuff like this. What's the full story?

 

8) SOTOMAYOR: ANTI-GUN, ANTI-WEAPON, ANTI-2nd AMENDMENT

 

In herruling to allow government to ban privately owned weapons belonging to NewYork citizens, Sonia Sotomayor wrote in Maloney v. Cuomo: "The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks toimpose on this right . . . not upon that of thestate." Since her crazy reading of the 2nd Amendment only forbidsCongress from seizing your guns, the New York State Assembly was fullyauthorized to ban nunchuks, or seize ANY AND ALL of your weapons, according toSotomayor's anti-liberty reasoning. But as a former militarydistinguished marksman and former captain of my rifle team at a New YorkState high school, I care about protecting our right to bear arms.

 

 

Also, quoted from the NPR website with full context, the original Sotomayor statement:

 

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
The lack of any sort of conditional on the controversial statement at hand is what worries me more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

she's hiding behind the "settled opinion" thing.

 

upck.gif

 

it's possible we might have to wait a generation or two before incorporation of 2A is done.

 

for the time being, if she's confirmed, she's a wash, since she's replacing justice souter, who cares not one wit for the 2A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2a is passe,

now that we have a standing army,

and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin,

we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date.

 

Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post2a is passe,

now that we have a standing army,

and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin,

we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date.

 

Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal.

 

 

7/10

 

decent troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post2a is passe,

now that we have a standing army,

and weapons that would make our founding father's heads spin,

we need to change the ammendment, and bring it up to date.

 

Since there are no well regulated ammendments anymore, we lack any protections under the Constitution for private gun ownership. A strict interpretation of the Constitution would make all guns illegal.

 

 

Always brilliant...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
View Post7/10

 

decent troll

 

 

View PostAlways brilliant...

 

 

trust me guys,

unless we get the law spelled out MUCH clearer, they can take all our guns away, and the Constitution won't protect us....

unless well regulated militias form up,

 

even then how many would be able to join up?

 

2a is a qualified statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.