Straight from Sotomayors Mouth to our ears 2nd A

[Master Blaster]

I thought i would post this quote from todays hearing:

LEAHY: Good. Let me (ph) talk to you about another decision that's been talked about, District of Columbia v. Heller. In that one, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guarantees to Americans the right to keep and bear arms, and that it's an individual right.

LEAHY: I've owned firearms since my early teen years. I suspect a large majority of Vermonters do. I enjoy target shooting on a very regular basis at our home in Vermont. So I watched that decision rather carefully and found it interesting. Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court's decision as establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: Yes, sir.

LEAHY: Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you, in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?

SOTOMAYOR: It is.

LEAHY: And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?

SOTOMAYOR: Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller acknowledged, answered the -- a different question.

LEAHY: Well, that -- let me -- let me refer to that, because Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller case expressly left unresolved and explicitly reserved as a separate question whether the Second Amendment guarantee applies to the states and laws adopted by the -- by the states.

Earlier this year, you were on a Second Circuit panel in a case posing that specific question, analyzing a New York state law restriction on so-called chuka sticks (ph), a martial arts device.

Now, the unanimous decision of your court cited Supreme Court precedent as binding on your decision, and that Supreme Court -- longstanding Supreme Court cases have held that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government and not to the states.

And I noticed that the panel of the Seventh Circuit, including people like Judge Posner, one of the best-known very conservative judges, cited the same Supreme Court authority, agreed with the Second Circuit decision. We all know that not every constitutional right has been applied to the states by the Supreme Court. I know one of my very first cases as a prosecutor was a question of whether the Fifth Amendment guaranteed a grand jury indictment has been made applicable to the states. The Supreme Court has not held that applicable to the states.

Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines, these have not been made applicable to the states. And I understand that petitions asking -- seeking to have the Supreme Court revisit the question applied to the Second Amendment to the states are pending (inaudible) that case appears before the Supreme Court and you're there how you're going to rule, but would you have an open mind, as -- on the Supreme Court, in evaluating that, the legal proposition of whether the Second Amendment right should be considered fundamental rights and thus applicable to the states?

SOTOMAYOR: 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.

SOTOMAYOR: As you pointed out, Senator, in the Heller decision, the Supreme Court was addressing a very narrow issue, which was whether an individual right under the Second Amendment applied to limit the federal government's rights to regulate the possession of firearms. The court expressly -- Justice Scalia in a footnote -- identified that there was Supreme Court precedent that has said that that right is not incorporated against the states. What that term of incorporation means in the law is that that right doesn't apply to the states in its regulation of its relationship with its citizens.

In Supreme Court province (ph), the right is not fundamental. It's a legal term. It's not talking about the importance of the right in a legal term. It's talking about is that right incorporated against the states.
When Maloney (ph) came before the Second Circuit, as you indicated, myself and two other judges read what the Supreme Court said, saw that it had not explicitly rejected its precedent on application to the states and followed that precedent because it's the job of the Supreme Court to change it.

LEAHY: Well...

SOTOMAYOR: You asked me -- I'm sorry, Senator. I didn't mean...

LEAHY: No, no, go ahead.

SOTOMAYOR: ... to cut you off.
LEAHY: No, go ahead.

SOTOMAYOR: If you asked me whether I have an open mind on that question, absolutely. My decision in Maloney (ph) and on any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court when it speaks directly on an issue. And I would not prejudge any question that came before me if I was a justice on the Supreme Court.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Unfortunately, everything she says has about as much meaning as a politician giving a stump speech.

In other words, no meaning whatsoever.

 

[Master Blaster]

Basically she said:

Some of my best friends and relatives own guns and like to hunt (buzz words for an Anti or a racist)

She would not prejudge, or reveal her opinion on incorrporation of the 2nd, infact she said many rights are not incorporated including Trial by Jury!!!!:barf::barf:

Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines, these have not been made applicable to the states.

barf::barf:

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Yeah, which is code speak to me saying "I have no capacity or inclination to make my own decisions, common sense or otherwise. If someone else doesn't tell me so, I assume not so."

 

[TailGator]

News organizations (CNN in particular) are reporting this as "favoring" 2A rights. I will leave it up to others to decide whether they do not understand the issues behind incorporation or they are being deceitful in their presentation.

 

[Technosavant]

Looks equivocal. While some of that was the job of SCOTUS to set the precedent, I'm not sure that she supports the idea of incorporation. The answer "that was above my pay grade" might be true for her in that instance, but I'm curious about what she'll do when that IS her pay grade.

I'm not sure that she'll be as leftist as Souter was, but I highly doubt she's going to out-conservative Thomas.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I'm not sure that she'll be as leftist as Souter was, but I highly doubt she's going to out-conservative Thomas.

I predict the most far left justice in history.
She's done having to impress for the next promotion. She can be as left in her judgments as she has been in her speeches.

 

[csmsss]

I predict the most far left justice in history.
She's done having to impress for the next promotion. She can be as left in her judgments as she has been in her speeches.

It will be a challenge exceeding Thurgood Marshall in that capacity, but I have a feeling she will do her damnedest!

 

[langenc]

The fine Lindsey Graham-(R) SC told her-"barring a meltdown you are in" so forget about any opposition. If the Rs wont do it the Ds sure as hexx wont.

 

[vranasaurus]

The problem I have with this is that she and the other judges relied on a decision that didn't incorporate the 2A based upon the privileges and immunities clause which predated both selective incorporation through the due process clause and Heller.

The circuit courts could very well incorporate the 2A using much more modern precedent. The road map for the circuit courts to follow has been laid out by the supreme court and most refuse to follow that map and make any kind of well reasoned decision.

 

[alloy]

Cherry picking law out of thin air is what I expect. I heard most of it the last two days and I guess it's what I figured, plus a little more. Less than amazing.

 

[Tom Servo]

My decision in Maloney (ph) and on any case of this type would be to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court when it speaks directly on an issue

Even when the precedents are clearly wrong? As per Cato's brief:

The doctrine of stare decisis ["the decision stands"] is particularly inapt with respect to the Slaughter-House Cases, not only because of the extreme violence that opinion did to constitutional text and history, but because the purposes of the doctrine would not be served by refusing to revisit this particular mistake

The brief goes on to present vast evidence that the modern consensus is in favor of overturning the Slaughterhouse decision.

The other major precedent is Cruikshank, which basically let racial violence and discrimination continue in the South for the decade after its drafting.

Yes, by all means, let's uphold those.

 

[CUBAN REDNECK]

Wise latino says NO to Red Sonia.

Sotomayor speaketh with forked tongue. She is a dyed in the wool anti-gunner and gun grabber. President Urkel would not have chosen her otherwise. Moreover, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse in his opening statement praised Sotomayor and attacked Roberts and the Heller decision in one sentence. These are the libs true colors, and they have decided to go for the slow boil method through incrementalism as opposed to a Clintonian AWB, which cost them politically. :barf:

 

[Al Norris]

As much as the process of selecting a new Justice on the Supreme Court may be interesting, and in this case relevent to how the Court will view the 2nd amendment in the future, Senate conformation hearings are politics. Pure Politics.

President Urkle, CUBAN REDNECK? We don't do invectives here.

This is exactly why we have taken POLITICS off the board for discussion.

Closed.