PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor Dodging Questions on Gun Ownership



Franco
07-15-2009, 11:28 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl699

Here is the wise Lataina dodging gun ownership questions. I'll bet that wise Latina doesn't understand nor likes guns in general. Afterall, she is wiser than white men according to her.

Brandoned
07-15-2009, 11:46 AM
We are in trouble with this idiot!

dnf777
07-15-2009, 11:58 AM
We are in trouble with this idiot!

Just is just a hunch...based on nothing, but I bet she gets her confirmation, and ends up much more conservative than anyone imagined! I'll bet she will be to Obama what Souter was to Bush, and the dems will be surprised and disappointed.

People change when they put on that black robe. Its happened many times before.

YardleyLabs
07-15-2009, 12:02 PM
Just is just a hunch...based on nothing, but I bet she gets her confirmation, and ends up much more conservative than anyone imagined! I'll bet she will be to Obama what Souter was to Bush, and the dems will be surprised and disappointed.

People change when they put on that black robe. Its happened many times before.
I suspect that you are right on criminal law cases. On gun ownership I suspect that her opinions will mirror those of her predecessor.

Gerry Clinchy
07-15-2009, 12:45 PM
From the NY Times:
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/orrin_g_hatch/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Republican of Utah, questioned Judge Sotomayor about an unsigned decision from a three-judge panel she joined in 2004. The decision rejected a drug dealer’s Second Amendment challenge to a law making it a crime for illegal immigrants to possess guns. The ruling was in a footnote, and it quoted an earlier decision of the appeals court saying that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Judge Sotomayor defended her panel’s ruling. The decision had used the word “fundamental” as a legal term of art rather than in the colloquial sense, she said. In any event, she went on, the decision predated the Supreme Court’s decision last year that first found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
That decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. Even the Heller decision, Judge Sotomayor continued, warming to the task, did not suggest that every gun law is unconstitutional.
Judge Sotomayor also defended a decision she joined in January refusing to apply Heller’s holding, which concerned a federal law, to a New York law banning the possession of a martial arts weapon. The question of whether the right identified in Heller applies to the states has divided the federal appeals courts and is likely to reach the Supreme Court soon
=====
"banning a martial arts weapon" ... a far cry from an assault rifle or an Uzi.

Another interesting thought from the hearings yesterday. If a "wise Latina woman" can render better decisions than a white male, then what of the fact that so many of our Supremes have been white males. Those very people have made some decisions that have been very wise. If we accept that one's gender or ethnicity will influence decisions, I think we step into some murky waters. The rule of law should supercede the rule of one person's ethnicity or gender.

Terry Britton
07-15-2009, 02:23 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl699

Here is the wise Lataina dodging gun ownership questions. I'll bet that wise Latina doesn't understand nor likes guns in general. Afterall, she is wiser than white men according to her.

Per my Organizational Behavior 8th edition textbook required for Organizational Theory, deflecting questions is an unethical behavior along with 9 other behaviors including lying.

So, can she be disbarred for her unethical behavior in deflecting questions?

If people would just report behaviors to the proper agencies, and the agencies actually enforce their ethics laws, then we wouldn't have near as many problems.


Case in point, look at the first 3 minutes of Senator Coburn's questioning at the bottom of this page:

http://republican.senate.gov/supremecourt/

A simple "Yes or No" question was asked, and anything else is deflecting the question. She should be sent to her BAR on ethical charges, and elliminated from being a Judge. :)


This stuff isn't so hard.

YardleyLabs
07-15-2009, 04:29 PM
Unfortunately, since the Bork hearings, appointees are coached to reveal absolutely nothing regardless of the questions asked. To hear Roberts testify during his confirmation hearings you would have to believe that he had no opinions on any issue that has ever or will ever come before the court and that there are no circumstances in which he would overturn and clear precedent. And those memos he wrote for Reagan, as well as his employment questionnaire were obviously written by a person with no relationship to the man nominated. Obviously neither is even remotely close to the truth. Alito was a little more open, but not much. Overall, my impression is that Sotomayor has been a little more forthcoming than either Roberts or Alito, but the margin is slim. I'm not happy with that any more than I was happy with the approach followed in prior hearings. However, the only way she will not be nominated is if she says something concrete that provides more ammunition against her. She will try hard not to do that.

dnf777
07-15-2009, 05:04 PM
Per my Organizational Behavior 8th edition textbook required for Organizational Theory, deflecting questions is an unethical behavior along with 9 other behaviors including lying.

So, can she be disbarred for her unethical behavior in deflecting questions?

If people would just report behaviors to the proper agencies, and the agencies actually enforce their ethics laws, then we wouldn't have near as many problems.


Case in point, look at the first 3 minutes of Senator Coburn's questioning at the bottom of this page:

http://republican.senate.gov/supremecourt/

A simple "Yes or No" question was asked, and anything else is deflecting the question. She should be sent to her BAR on ethical charges, and elliminated from being a Judge. :)


This stuff isn't so hard.

I have a textbook on Organizational Behavior...but I can never remember where I put it.

dnf777
07-15-2009, 05:06 PM
Unfortunately, since the Bork hearings, appointees are coached to reveal absolutely nothing regardless of the questions asked. To hear Roberts testify during his confirmation hearings you would have to believe that he had no opinions on any issue that has ever or will ever come before the court and that there are no circumstances in which he would overturn and clear precedent. And those memos he wrote for Reagan, as well as his employment questionnaire were obviously written by a person with no relationship to the man nominated. Obviously neither is even remotely close to the truth. Alito was a little more open, but not much. Overall, my impression is that Sotomayor has been a little more forthcoming than either Roberts or Alito, but the margin is slim. I'm not happy with that any more than I was happy with the approach followed in prior hearings. However, the only way she will not be nominated is if she says something concrete that provides more ammunition against her. She will try hard not to do that.

Jeff, there's no need for questioning and reviewing records....you can just "look into their eyes, and see what kind of heart they have".

Franco
07-15-2009, 06:51 PM
Jeff, there's no need for questioning and reviewing records....you can just "look into their eyes, and see what kind of heart they have".


My instincts tell me that heart is black when it comes to Anglo-America. She could help Obama secure longterm power beyond the two term limit by helping him make citizens out of 25 million illegal immigrents. This is a smart Latina woman and she is going to implement her personal agenda, the continued browning of the USA.

They will try and disarm citizens before they try to re-educate them.

dnf777
07-15-2009, 08:02 PM
My instincts tell me that heart is black when it comes to Anglo-America. She could help Obama secure longterm power beyond the two term limit by helping him make citizens out of 25 million illegal immigrents. This is a smart Latina woman and she is going to implement her personal agenda, the continued browning of the USA.

They will try and disarm citizens before they try to re-educate them.

Franco,
You may be right, but for all our sakes, I hope you're wrong. I'm not so sure she's going to be pro-amnesty or pro-illegal immigration. Living in El Paso for several years taught me that some of the most stringent opponents to illegal immigration are the LEGAL hispanic immigrants, who worked for their positions and pay taxes, etc... Hopefully she'll be in that camp, but I don't pretend to know. I just have an unfounded hunch, that she will be far more conservative than anyone predicts once she dons that robe.

Our country will survive. It may change, but it has changed before, and with EVERY change, people predicted doom and gloom, but we survive.

Franco
07-15-2009, 08:13 PM
I don't think there is any doubt that she would be for amnesty. Remember, she claims to be a wise Latina woman. She is not going to send anyone back home. There will also be waves of new ethnic immigration. In the 60's it was the Cubans, 70's the Vietnamesse, the 80's Iranians, 90's latins from all countries south of the boarder. Now we are going to have to support thousand of Haitins and Africans wanting to come here.

We just can't continue to take people in and support them. It is crazy; economic and cultural suicide.

dnf777
07-15-2009, 08:40 PM
I don't think there is any doubt that she would be for amnesty. Remember, she claims to be a wise Latina woman. She is not going to send anyone back home. There will also be waves of new ethnic immigration. In the 60's it was the Cubans, 70's the Vietnamesse, the 80's Iranians, 90's latins from all countries south of the boarder. Now we are going to have to support thousand of Haitins and Africans wanting to come here.

We just can't continue to take people in and support them. It is crazy; economic and cultural suicide.

So true. I hate the argument that "your anscestors immigrated"....well, yeah, and America had 20 million people then, millions of acres of undisturbed wilderness, and jobs for anyone willing to pick up a shovel. Ain't so today! We're full!!

I can't see how anyone of any political persuasion can not be for secure borders, and limited, selected immigration policy. You're right, it's cultural suicide.

Franco
07-15-2009, 09:57 PM
So true. I hate the argument that "your anscestors immigrated"....well, yeah, and America had 20 million people then, millions of acres of undisturbed wilderness, and jobs for anyone willing to pick up a shovel. Ain't so today! We're full!!

I can't see how anyone of any political persuasion can not be for secure borders, and limited, selected immigration policy. You're right, it's cultural suicide.

Our government could afford to be wreckless back when we had unlimited resources. Today, our out-of-control immigration is a downward spiral.

In fact, everything seems to be out-of-control. That's because we have become a sedated nation. Just look at what we accomplished from 1941-45. We, as a people today could never do anyhting near that remarkable. We've catered to the weakminded politicians for way too long and have let the media corrupt our culture.

Marvin S
07-15-2009, 10:20 PM
I just have an unfounded hunch, that she will be far more conservative than anyone predicts once she dons that robe.


By your definition or by Franco's definition or by my definition?

Inquiring minds breathlessly await. ;)

bobbyb
07-15-2009, 10:48 PM
Ya know what's scary ,i mean really scary ? that goof ball from SNL al frakken questioning her about PERRY MASON!!! here they are questioning her about gun control, abortion, the constitution of the united states and HE wants to know what was HER favorite episode !!! dishearting at best. talk about stuck on stupid

JDogger
07-15-2009, 11:29 PM
By your definition or by Franco's definition or by my definition?

Inquiring minds breathlessly await. ;)

Probably like Goldilocks, wouldn't you imagine? This is to cold, this is to hot, this is just right. In reverse order of course, or somrhting like it. Have a cookie and a glass of warm milk and go to bed. It'll all be over in the morning.

PS. Don't hold your breath...

JD

Terry Britton
07-16-2009, 12:29 AM
Unfortunately, since the Bork hearings, appointees are coached to reveal absolutely nothing regardless of the questions asked. To hear Roberts testify during his confirmation hearings you would have to believe that he had no opinions on any issue that has ever or will ever come before the court and that there are no circumstances in which he would overturn and clear precedent. And those memos he wrote for Reagan, as well as his employment questionnaire were obviously written by a person with no relationship to the man nominated. Obviously neither is even remotely close to the truth. Alito was a little more open, but not much. Overall, my impression is that Sotomayor has been a little more forthcoming than either Roberts or Alito, but the margin is slim. I'm not happy with that any more than I was happy with the approach followed in prior hearings. However, the only way she will not be nominated is if she says something concrete that provides more ammunition against her. She will try hard not to do that.

Then unfortunately, I would have to deny any of those appointees on unethical behavior. :)

Of course, I would like those in the Senate and Congress to uphold the same ethical standard that Dr. Tom Coburn upholds. He has to keep that high ethical standard or loose his medical license over ethical issues. Too bad the BAR associations don't enforce all of the ethical standards such as the "Deflection" or "Lying". I think Obama would be disbarred on the no more taxes statements during his campaign if they were to uphold ethical standards.

Bruce MacPherson
07-16-2009, 01:12 AM
From her answers so far I take it she is a strict constitutionalist and probably at least as conservative as Scalia, no need for worry here. :rolleyes:

subroc
07-16-2009, 05:26 AM
...but I bet she gets her confirmation, and ends up much more conservative than anyone imagined! I'll bet she will be to Obama what Souter was to Bush, and the dems will be surprised and disappointed...

And you base this on what?

She is an extreme lefty. nothing she has ever done, according to information provided and pubished reports, shows she will be naything other than an extreme lefty.

dnf777
07-16-2009, 05:52 AM
And you base this on what?

She is an extreme lefty. nothing she has ever done, according to information provided and pubished reports, shows she will be naything other than an extreme lefty.

Refer to post #3.

Bayou Magic
07-16-2009, 07:58 AM
Refer to post #3.

Base your opinions on your "hunch" if you so choose. Most prefer her history.

fp

dnf777
07-16-2009, 08:09 AM
Base your opinions on your "hunch" if you so choose. Most prefer her history.

fp

I would more aptly call it "hoping for the best", but expecting the worst. I'll hunch away, because my opinion doesn't mean a rat's A## in this affair!

As for her history, she has been noted to be more severe on criminals than her peers, including many conservatives. If she follows the law regarding illegal immigration, I can only hope we may have some sensical rulings coming soon. Lord knows we haven't seen any in my life time!

Just trying to be optimistic.

Pete
07-16-2009, 08:21 AM
I sat and watched her dance for a couple of hours. Such fancy words

Don't believe she answered many of the questions . And the question askers seemd frustrated that she could dance so well,,,use every word in the dictionary and not say a thing. I think she'll fit right in.

Pete

Terry Britton
07-16-2009, 09:37 AM
I sat and watched her dance for a couple of hours. Such fancy words

Don't believe she answered many of the questions . And the question askers seemd frustrated that she could dance so well,,,use every word in the dictionary and not say a thing. I think she'll fit right in.

Pete

I wish one of them would stand up and address the issue that deflection and deceit is unethical (Organization Behavior 8th ed). Then proceed to ask only yes or no questions, and remind her that ansewers beyond, Yes or No are unethical unless she chooses not to address the question. :)

Pete
07-16-2009, 10:16 AM
wish one of them would stand up and address the issue that deflection and deceit is unethical (Organization Behavior 8th ed). Then proceed to ask only yes or no questions, and remind her that ansewers beyond, Yes or No are unethical unless she chooses not to address the question. :smile: Today 01:21 PM

Terry
I agree with you whole hartily,,, even in a court of law, lawers ask alot of yes or no questions without the witness being able to explain. She should be treated the same.


Its tough to tango using yes or no answeres.

Pete

road kill
07-16-2009, 11:29 AM
Terry
I agree with you whole hartily,,, even in a court of law, lawers ask alot of yes or no questions without the witness being able to explain. She should be treated the same.


Its tough to tango using yes or no answeres.

Pete

I would think that you would want to hear the richness of her experienced Latina opinions!!??!!??

Steve Amrein
07-17-2009, 08:17 AM
If the Democrats that are on the panel should vote to dismiss her based on her answers. This is nothing more than a campaign.

al franken was a embarrassment to his elected position, state and our country. His contribution shows what a joke this hearing his.

Roger Perry
07-18-2009, 09:46 AM
Sotomayor wins key GOP support (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/18851)
July 18, 2009 - 6:52am.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/files/071809johnkylap.jpg


Three Republican senators said Friday they will back President Barack Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a likely easy confirmation.
"Given her judicial record, and her testimony this week, it is my determination that Judge Sotomayor is well-qualified to serve as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," Cuban-born Senator Mel Martinez of Florida said on his website.

road kill
07-18-2009, 10:47 AM
Sotomayor wins key GOP support (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/18851)
July 18, 2009 - 6:52am.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/files/071809johnkylap.jpg


Three Republican senators said Friday they will back President Barack Obama's choice of Sonia Sotomayor to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, setting the stage for a likely easy confirmation.
"Given her judicial record, and her testimony this week, it is my determination that Judge Sotomayor is well-qualified to serve as associate justice of the United States Supreme Court," Cuban-born Senator Mel Martinez of Florida said on his website.


If it takes 3 Republicans to validate your opinion, it is pretty weak!!

Roger Perry
07-18-2009, 11:08 AM
If it takes 3 Republicans to validate your opinion, it is pretty weak!!

Don't really have an opinion one way or the other. I Just looked in the newspaper and saw the heading, looked it up on the internet and posted it.

Henry V
07-18-2009, 11:34 AM
If it takes 3 Republicans to validate your opinion, it is pretty weak!!
Did that apply to republican nominees too? You know, kinda like the 4 yes votes that Justice Alito received from Democrats in the full Senate vote on his confirmation. I do agree that she probably won't get 22 yes votes from Republicans like Justice Roberts received from Democrats.