search
top

Quick Notes on Sotomayor & Heller

NOTE: Bumped for another day of questions. Updates below. Now with daily labels in bold to make it easier to figure out where we are in the process.

DAY 2
There’s much more intelligent conversations to have about Sotomayor’s discussion of Heller and gun rights, but one quick note about something that made me laugh.

Sen. Leahy is asking simple questions like whether she merely accepts that Heller prevailed, blah, blah, blah. However, she expanded upon one of his questions about Maloney by saying that she has a friend who hunts, so clearly she understands the meaning of Heller.

I really did laugh out loud at that one, especially when she elaborated to justify Maloney because Heller was so narrow for specific circumstances.  Last I checked, Dick Heller wasn’t trying hunt anything in the District of Columbia when he brought that case.

I’ll update this post with random musings or notes as the day continues.

UPDATE: Orrin Hatch is now questioning Sotomayor on details of past gun cases.  They are leading to discussion of incorporation.  My understanding of what she’s trying to say is that incorporation was not only not at issue in Heller, but that the Court didn’t consider the Second Amendment to be fundamental enough to incorporate – even though she admitted that incorporation wasn’t addressed in the case.

She’s trying to take mad notes about Orrin’s questions.

Her responses on Hatch’s questions about fundamental rights are trying to lay a framework for her likely decision to refuse incorporation.

Fundamentally, we have to realize that she’s replacing Souter.  He wouldn’t be with us anyway.  Not to mention, she’s hardly an intellectual leader.  Listening to her answer other questions made that plenty clear.

Hatch flat out said he believes the cases she based Maloney on were the wrong line of legal thinking.

Now she’s trying to justify Maloney because of the “arms” used.  Apparently nunchucks are inherently dangerous because they could hurt people around you.  Umm, that doesn’t bode well for guns.  My internet skipped for a second before she said that, so there may be context lost.

UPDATE: Dianne Feinstein referenced guns as an example in regards to the Commerce Clause.  But my internet connection is getting slow, so it was skipping during her answers.  I’ve turned on the tv to follow it, and Dianne is making clear that Sotomayor needs to allow Congress to regulate “these things” after discussing guns again.

UPDATE: Poll time. Does Feinstein just want to put on a show for the left with the gun control talk, or is she really concerned that the power of Congress to regulate guns will be eroded?  Have we really scared her with Heller?

Is Dianne Feinstein legitimately concerned about the powers of Congress to regulate guns will eventually be in jeopardy?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: CNN’s talking heads are jumping on the Second Amendment questions right now.  They aren’t saying much that’s noteworthy or relevant.

UPDATE: They are replaying the quotes of her saying the Second Amendment is still an open question.  They are saying that guns are one of the issues that could generate a political response.  One pundit summed up her answers into three categories:

  1. “I didn’t mean what I said for 10 years!” The denial that she didn’t mean to sound like her race and gender were key to how she decides cases, regardless of the years of speeches where she certainly implied they were relevant.
  2. “I can’t answer that because it may come up later.” The punt. Anything that might ever come before the Court is punted.
  3. “It wasn’t my fault!” Then we have the answers that just blame everything on precedent and claims that she can’t do anything about precedent.

To a large degree, the last two answers are pretty common with any nominee.   The versions of answer number 1 are going to be more relevant to the debate moving forward.

UPDATE: The Senate GOP jumps on board with reviewing her answers to Second Amendment questions.

UPDATE: I’m letting a bit of the snark out over on Twitter.

UPDATE: Russ Feingold is now saying that it’s perfectly logical for Sotomayor to have ruled against incorporation.  He’s asked her to confirm that she would recuse herself if Maloney is heard at SCOTUS.  He’s also asking if she would recuse herself from NRA v. Chicago.  She said she’d look at the past to decide whether to recuse herself or not.  However, she indicates the two cases are different, so probably not.  She doesn’t want to answer about the “general principle” for incorporation of fundamental rights like the Second Amendment.

The tone of Feingold’s questions makes me wonder if he’s trying to ask enough to appease constituents.  Are WI residents calling him?  If so, keep it up. :)

He’s specifically if incorporation will be inevitable. She seems to be distinguishing between nunchucks and guns. I’m not sure what that means for us.

UPDATE: Sen. Kyl is also asking about Second Amendment issues, and he’s clarifying whether she’ll recuse herself if Maloney/Chicago/Nordyke are combined before the SCOTUS. She’s backing down, indicating that she may choose to stay on. He’s hammering her on whether she will properly recuse herself if they are combined in any order.

He really is going after her on complying with the recusal statute and arguing that she needs to recuse herself if they accept Chicago and Nordyke because it’s the same legal issue as Maloney. He notes that it’s not about details in the cases because she did deal with a strict incorporation in Maloney and the likely issue at hand in the other cases will be strict incorporation questions, so it’s a fair question. He then went for the peer pressure angle and talked about similar vows from Alito & Roberts. He actually said he believed that if the question before the Court is strict incorporation, it would be improper for her to hear any of the three previously mentioned cases. Go Kyl for being direct.

UPDATE: Schumer is up. He says he’ll follow upon what Sessions & Kyl asked. They both asked about race comments, so I don’t know if he’ll mention guns. Not a single mention of the Second Amendment. His job was to make her look less “empathetic” in her judgment, in the words of Obama. He asked her to talk about sympathetic cases where she had to follow legal standards and rule against them. But, in responding to one question, she said that hateful speech is clearly protected under the First Amendment. Oh really?

UPDATE: Sotomayor is refusing to answer if she’s a strict constructionist, saying she doesn’t like labels. Is “wise latina” not a label? She seems to like that one quite a bit. He seems to have stumped her on what’s in the Constitution. She’s having to stop and think about her answers on abortion. I won’t get into the abortion issue here, but it was funny watching her try to think about it.

DAY 3
UPDATE: And we’re on to Day 3 (2, really). Sen. Coburn is asking that Sotomayor “educate him” on Maloney and why she’s now denying that she said it wasn’t fundamental. She claims that Maloney recognized Heller, so clearly she wasn’t saying it wasn’t fundamental. He’s also calling her out for claiming that Heller specifically ruled that the Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated, but he then told her to specify whether the SCOTUS set precedent with the case or simply didn’t answer a question it wasn’t taken up. She finally conceded that they simply did not rule on it and in fact they implied it should be taken up.

Coburn is going back to the history of restoring rights to minorities in the South because of infringement by the states. I love the issue coming up since she has made such a big deal out of race.

He also points out that she said yesterday something that is directly spelled out in the Bill of Rights – the Second Amendment – is still “open” and debated law, while she claimed that something not spelled out – abortion – is “settled” law. If Roe settled abortion in the broad sense, then Heller settled the Second Amendment. That concerns me that if she considers it open, then she would be willing to actually overturn Heller given the opportunity.

He specifically asked her for a specific right to self-defense. She won’t answer. She says she can’t think of a case where SCOTUS has said that people do have that right. She can’t think of any federal laws on self-defense. He’s asking specifically if she personally believes that as an individual has a right to defend themselves. She said she can’t answer something like that, not because she thinks she’ll hear a case, but it seems to be a complicated question for her. He’s even giving her the out to say there could be a case someday. However, she says it’s just so difficult because she’s a judge and she just doesn’t think like that. She uses an extreme examples that are clearly not self-defense to say that’s why it is complicated, so she can’t explain whether she believes that an individual can defend themselves against a direct attack.

I’ll be honest, the clearly uncomfortable answers to those questions and the extreme examples of non-self-defense situations make me wonder if she actually does believe in any level of self-defense. The closest she would come to saying anything about an individual’s right to save their own life is that there are some situations that New York’s criminal law that allow for a self-defense argument.

UPDATE: I would actually be curious to know if there is any precedent for asking a nominee a similar question about a simple right to defend your life. I actually give her some leeway for not directly answering many questions because of the nature of these proceedings. It happens both ways. But, that evasiveness on self-defense was beyond disturbing. I’m fairly confident she could have answered it in an intelligent way without getting in the way of future cases. But, I’d like to know if there are other examples of answers to similar questions by other nominees. I want to know if her evasiveness was in line with expectations or truly dodging an important, yet simple question.

UPDATE: Amy Klobuchar says she personally supports the Heller decision, and just asked Sotomayor to again say that she acknowledges Heller happened. There was nothing insightful about Sotomayor’s response, but rather about Klobuchar’s statement. She supported the individual rights view so much that she refused to join the majority of the Senate in signing onto a brief in support of Heller.

UPDATE: I didn’t realize they had come out of closed session. So I’ve missed some questions. However, Jeff Sessions is questioning her on Second Amendment incorporation. He’s really going after her for language in her testimony about how it’s not settled (unlike abortion, according to Sotomayor) and she has ruled in Maloney already. He is also questioning her implying that she needs to recuse herself from any of the likely cases coming up since she has already ruled on the issue. She’s playing denial by saying that it’s not her fault, it’s all Scalia’s fault for not opening the door on the issue in Heller even though they weren’t asked to rule on it. He’s also addressing some concerns that are somewhat connected to comments Randy Barnett has raised with her statements (and likely understanding) of incorporation & fundamental rights.

UPDATE: Again, Leahy says he’s a gun owner. He also blames Maloney on Scalia to defend Sotomayor.

UPDATE: Orrin Hatch is again bringing up incorporation. I’d say from sheer numbers of questions, we’ve won the major debate. I wonder how many times Orrin Hatch ever thought he would say, “The Ninth Circuit got it right” in relation to guns.

UPDATE: She says that the Constitution creates rights. So does that mean we have no rights as humans outside of what the dead white men wrote for us?

UPDATE: Poll time! I’d like you to answer this question on the merits of the hearings, decisions, professional experiences, and documents regarding Sotomayor. Please do not vote in this poll if you just want to vote but haven’t really followed much about Sotomayor other than she was nominated by Obama.

This question is based on the fact that most legals minds I’ve read have said that Sotomayor is essentially playing defense and saying just enough to not dig herself into a hole. She doesn’t have to win anyone over, it’s merely a matter of not saying anything to sink herself. With the overwhelming majority in the Senate, it would be near impossible to sink herself unless she really sticks her foot down her throat. To minimize that prospect, she’s just not saying much.

If the Democrats didn't have a filibuster-proof majority, would Sotomayor be appointed to the SCOTUS?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

DAY 4
UPDATE: Lindsey Graham is again hitting her on incorporation of the Second Amendment. At this point, it’s a bit redundant, but I suspect the purpose is to get more gems out of her like not believing in self-defense. Graham did just say he never thought he’d say the Ninth Circuit would get it right on the Second Amendment, and there was laughter in the room.

UPDATE: Specter just threw out a softball question about the Second Amendment, essentially reminding the GOP that the Seventh Circuit also ruled against incorporation. His only beefy questions are about making sure Congress is the supreme branch and cameras in the courtroom.

UPDATE: Tom Coburn is asking about how to determine fundamental rights. He notes that she told Specter she couldn’t tell him, and she refused to answer Coburn on the issue. But, she’s giving off long, detailed answers to Democrats on other issues. She’s punting because she doesn’t want to say that the same standard applies to “specific amendments” aka the Second Amendment. He’s calling her lack of understanding of the fundamental rights or refusal to say disturbing in terms of a lack of transparency for the American public. I would absolutely I agree.

He’s specifically asking her if she believes it’s an irony that the issue of gun rights really became an issue when minorities were being disarmed in the South. Of course, she won’t answer. She only acknowledges that SCOTUS ruled on Heller.

I’d like to know exactly why she says Roe completely settled the abortion issue, but Heller leaves open the question of gun control.

UPDATE: Leahy is again trying to calm down the Second Amendment concerns. The fact that the Democrats are so scared to have this argument stick is very good for us, even if Sotomayor is confirmed. Sessions piped up saying that it’s important because of the practical impact. Leahy then made a crack about the “restrictive” gun laws of Alabama, Oklahoma, & Wyoming – at least as compared to Vermont.

UPDATE: Okay, I said I would limit the snark to Twitter. But I just have to throw one out there in the form of another poll.

Dear Lord, will it ever end?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

UPDATE: Sen. Kyl is asking about Maloney again, but I missed the question because I stepped away from the computer for a minute. Sorry for the lousy reporting.

Now he’s asking what the test would be for analyzing state and local gun control regulations. She’s dancing around it. The usual. He specifically asked which standard of review she would use. She said rational basis, which he then asks if that in fact gives the states and cities too much control because they are the least intrusive on government to prove why it’s needed to control a right. Sebastian is on the phone and says, “Bullshit! That means it’s not a right.”

I hate that I missed some of this conversation because this is the most useful line of questioning about the topic in a while. In fact, paired with the recusal challenges, I’d say that Kyl has asked the best gun questions when it comes to useful information.

This is a line of questioning I’ll be looking for a full clip of later. I really hate that I missed it and I know Sebastian will want to hear it.

UPDATE: Sen. Graham is hitting on how important gun rights are to people. His question isn’t about that, but he just had to make the point. I think the high profile nature of guns in this hearing gives NRA leverage to oppose future nominees if they say anything remotely negative about the Second Amendment.

UPDATE: Wow, I think it’s over. Just for the record, they are expecting to have a full vote before the August recess.

UPDATE: Haha, joke’s on you! It’s not really over. We now have witness testimony. I imagine it will be a while before the gun issues come up. I also meant to say that Sessions read a good portion of Sandy Froman’s letter to the Committee. However, my laptop crapped out on me. I’m charging up the other one so this won’t happen. (I’m liveblogging while also doing chores.)

UPDATE: Sessions is using the letter from 33 Attorneys General against the Arkansas Attorney General who is supporting Sotomayor. He’s wondering if AG McDaniel is aware of how her appointment would likely go against his position on that. Sessions also made a jab about mayors who infringe upon the Second Amendment – Bloomberg apparently just walked in.

McDaniel said he doesn’t believe she’ll be a threat to the Second Amendment. Arkansas voters, that’s your clue to take action if she is appointed and votes against us. Make him pay for the lies.

UPDATE: Hahaha! Bloomberg is a comedian. He just said he’s a staunch defender of the Second Amendment who would have a lot in common with Sen. Sessions if only Sessions would chat with him about gun control.

UPDATE: My favorite part of the panel is coming up. We have the hotness of David Kopel with the fantastic-ness of Sandy Froman.

UPDATE: The Democrats apparently had Chuck Canterbury of the FOP to address the Second Amendment argument. Did he not here the part of the hearing where she denied ever having heard of any federal cases or laws that allow for self-defense or when she refused to answer whether she as a person believes an individual to defend themselves at all?

UPDATE: Yay Sandy! She notes that Sotomayor’s either refuses to engage on the issue or simply doesn’t get it. I wonder if either she or Dave will bring up the concerns of the rational basis test that came out in the hearing this morning.

She notes that the SCOTUS issued a directive for courts to re-examine incorporation rather than relying on precedent from the 1800s. Sandy notes that there really wasn’t much analysis in Maloney.

UPDATE: Now we’re onto the hottie! (Yeah, I’m going there.) I love his introduction – “The case of Sonia Sotomayor vs. the Second Amendment…” – you can tell he knows how to write an engaging articles. He notes that Maloney shows it’s not just about guns. Under her view, states could unilaterally ban all archery equipment under a weak rational basis argument. You hear that hunters?

He flat out calls her testimony & record on arms are glib & flippant.

UPDATE: We’ve got Ilya Somin up now on property rights. I won’t blog on the topic, but he’s a fellow Conspirator with Hottie Kopel.

UPDATE: Sessions is asking Sandy if she’s concerned about the incorporation issue, noting that she could make Heller completely worthless. She notes that because Sotomayor won’t outline her legal reasoning, it’s a concern that she could be beyond bad. Sessions also noted that NRA is officially opposing Sotomayor.

UPDATE: Kyl is asking Sandy again about rational basis and how low the standards are for that issue, with pretty much allowing any infringement. Nothing much to report on that front.

UPDATE: I’m confused since Stephen Halbrook was on the witness list and I haven’t seen him. He wasn’t on the second panel with Sandy & Dave, nor is he on the final panel. The first panel didn’t include him, either. I’m disappointed. Halbrook is a true Virginia gentleman. Not to mention, he’s fascinating to talk to in regards to history and gun laws.

I see now that the C-SPAN counter of panels is higher than mine. I guess I missed one. Maybe Halbrook was on it?

UPDATE: Wow, I totally messed that up. Turns out after they adjourned earlier, they came back for one more panel of speakers. Stephen Halbrook happened to part of that group, and I missed it. But, whatever took place, I caught the very end of it when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse was talking about how SCOTUS “created a new right” in the Second Amendment. Then he said that they “discovered” the right after two hundred years. He doesn’t want Sotomayor sidelined over the gun issue. That’s interesting that they are a little concerned.

30 Responses to “Quick Notes on Sotomayor & Heller

  1. Charlie says:

    So Heller was about… hunting?

    Is that like saying ‘I support the Free Exercise of Religion because I have a friend who likes to eat a church potluck suppers’?

  2. Chris Bennett says:

    Wow. Just Wow, I can’t believe that Feinstein is for real.

    So, if we appoint you to the Supreme Court, could you forget about that whole tenth amendment thing for us, Kthx

    • Bitter says:

      I don’t pretend to be a lawyer, but my understanding that Commerce Clause has been abused enough to justify just about any kind of federal regulation. So she wouldn’t be out of the mainstream of the political types with that view.

  3. Charlie says:

    I’m not a lawyer either, but Bitter is right about the abuse of the Commerce Clause. When all three branches of government are complicit in their disregard for the Constitution, where are the checks & balances?

    No wonder they want to disarm the People.

  4. Drew Kelley says:

    “…where are the checks & balances…”

    “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”, & “…We, the People, in order to form a more Perfect Union…”,
    That is the check and balance upon a tyrannical form of government.

  5. Charlie says:

    No wonder they want to disarm the People. With that, their counterrevolution will be complete.

  6. Jennifer says:

    Well why would they think the people are competent after all. Look who they keep voting for.

  7. Charlie says:

    What would the Framers say if they knew the Second Amendment was considered an ‘open question’ in 2009?

  8. Charlie says:

    Jennifer, the fact that the majority can’t always be trusted to do the right thing is the reason we have a Republic (as opposed to a democracy) in the first place.

  9. Lou Gots says:

    The successful challenges to Commerce Clause jurisdiction have been in he gun control area. Gun-free school zones, for example. One on the dirty little secrets of gun-grabbing is that jurisdiction over gun matters may very well end then the gun leaves the stream of actual interstate commerce.

    This is why future Supreme Courtt nominations are crucual for gun rights, and why also we must be on the alert for expansion of Federalk jurisdiction over guns as part of the treaty-making power.

  10. Charlie says:

    “jurisdiction over gun matters may very well end then the gun leaves the stream of actual interstate commerce”

    Shouldn’t that be obvious though? Nearly all of my possessions were not manufactured in the state of my residence, but that doesn’t mean the Feds have any regulatory authority over them once the transaction of interstate commerce has been concluded.

  11. Jennifer says:

    Very true Charlie.

  12. jones says:

    Feingold’s DC mailbox is full. I called Middelton office.

    http://feingold.senate.gov/contact.html

  13. Chris Bennett says:

    Lol, wagers that the entire Schuemer Questioning is scripted?

  14. Chris Bennett says:

    It’s completely blatant, It’s the only senator who’s questions are being answered without having to think about them, and without I can’t comment, I can’t comment …

    • Bitter says:

      There have been some other Dems who asked questions that sounded a bit scripted. It really isn’t shocking that the White House would try to coordinate for purposes of messaging.

  15. Crotalus says:

    “Wise latina” is really grating on my nerves! She sure has a hifalutin’ opinion of herself. The more I hear that, the less wise I think she is.

  16. Ken says:

    Watching the confirmation hearings, I found myself wondering if maybe we’ve found our 2012 candidate in Tom Coburn. Anybody else out there feel the same way?

  17. Bitter says:

    I like Coburn on many issues, but he’s got too many oddities on the social conservative side for many folks outside of Oklahoma and the Bible Belt. In fact, I would say that I love Coburn as a legislator, even though I don’t agree with him on many things. But he used to give rather strange sexual health lectures on the Hill for interns when he was in the House.

    I don’t want anyone to assume I’m anti-Coburn, but I think some of quirks (that usually entertain me in a good way!) would get blown out of proportion on the national stage.

    I’d like to see Coburn stay in the Senate. He’s like the old favored pork-busting McCain who is even more principled on spending & taxes in general.

  18. Ken says:

    I dunno, Bitter, I’m unmarried and not exactly a poster child for virtue. Nevertheless, I myself get repulsed by the Democrats’ obsession with sexual with-it-ness. If Democrats want to have wild bisexual orgies with glow-in-the-dark dildoes, go for it, but frankly I’m pissed that their “right” to the Almighty Orgasm is more important than my right to keep and bear arms, ot my right to purchase the health care I want, or my right to try to advance high tech in the free market instead of being coerced by the federal government into a luddite nature cult (which, surprise, loves sex!!!!!!!), or my right not to pay for the murder of the unborn, or my right to political speech on radio or TV.

    I think that, done right, Coburn could turn the “HE MIGHT TAKE AWAY OUR SACRED RIGHT TO GROUP SEX!” mantra around on the Left, and make them seem not so much like perverts, but more like the ridiculous clowns they are.

    After all, let’s face it: sex is for the beautiful people. But nerds are the wave of the future. :) (Just kidding–mostly).

  19. Henry Bowman says:

    “He specifically asked her for a specific right to self-defense. She won’t answer. She says she can’t think of a case where SCOTUS has said that people do have that right.”

    Sounds like we should take up a collection to send her a copy of Alan Korwin’s “Supreme Court Gun Cases.” I’m sure Alan will be happy to autograph her copy.

  20. Stephen Dent says:

    Good points made here! You better not ever take away my gun rights or I’ll shoot you.

  21. Matt says:

    Oh, my kingdom to be a Senator today…

    She won’t answer. She says she can’t think of a case where SCOTUS has said that people do have that right. She can’t think of any federal laws on self-defense. He’s asking specifically if she personally believes that as an individual has a right to defend themselves. She said she can’t answer something like that, not because she thinks she’ll hear a case, but it seems to be a complicated question for her. He’s even giving her the out to say there could be a case someday.

    Are you KIDDING me?!? She doesn’t think there could be a case someday? She should have read the case involving where the SCOTUS was very explicit that a right to self-defense exists since she apparently referenced it in Maloney: Heller.

    From the majority decision:

    It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment’s
    prefatory clause announces the purpose for which
    the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia.
    The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving
    the militia was the only reason Americans valued the
    ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more
    important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat
    that the new Federal Government would destroy the
    citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason
    that right “unlike some other English rights” was codified
    in a written Constitution. JUSTICE BREYER’s assertion
    that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary
    interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at
    36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely
    upon the prologue – but that can only show that self-defense
    had little to do with the right’s codification; it was
    the central component of the right itself.

    Heller vs. DC, Page 26

    Representative
    Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary
    because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks]
    have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms
    for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866).

    It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War
    Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual
    right to use arms for self-defense.

    Heller vs DC, Page 44

    The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
    men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
    purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
    war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
    and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
    and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
    P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
    Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)).

    Heller vs. DC, Page 52

    As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
    the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the
    Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
    prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly
    chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
    The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the
    need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.
    Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied
    to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from
    the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to
    ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,”
    478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

    Heller vs. DC, Page 57

    We must also address the District’s requirement (as
    applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the
    home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This
    makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
    lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    Heller vs. DC, Page 58

    Need more Judge Sotomayor? I can go on. Or did you just skim the title of the decision and discard it as irrelevant to what you were deciding because precedent was more important? Despite the fact the precedent was sitting right in front of you and you ignored it.

    No Federal laws…unbelievable.

    This is horrifying to watch. All I can say is she the best of a bunch of bad options. She’s replacing Souter but still. She’s not qualified to sit on that bench for life if she can’t even be bothered to look up a decision that has been thrown at her for two days now and she must know was going to be referenced time and time again.

    I’ll bet she’d waffle and pontificate even if we printed “This
    makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core
    lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.” on a banner in big, bold letters and argue it was an open question.

    We better hope Scalia or Kennedy stick around. Another like her and we’re finished.

  22. Thomas F says:

    She has to make it out of Judiciary with one republican joining the Dems if they just had the balls………….. she could be spiked in committee, just like many of Bush’s appointees.

  23. RAH says:

    I told Session office several weeks ago that she was hostile to gun rights and this testimony defined that.
    If she can not articulate or believe in a natural right to self defense then that is grounds to decline her nomination.

    I though she was vulnerable on the gun issue and there is a Senatorial majority that supports gund rights. If the NRa pishes this we may actually erail her cinfirmation.

    Her testimony has been very damaging in my biased opinion.
    Any one has the vote count on a gun bill that may indicate if she gets voted down?

  24. Bitter says:

    I don’t think they can grade this vote, unfortunately. Cornyn has already said that they don’t have the support to filibuster. If they can’t even filibuster, it means she’s at least got the votes to pass.

  25. Brad says:

    I think Sotomayor’s history, in combination with her dissembling testimony confirms my worst fears about her. She’s anti-gun, and probably anti-gun from an emotional rather than a rational basis.

    We can expect her to not recuse herself when the issue of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment comes before the Supreme Court, and we can expect her to vote against incorporation. When it comes to other cases which will fix the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment, we can expect her to take the most hostile anti-rights position.

    No wonder people are buying ammunition like madmen.

  26. Charlie says:

    Like madmen? Stocking up seems like a pretty rational move to me…

  27. Mike123 says:

    I wish one of the Senators would just stand up and say ……..”the Bill of Rights doesn’t grant rights ……. it is there to perserve pre-existing rights from an encroaching government”.

    But alas, we got Senator Graham brown nosing with his Dem buddies.

  28. Bitter says:

    I don’t think Graham is really brown-nosing to Democrats. I suspect he has a philosophy that unless a nominee is truly unqualified, they deserve a vote. He said that elections have consequences, and that’s true.

    Graham actually asked some very good questions, so I don’t think you should discount him completely.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Incorporation and such - [...] More coverage of the Sotomayor hearings, specifically on guns, here. [...]
  2. Instapundit » Blog Archive » JOHN HINDERAKER on the “wise Latina” explanation. UPDATE: Sotomayor on the Second Amendment. M… - [...] ANOTHER UPDATE: Still more on Sotomayor and Heller. [...]
  3. Gun Nuts Radio: Sotomayor and the .50 BMG « Gun Nuts Media - [...] by Caleb What fun we had last night on Gun Nuts Radio!  We opened the show talking…
top