Obama Picks Sotomayer for Supreme Court

[Waitone]

Rest assured she would not have been tapped unless she is fully lined up behind the agenda of the power brokers, whatever that agenda is. 

[longeyes]

Obama is the kind of "romantic" who thinks you get "real wisdom" in the Projects.

Not that he would know personally.

This country is turning into reality tv, and ugly duckling make-overs are part of that, disguised as "a great personal story."  It's all part of the massthink.  Sotomayor's life of "hardship" ended at 18, with Princeton; she's had 36 pretty golden years since from what I can tell. But what she really learned from a family on welfare is anyone's guess.  Trouble is, the reality of the situation just doesn't matter to a lot of people any more.

[MicroBalrog]

Not that he would know personally.

Hasn't Obama spent some time working in such places?

[Perd Hapley]

Video of Obama introducing Sotomayor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqShO72gQq4

At about 0.56, he says that the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago.  Unless he's talking about the Old Testament or something.

[brimic]

Seems like the type of candidate you would expect to be nominated from a member of Rev Wright's flock. 

Is there anyone out there that still isn't convinced that Obama is a radical socialist and a racist?

[grampster]

My experiences growing up are a bit like Charby's through about age 13.   About then my dad lost his job in his mid 40's when I was getting ready to go into high school in 1957.  No age descrimination then, and no one was hiring "old guys" like my dad.  Clothing became hand me downs, food was pretty basic, and I had to go to public school instead of the Catholic school because we didn't have the $35.00 yearly tuition.  To say we had to scramble for the necessities was an understatement.  My dad got hired by the post office after monumental study on his part so he could pass the postal exam.  That exam was excrutiatingly difficult in those days.  He worked hard to overcome.

Those experiences prepared me to be able to overcome set backs in life.  Made me more determined to not be put in the same position as my dad.  The last time I looked, education is free through 12 grades, and there are no laws stopping anyone from excelling as long as one has the drive and ambition.  Opportunity exists in America.  I have no patience with people who believe that life is a zero sum game like Obama and his ilk.  A good deal of the so called poor and oppressed are that way because they would rather wait for the handout that zero sum game politicians promise.  Certain political ideology promotes victimhood.

Race, sex, and life experience should have nothing to do with appointments to the federal bench.  It should be about a track record of being faithful to our founding documents and sticking to those principles.  A judge who legislates from the bench is not fit to be part of the judiciary as that contravenes the separation of powers.  It is so sad to see how far down and coarse we have become as a nation because we have failed to hang onto the principle that we are a society of laws rather than of the whim of Man.

[FTA84]

.... and there are no laws stopping anyone from excelling as long as one has the drive and ambition. 

Bush's "no child left behind"?

At about 0.56, he says that the Constitution was written 20 centuries ago.  Unless he's talking about the Old Testament or something.

I laughed outloud at this one.  I'm sure he was just reading whatever was on the teleprompter, but he said it so dramatically with that "serious emotional conviction" face.  Maybe his writers meant 20 decades.

[longeyes]

Hasn't Obama spent some time working in such places?

He's dabbled in the ghetto but he's lived a life of privilege.  My point was that he's myth-making.  This is another attempt to transmogrify American values.  Now he's moved on to judicial values.  Detachment and rational analysis used to be the criteria; now, apparently, it's the inverse of that: empathy, emotional immersion.  But not all are equally empathetic or to be empathized with.  This is dangerous ground and fatal to our core principles.  Either all are equal before The Law or they are not.

[longeyes]

And re the Second Amendment & Sotomayor, this:

May 26th, 2009 11:47 AM Eastern


KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick


By Ken Blackwell
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.


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.


Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.

[Boomhauer]

Is there anyone out there that still isn't convinced that Obama is a radical socialist and a racist?

There are plenty of people out there who are still happily ignorant of Obama's true character.

[Waitone]

Interesting view of gun owners' place in Sotomayor's nomination fight.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor-and-the-second-amendment/

Wednesday, May 27th, 2009 5:46 pm | Lyle Denniston |

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, already facing bitter criticism from gun rights advocates for an appeals court decision she joined last January, may have to choose whether to take part when the constitutional issue at stake comes up before the Supreme Court (assuming that she is confirmed). As of now, the first case in line on that issue is the one on which she ruled as a judge of the Second Circuit Court — Maloney v. Cuomo.

The Maloney decision (Second Circuit docket 07-581) involves the next major issue on the Constitution’s Second Amendment, which guarantees a “right to keep and bear arms.”  The issue is whether that Amendment applies to state and local government, thus restricting their power to control individuals’ private possession of pistols and other guns.  The Supreme Court ruled last year, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, for self-defense, in the home.

The Court, however, did not settle whether the Amendment operates against any level of government other than the federal government and a federal entity, the District of Columbia.  The Second Circuit, in the Maloney case, ruled that prior Supreme Court precedent saying that the Amendment only applied at the federal level is still binding law.  Sotomayor was a member of a three-judge panel that issued the unsigned ruling.

In reaction to her nomination, supporters of broad rights under the Second Amendment exploded.  For example, Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative advocacy group, Committee for Justice, wrote: “Now every red and purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be forced to explain to his constituents why he’s supporting a nominee who thinks those constituents don’t have Second Amendment rights.  Because they can send red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if they’re drawn into the debate. Obama’s selection of Sotomayor makes that virtually certain.”

The Maloney case is now scheduled to be challenged in the Supreme Court by June 26.  Sotomayor, as a Justice, almost certainly would take herself out of consideration of that case, because of her prior participation in it at the Circuit Court.

Other cases raising the same question, however, are moving along in lower courts, and it is possible that the Justices may see more of those, perhaps over the summer months. If that happens, the Court may have other vehicles to choose from, thus perhaps giving Sotomayor a chance to get involved.

The Ninth Circuit Court in April became the first federal appeals court to rule that the Second Amendment does apply to state and local government — thus assuring the kind of Circuit split that often leads the Supreme Court to step in to resolve the disput.e

The Ninth Circuit did so in the case of Nordyke, et al., v. King (Circuit docket 07-15763).  Although there was a chance that the Nordyke case could be appealed soon to the Supreme Court, in time to compete with the Maloney case for the Court’s attention on the Second Amendment question, that prospect dimmed last week.  A judge of the Ninth Circuit called for a vote on whether the full en banc Court should consider the case.  Both sides were ordered to file simultaneous briefs on that question by June 8 — thus slowing down the pace of that case.

Another case on the same issue involves the leader of the Nation’s gun rights forces — the National Rifle Association.  Its lawsuit seeking to have the Second Amendment apply to state and local government (National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago) was heard Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court (docket 08-4241).  An early decision is expected in that case; indications at the oral argument were that two of the judges were deeply skeptical of the NRA’s plea (see this analysis by law professor Randy Barnett at the Volokh Conspiracy blog.  Thanks to Howard Bashman of How Appealing blog for this link.)

Another Second Amendment case moving toward a decision, in the Fifth Circuit Court, does not involve the question of applying the Second Amendment to states, counties and cities. But it does test whether the right recognized by the Supreme Court is a “fundamenal” one; if it is of that rank, that very likely would lead to its application to state and local government.  (The Fifth Circuit case is Bledsoe v. U.S., docket 08-51217. Briefing was completed in March. Both sides have waived oral argument.)

If Sotomayor as a member of the Supreme Court does take part in the next round on the Second Amendment, it is unclear just what difference that would make.  She would replace retiring Justice David H. Souter, who dissented in the Court’s 5-4 ruling in Heller establishing a personal right to have a gun in the home.

If the same five Justices who made up the Heller majority were to rule that the Amendment reaches below the federal government, Sotomayor’s vote probably would not be decisive.  She could bolster a majority, if she were so inclined, in favor of the broader application, of course.

I seriously doubt gun owners are sufficiently powerful to throw the nomination into doubt.

[RoadKingLarry]

World Nut Daily is reproting that she is a member of La Raza.
That by itself should be enough to disqualify her if true.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

[longeyes]

There are members of La Raza high up in the Obama administration.

They interface nicely with ACORN.

[RocketMan]

I seriously doubt gun owners are sufficiently powerful to throw the nomination into doubt.

Sufficiently powerful, or sufficiently interested?  In any event, I agree that gun owners will have little to say about this nomination, comparitively speaking.

[AJ Dual]

As lousy as her views are on that, she's really no change from how Souter dissented on Heller vs. D.C.

I'm much more concerned that she's a member of La Raza. 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm much more concerned that she's a member of La Raza.

So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?

[AZRedhawk44]

So tell me, please: how is La Raza any worse than the Ku Klux Klan?

How is it any better?

None of the conservatives here would allow David Duke to sit on SCOTUS.  Silly argument.

[longeyes]

Racism is racism, no matter the color of the sheet.

[roo_ster]

Got this from John Derbyshire:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDhkYzg5ZGZiMDMzNDYwNWE4NDhiOGU2MTI2ZjQ0OGM=


All hail the brave and wise Latina!
Compelling is her story!
And jurisprudent her demeanor —
She's on the path to glory!

At SCOTUS she'll make policy
(What need for legislators?)
More jobs! More opportunity!
For twofer second-raters.

Latina wisdom, egged on by
La Raza mischief-makers,
With fill her soul with empathy
(Though not for white test-takers).

[roo_ster]

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZWQxOGZlYTJmY2JkZWYyMTM4YWMwYjU1M2I4MjY2YTM=

The trouble with posting doggerel is, it wakes all the other doggerelists.

    Mr. Derbyshire — If I might suggest a final stanza to your fine ode:

            For the rule of law, for much too long
            Has been macho demasiado;
            A wise Latina may well suggest
            It’s better off castrado.

The species doggerelistia includes of course the subspecies haikuniensis:

    Derb — How can you cite odes but not haikus? I'll offer a few to start things off.

            Latina woman
            A member of La Raza
            Lots of empathy

            Policy-making
            Is done by Courts of Appeals
            The real lawmakers

            No white males needed
            Sotomayor knows better
            Our newest Justice

[Viking]

Racism is racism, no matter the color of the sheet.

This one hasn't been properly re-educated yet. Send him to the gulags vacation camps in Siberia northern Alaska!
PC-speech police =>

[slingshot]

When she was nominated, I really didn't have a strong opinion about Sotomayer.  I didn't know anything about her more than what the President said and her comments.  A few days have passed and I don't believe she is a friend of 2nd Amendment rights.  I believe she is an activist judge who believes the Constitution is a living document that is changed to fit the times through legal rulings rather than going through the legislative process.

Her comment about her life's experience giving her the tools to make better rulings than a white man certainly said it all after I let it sink in a bit and digest.  It has broad ramifications about her belief structure.

[Jamisjockey]

When she was nominated, I really didn't have a strong opinion about Sotomayer.  I didn't know anything about her more than what the President said and her comments.  A few days have passed and I don't believe she is a friend of 2nd Amendment rights.  I believe she is an activist judge who believes the Constitution is a living document that is changed to fit the times through legal rulings rather than going through the legislative process.

Her comment about her life's experience giving her the tools to make better rulings than a white man certainly said it all after I let it sink in a bit and digest.  It has broad ramifications about her belief structure.

Which is exactly the type of judge he wanted to appoint. 

[longeyes]

One Sottomayer is one more than we can afford; one will become two, and two is a game-changer.

[slingshot]

I agree that she is exactly the kind of judge that Obama wanted to nominate.   I didn't expect anything less.  But Obama is painting a different picture which makes me distrust him.  Words have meaning.