Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


I despise all those who proved to be racists when it came to Sotomayor, and will soon post the names of those who people in high positions who offened the Hispanic community so horribly. BUT!!

I seriously didn't like Sotomayor's explanation, or rather, lack of explanation, when asked if citizens have a right to self-defense. Her going round and round on the question sounded very strange for a woman who grew up in projects. Am I reading her correctly? Is she saying that if we shoot and kill in self-defense an intruder (stranger) inside our home, we will be in a pickle of trouble with the law?! I think so, and I hope she loses the U.S. Supreme Court position! Or has she already won the position?

Coburn had asked, "As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself (personal) self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?"

In reply, Sotomayor said that, "I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law."

Unsatisfied, Coburn continued, "But do you have an opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?”

Sotomayor responded, "I – as I said, I don’t know."

Later in the exchange, Coburn said, "I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking your personal opinion."

"But that is an abstract question with no particular meaning to me," Sotomayor relied.

Join The NRA
"The Right Of The People To Keep and
Bear Arms, Shall Not Be infringed."!


( 32 comments — Leave a comment )
Jul. 28th, 2009 07:08 pm (UTC)
I fear you are confusing personal and ideological dislike for racism.
Jul. 28th, 2009 07:20 pm (UTC)
we all know it
There's no confusion. There is racism, and we all know it.
Re: we all know it - tomcatshanger - Jul. 28th, 2009 08:01 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: we all know it - playgirl - Jul. 28th, 2009 08:09 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: we all know it - tomcatshanger - Jul. 28th, 2009 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 28th, 2009 07:13 pm (UTC)
It's strange that she's avoiding answering...
Jul. 28th, 2009 07:21 pm (UTC)
so simple..
Yes it is strange. The question was so simple, and she didn't answer it. This worries the hell out of me.
Re: so simple.. - ayoub - Jul. 28th, 2009 07:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: so simple.. - playgirl - Jul. 28th, 2009 08:16 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tomcatshanger - Jul. 28th, 2009 08:00 pm (UTC) - Expand
As for librals... - playgirl - Jul. 28th, 2009 08:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
Re: As for librals... - tomcatshanger - Jul. 28th, 2009 09:26 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 28th, 2009 07:28 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure there really is a clearly defined "Constitutional right to self defense." [You know I'm uber pro-gun] It may very well the purview of the states at this point.

The Law is a strange creature. You do know that in several cases it has been ruled the the police are not liable if they do not protect citizens, yes?

EDIT: there is a possibility of such a right in a very broad interpretation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness", but it would very broad indeed.

I'll submit this to my Cabal of Lawyers.


Edited at 2009-07-28 07:30 pm (UTC)
Jul. 28th, 2009 08:27 pm (UTC)
would be killer...
So confusing. Then, if we as American's have the right to bear arm, yet could possibly not have the right to use them when confronted by a would be killer, then of what use is the 2nd Amendment? grrr!
Re: would be killer... - marc17 - Jul. 28th, 2009 09:02 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 28th, 2009 08:00 pm (UTC)
Seems more like she's kicking it back to state's rights, which is not surprising as that was how the constitution was meant to run. The government had a select few powers and duties and everything else went back to the states. Since the civil war however, the larger government has been assuming duties originally handled by the states. Not always bad by my opinion but somewhat sketchy constitutionally IMHO. Too much is based on interstate commerce clause and that being wrongly applied in many cases. I am more concerned that she doesn't know. It seems like a fairly standard issues that a federal judge would have known, but however not phrased like she used to hearing.
Jul. 28th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
extremely important ...
I believe I understand now, but it bothers me when she was asked for her own personal opinion about the right to self-defense. She just wouldn't answer, which is extremely important to the majority of American's, including myself.
Jul. 28th, 2009 09:11 pm (UTC)
Her answer speaks volumes.

He asked do you "believe innately"

She answered "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one."

He asked her personal beliefs, which she did not answer. But as a nominee, she clearly shows that she believe rights are CREATED by the constitution. Actually, rights are given to you by your creator. The constitution specifically defines certain rights which the government will not tread upon. Unlike her, I do not believe that defines all of your rights. Is your right to eat, breathe, sleep, fall in love definded in the Constitution - NO, yet you believe you have those rights.

Yet she'll be the first SOB to rule that you have a "right to healthcare" even though it isn't in the constitution. Why??? Because she's a judicial activist who uses her place on the bench to get her personal beliefs into law.

DAMN George Bush for appointing her to her current position.

Please send me another wise latina woman for the bench, this one is defective.

BTW - its a done deal. She's in like Flynn
Jul. 29th, 2009 02:16 am (UTC)
I had no idea it was a done deal. It worries me to no end, that she was so evasive when questioned about her views on self-defense!
(no subject) - thisismo - Jul. 29th, 2009 01:57 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - tigron_x - Jul. 29th, 2009 04:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thisismo - Jul. 29th, 2009 01:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jul. 29th, 2009 01:00 am (UTC)
I am most happy that you are seeing the truth.
You are finally seeing what I have seen from the very beginning. Her views on gun control, her views of ereverse racism (Conn. Firefighter rulings and her views on white males have turned me away from her all together. and if you dont know about that read on... and all of your male leftist readers need to read as well.

In the 2004 speech delivered to the San Juan chapter of NOW, Sotomayor said, "I want to be perfectly clear about this next comment so that there is no mistaking my words to mean something other than what they plainly say: the time has come to end white male oppression by castrating every white male until they are no longer dominant in Western culture. That means forcible removal of their testicles. I realize the brutality of my comment, and I don't know how to say it more clearly."

I hope that Lindsey Graham is the first one to get de-nutted then all those white males that are kissing her ass.

Jul. 29th, 2009 04:08 am (UTC)
Re: I am most happy that you are seeing the truth.
I'm shocked she got the position.
Jul. 29th, 2009 02:36 pm (UTC)
hahhaha. You have very strong opinions.

Apparently, she does too. She just takes her time about forming them.

In some of the questions, she did go round and round. Almost to the point of dodging.
Aug. 2nd, 2009 06:12 pm (UTC)
Yes I do! :o)

The dodging is pure political, and it scares me when someone with so much power like her, plays politics with something that could mean the difference between life or death, when it comes to self defense, even in our own homes!
Jul. 31st, 2009 10:40 pm (UTC)
Yeah for Sotomayor!!
Aug. 2nd, 2009 06:09 pm (UTC)
I pray to God you're right, but her evasiveness on the right to self defense worries me a lot!
( 32 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

May 2015


Powered by LiveJournal.com