Pages

Jump to bottom

6 comments

1
captdiggs  Jun 28, 2010 • 8:18:32pm

She lied to get on the Court, Ice.
No way to put lipstick on that.

2
Gus  Jun 28, 2010 • 8:32:17pm

re: #1 captdiggs

She lied to get on the Court, Ice.
No way to put lipstick on that.

There is no compelling reason why she had to vote with the majority. The SCOTUS was created to provide 9 justices with varying interpretations of law and not to create one monolithic vote. To say that voting with the minority on this issue makes her against the 2nd Amendment is not a thorough nor accurate assessment

She was joined by Justices Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg. Stevens was nominated by Republican President Richard M. Nixon. Regardless she was already confirmed and the reason behind this is to rally the base through fear mongering. This is the way democracy works and this case will more than likely never be heard by the SCOTUS for a very long time. It was a victory for gun rights and you should be happy about that instead of trying to find every little reason to complain.

3
captdiggs  Jun 28, 2010 • 8:54:26pm

re: #2 Gus 802

I find it disturbing that she lied during the confirmation hearings.
She was asked point blank about this and she gave a clear answer, only it wasn’t the truth.
How much faith can people put in a justice that lies in front of the nation?
She should have just said she what she agree to today and taken her chances on the nomination.

4
Charles Johnson  Jun 28, 2010 • 9:59:02pm

This is stupid. Learn to read.

5
philosophus invidius  Jun 28, 2010 • 10:54:40pm

She didn’t vote “against” the 2nd Amendment.

6
captdiggs  Jun 29, 2010 • 4:07:54am

re: #4 Charles

I read the entire dissenting opinion, charles. Have you?


Again, Sotomayor voted directly opposite her testimony at her confirmation hearings. No one here has even tried to contradict that, except philosophus.
And yes philosophus that was a vote against the 2nd amendment.

Here’s the money quote:

“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, �fundamental.�”

The overriding and primary argument throughout the dissent is that the 2nd Amendment does not bestow the right of private gun ownership and that such a right was bestowed only on the “militia” or armed forces.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 149 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1