• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Sotomayor on Self-Defense and Abortion

Bob makes allot of sense; than again Bob's not being confirmed to the supreme court. Bob's allowed to express his personal opinion, or to interpret the law any way he sees fit. A supreme court judge isn't allowed that privileged.

Really, she isn't allowed to have an opinion on an issue? Asking how she would rule on gun control is stupid, but when she was asked what her personal opinion on the topic was, she should have answer that.

But she's a rebel. She probably has a fake accent too.
 
Q - Is she allowed to have a personal opinion?
A - No.


Are you serious? Your telling me she doesn't have any of her own opinions about how things should be?

I'm not talking about using her personal opinion to determine cases but just her sitting at home talking to friends and she says, "Well in my opinion......"
 
I didn't say she doesn't have any opinions. I'm saying she's not allowed to express any of those opinions (unless she wants those opinions twisted, and used to crucify her at a later date). Sometimes the best thing you can do at a job interview is to keep your mouth shut.

And Bingo was his name-o.

:farmer:
 
I didn't say she doesn't have any opinions. I'm saying she's not allowed to express any of those opinions (unless she wants those opinions twisted, and used to crucify her at a later date). Sometimes the best thing you can do at a job interview is to keep your mouth shut.


Oh I get that, I'm just saying she was asked what her opinion was on certain topics. They weren't asking her to make a legal ruling right there and then just her opinion.

Whether I agree or disagree with her opinion is not what I'm getting at, I just want to know what she believes in. I mostly hate people in DC because they never give THEIR opinion, they just say what they think people want to hear them say.
 
Historically, opinions have been the drivers to create laws......i.e. Roe V Wade.

I don't find her statements like this very amusing either......

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.
 
By their fruits, ye shall know them.....


Joint Statement
Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association
And
Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action
On
Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court

Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.​

- NRA -




 
Back
Top