Snowflakes in Hell


Firearms Policy and Politics in Pennsylvania

LaPierre on Sotomayor

author Posted by:Sebastian on date Jul 15th, 2009 | filed Filed under: Government

In the Washington Times:

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.

The Supreme Court is compelled to respect the Second and 14th Amendments and to interpret and apply them correctly. The cases in which Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues have mishandled these issues raise serious questions about her fitness to serve on the highest court in the land.

Honestly, after getting the low down on the testimony Bitter watched yesterday, even putting the gun issue aside, I think she has qualification issues.  She was evasive and vague even when asked to articulate basic constitutional issues.  On matters specific, being vague is hardly unique to Sotomayor in a confirmation hearing, but I can remember Roberts being able to cleanly articulate constitutional principles without too much trouble.  She was seemingly incapable of even that.

Post to Twitter Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to StumbleUpon

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Thinking About Sotomayor
  2. Sotomayor Still a Lock
  3. Sandy Froman Speaks of Her Experience on Sotomayor

tag5 Responses to “LaPierre on Sotomayor”

  1. Clayton E. Cramer Said,
    July 15th, 2009 at 10:55 am

    There is an argument that we are better off with a not very bright leftist in Justice Souter’s seat, rather than risk that Obama picks a smart leftist for the job.

  2. Don Gwinn Said,
    July 15th, 2009 at 11:03 am

    Roberts had to prove himself. She’s sitting on enough votes to make it, and she only needs to avoid losing those votes. She’s therefore playing a defensive game and running out the clock, like a wrestler holding down a jiu-jitsu master. There’s a time limit, so if the wrestler can hold the bjj player down until the bell rings, he wins on points. It’s not glorious, but it’s safe. If the wrestler attempts a submission to end the fight decisively, he gives the bjj player a chance to find an opening and apply his own submission, which is the bjj player’s only chance to win. So the wrestler’s strategy is boring and unimpressive to most people watching, but under the rules, it is the shortest, surest path to victory.

    For Sotomayor, there must be a temptation to show off knowledge of the Constitution, and surely she crammed enough, but every time she opens her mouth she’s taking the chance that this is the time she’ll say something that derails the nomination. She’s got nothing to gain.

  3. scott Said,
    July 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    She’s stupid. She got into Princeton even though her grades weren’t good enough. I’ve no doubt that she got an easy ride there too because or her race.

    Her legal opinions are thin and she seems to come down on the side of the state most often (remember she was a prosecutor – never a defesnse attorney).

    However, when she gets a chance, as in Ricci, she let’s her “wise, Latina experience” dictate so that she can stick it to the “white” man.

    There is no doubt also that she is anti-gun and if she gets a chance she’ll stick it to us too.

    To mimic Michelle O – for the first time in my life, I’m embarressed for my country.

  4. Running the Gamut – 056 Said,
    July 16th, 2009 at 5:02 pm

    [...] LaPierre, and Sebastian, on Sotomayor « Barrels, Bolts, and BCG’s – 055 [...]

  5. Richard Espinoza Said,
    July 16th, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    Time to get rid of all of Obama’s left wing communist thugs
    in 2010.