Sotomayor and Guns

[Nanti-SARRMM]

So, I turned on the news earlier to watch the hearing, be a good citizen and all. And then Sotomayor said something crazy. That she doesn't think that the 2nd amendment applies to state and local governments. And I'm now wondering why she's still being considered for the Supreme court.

So, yeah, just thought I'd share that. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

[vorpal blade]

She is being considered for the Supreme Court because she feels the same way about interpreting the law and the Constitution as Barack Obama does, despite her denials. She believes that you should use empathy and daily life experiences and foreign laws to give you insight into how the Constitution should be interpreted in order to achieve the outcome she believes represents justice.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Vorpal... that sounds like a fairly positive way to look at the constitution. If there was an implicit criticism intended, it didn't come through.

[vorpal blade]

The founding principle of our nation is that we are governed by laws, and not by men (or women). Justices give an oath when they are sworn in to avoid the kind of justice system where one makes decisions based on whether or not one sympathizes with one side or the other. The law is not supposed to reflect the personal biases or prejudices of the judge. It is not supposed to be based on who one hopes wins the case because we feel sympathy for them. The Constitution is not supposed to be interpreted in a way that furthers one's agenda, the minority one identifies with, concepts of social justice, or an outcome one feels is fairer or better. It is supposed to be interpreted just as it was written, and as it was originally intended. To do otherwise puts the judges, unelected officials, in the position of making new laws to fit their concepts of justice. This subverts the Constitution and destroys the balance of power that the founding fathers intended.

What foreign governments do, what your life experiences tell you, what you feel in terms of sympathy or empathy should be irrelevant to how you interpret the law. The idea that judges should reinterpret the Constitution in order to fit modern concepts of right and wrong and justice is destructive to our nation. The congress is the appropriate branch to make such changes, and if they conflict with the Constitution then we need to formally amend the Constitution. That's just the way it was set up, and the way it should be. That's what separates us from some banana republic, some communist nation, or some African tribal state. It's the rule of law, not personal beliefs. We have to respect law as something absolute, not something just to be bent to get what you want.

I thought that was clear. Thank you for pointing out that my criticism didn't come through.

[Imogen]

that may be how we were founded in theory, but even that ideal was based on personal opinions. not to mention, it is impossible for a person to be completely objective. the way we think is based on our experiences, how we were we raised, our relationship status, etc. because i'm a person of color, i'm going to have different experiences/opinions about affirmative action than a white male. someone who grows up in a poor neighborhood with a lot of violence is going to feel differently about guns than someone who grew up around no guns or responsible gun owners. so no matter how the media/republicans/whoever try to frame her admission of using personal experience to guide her, ALL judges and ALL people do the same. she's just open about it.

ps=how many of our laws are based on personal opinion? prop 8...segregation...affirmative action...i'm sure there are more, but i'm having a bout of insomnia and can't think of more than that.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I sort of agree with you Imogen about them having their own opinions, they're going to have them, and that is what the confirmation hearings do, to find out the person's opinions, cases they've passed and how precedent applies.

And Vorpal, though it is good the look at legal precedent, something that I don't like about Sotomayor is that she dances around questions as politician does come election. When asked about her opinions, she wouldn't answer and would go to precedent cases.

For example, today she was she was asked if the American citizen had the constitutional and inherent right to defend oneself in their home. And all she did was say that she could not think of any court case, any precedent. She would not say if she thought one way or another.

And so what if there is no precedent for something then? That's when person opinion comes to play in helping form a legal opinion. It is part of the process.

So although I think personal opinion and biases shouldn't be leading factor in making legal decisions, they are there and they are important.

[vorpal blade]

that may be how we were founded in theory, but even that ideal was based on personal opinions. not to mention, it is impossible for a person to be completely objective. the way we think is based on our experiences, how we were we raised, our relationship status, etc. because i'm a person of color, i'm going to have different experiences/opinions about affirmative action than a white male. someone who grows up in a poor neighborhood with a lot of violence is going to feel differently about guns than someone who grew up around no guns or responsible gun owners. so no matter how the media/republicans/whoever try to frame her admission of using personal experience to guide her, ALL judges and ALL people do the same. she's just open about it.

ps=how many of our laws are based on personal opinion? prop 8...segregation...affirmative action...i'm sure there are more, but i'm having a bout of insomnia and can't think of more than that.

Is she open about it? Does she realize she uses personal experience to guide her? Why then do we hear this from the Senate Confirmation hearing yesterday? http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD99EIDS01

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.: "I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will accept — affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me. So that is not impartiality. Don't you think that is not consistent with your statement, that you believe your role as a judge is to serve the larger interest of impartial justice?"

Sotomayor: "No, sir. As I've indicated, my record shows that at no point or time have I ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence an outcome of a case. In every case where I have identified a sympathy, I have articulated it and explained to the litigant why the law requires a different result. ... I do not permit my sympathies, personal views, or prejudices to influence the outcome of my cases."

...

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.: "You know it much better than I do, that rule of law triumphing probably best characterizes your record as your 17 years as a judge."

Sotomayor: "I firmly believe in the fidelity to the law. In every case I approach, I start from that working proposition and apply the law to the facts before us."
Schumer: "And has there ever been a case in which you ruled in favor of a litigant simply because you were sympathetic to their plight, even if rule of law might not have led you in that direction?"

Sotomayor: "Never."

...

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.: "Let me ask you about what the president said — and I talked about it in my opening statement — whether you agree with him. He used two different analogies. He talked once about the 25 miles — the first 25 miles of a 26-mile marathon. And then he also said, in 95 percent of the cases, the law will give you the answer, and the last 5 percent legal process will not lead you to the rule of decision. The critical ingredient in those cases is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. Do you agree with him that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?"

Sotomayor: "No, sir. That's — I don't — I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."

[vorpal blade]

I sort of agree with you Imogen about them having their own opinions, they're going to have them, and that is what the confirmation hearings do, to find out the person's opinions, cases they've passed and how precedent applies.

And Vorpal, though it is good the look at legal precedent, something that I don't like about Sotomayor is that she dances around questions as politician does come election. When asked about her opinions, she wouldn't answer and would go to precedent cases.

For example, today she was she was asked if the American citizen had the constitutional and inherent right to defend oneself in their home. And all she did was say that she could not think of any court case, any precedent. She would not say if she thought one way or another.

And so what if there is no precedent for something then? That's when person opinion comes to play in helping form a legal opinion. It is part of the process.

So although I think personal opinion and biases shouldn't be leading factor in making legal decisions, they are there and they are important.

When you say that she dances around questions as a politician would at election time what you are saying is that she is dishonestly concealing what she truly feels in order to get appointed. She knows that she has the nomination locked up, barring some unexpected bombshell. All she needs to do is avoiding saying anything controversial.

What a Supreme Court Justice is supposed to do is look at the Constitution and interpret it for the case in front of her. He or she should be guided by legal precedent in order to give consistency and stability to the system, but the lack of precedent doesn’t mean you are free to make up your own law. It means you have to go back to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. You have to set aside all your biases, prejudices, agenda, and hopes for twisting the Constitution to give you the outcome you want. If you can’t be objective you have no business being a judge in America. Read what Sotomayor says about the rule of law; she knows what she is supposed to say.

Then study what she has done and realize she is just another sleazy, dishonest politician.

[TheBlackSheep]

Maybe it's just because I have a judge for a father, but I'm so against lithmus tests for judicial appointees it's not even funny.

Is the person qualified? Do they know the Constitution and understand that their role is only to interpret the Constitution? Yes on both counts? Then they should be good to go.

I think judicial nominees should answer with precedents and the like. That's their job. Sure, they have opinions that will influence how they rule, but if they are qualified and understand their role, their opinions will not be the presiding factor. When I was about 16, I heard Justice John Paul Stevens speak at a judges' conference, and he was replying to criticism that he was acting only as an "activist judge," ruling according to his more liberal views whenever he wanted to. He then provided many, many examples of when he ruled against his personal beliefs because his interpretation of the Constitution and precedent told him that he should. I believe that this is a much more important trait than any kind of personal or political feeling.

I'm not saying that I'm behind Sotomayor or that I'm not here, as I don't know what I think of her, honestly. The fact that "empathy" seems to be a buzzword with those who talk about her worries me a little, but that's only because of the reasons I cited above.

I think the pomp and circumstance of judicial confirmation hearings is stupid, honestly. The president appoints someone (my dad taught me that the kind of judges a person will nominate should be in your top few reasons for voting for a presidential candidate, as the Supreme Court's makeup will last longer than four or eight years), and Congress should make sure they are qualified for the job. That's it.

[TheBlackSheep]

Oh, one more thing: I also think that lithmus testing is lame because of how often it doesn't work (think Justice Earl Warren).

[vorpal blade]

Good to hear from you Black Sheep.

One of the things that disturbs me about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings is the impression that it really doesn't matter whether or not she is qualified, or understands the Constitution, or understands her role in interpreting the Constitution. They will go through this ordeal, this farce, this charade, because the Democrats will support President Obama, right or wrong. No one wants to look like they are prejudiced against Latinos, and by and large the Latinos will use a vote for or against Sotomayor as a litmus test for whether to vote for that Congressman in the future. So the Democrats will make up good stuff to say about Sotomayor, the Republicans will question her qualifications and her understanding of the Constitution and her role in it, and none of it will make any difference in the end. She will be confirmed because the votes are there, and the Democrats will stick together. Do this for your colleges, and you can expect them to do something for you and help you get reelected in another issue.

To be fair I think some Republicans have done the same thing in the past. It’s a corrupt system. Personally I think the Democrats do it more than the Republicans, but it is wrong no matter who does it.

And I agree with you on the importance of a Supreme Court nomination.

[Imogen]

Good to hear from you Black Sheep.

One of the things that disturbs me about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings is the impression that it really doesn't matter whether or not she is qualified, or understands the Constitution, or understands her role in interpreting the Constitution. They will go through this ordeal, this farce, this charade, because the Democrats will support President Obama, right or wrong. No one wants to look like they are prejudiced against Latinos, and by and large the Latinos will use a vote for or against Sotomayor as a litmus test for whether to vote for that Congressman in the future. So the Democrats will make up good stuff to say about Sotomayor, the Republicans will question her qualifications and her understanding of the Constitution and her role in it, and none of it will make any difference in the end. She will be confirmed because the votes are there, and the Democrats will stick together. Do this for your colleges, and you can expect them to do something for you and help you get reelected in another issue.

To be fair I think some Republicans have done the same thing in the past. It’s a corrupt system. Personally I think the Democrats do it more than the Republicans, but it is wrong no matter who does it.

And I agree with you on the importance of a Supreme Court nomination.

vorpal, i'd say democrats and republicans take advantage of a majority in congress at the same rate. i HATED the last 8 years under a republican congress and president. they could (and generally did) get away with almost anything, and our nation is so complacent that hardly anyone does anything about it. i think it's fair to say both parties have an equal number of corrupt people who want to take advantage, and i really resent the idea that for some reason democrats would do it more than republicans.

[vorpal blade]

vorpal, i'd say democrats and republicans take advantage of a majority in congress at the same rate. i HATED the last 8 years under a republican congress and president. they could (and generally did) get away with almost anything, and our nation is so complacent that hardly anyone does anything about it. i think it's fair to say both parties have an equal number of corrupt people who want to take advantage, and i really resent the idea that for some reason democrats would do it more than republicans.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

[Imogen]

you're soooooo witty. excuse me while i'm stunned by it...

[Tao]

They will go through this ordeal, this farce, this charade, because the Democrats will support President Obama, right or wrong.

I'd agree that far too many people will wade through some of the most odoriferous falsities and fallacies in the name of 'their' party, as by ascribing to it, their pride is now a factor in the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of said party. In much of today's society, a threat to one's pride is tantamount (or more severe, even) to a threat to their body. And if 'their' party is divinely right, the opposing party is obviously of the devil and wrong on every point. True, politicians seem to embody these questionable traits, but in my eyes, the flaw runs back to the everyman.

And, in the end, I'm of the opinion that every American should support the President, right or wrong, agree or not, until they no longer hold that venerated office.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

And, in the end, I'm of the opinion that every American should support the President, right or wrong, agree or not, until they no longer hold that venerated office.

Same here. I don't agree with much of his stuff, but he's still the president, and I still support him how I can.

[Foreman]

And, in the end, I'm of the opinion that every American should support the President, right or wrong, agree or not, until they no longer hold that venerated office.

Same here. I don't agree with much of his stuff, but he's still the president, and I still support him how I can.

Do I think the office and position of president is one that should be respected? Yes. Do I believe in supporting (read: encouraging, believing in) everything he does? No.

I'm not really weighing in on the issue of the thread, but I feel that the difference between respect and support is an important one.

[krebscout]

Totally agreed. There are certain matters that presidents may take action on ... abortion, Watergate ... that I can't support.

[vorpal blade]

And, in the end, I'm of the opinion that every American should support the President, right or wrong, agree or not, until they no longer hold that venerated office.

Same here. I don't agree with much of his stuff, but he's still the president, and I still support him how I can.

I hope you don't mean that every member of Congress should support every nomination the President makes, and every piece of legislation the President supports. The Constitution establishes separate branches of the government for a good reason. If it were intended that Congress just rubber stamp the President's actions the Constitutional process would be pointless. The idea is that Congress should look at what is best for the country at large, and not what is best for the party, or the President.

And, to help the Congress fulfill its Constitutional responsibilities, we the people have a patriotic duty to inform our Congressmen what we think is in the best interests of the country. There is nothing unpatriotic or wrong in voicing our disfavor of what the President intends to do, especially if we believe the President is dismantling the basic framework of our nation and destroying what is good in America.

There is nothing wrong with saying that the President is making a huge mistake in nominating Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court Justice. After she is confirmed and sworn in as a chief justice we will owe support to the law, and respect her position when she is in the majority, and abide by the decision until we can get it changed. But it is a cherished freedom we have to be able to disagree with those in authority, and tell them plainly they are wrong when they are in the wrong. Let's not surrender our freedom.

I don't know what disturbs me most; the idea that judges should be able to legislate from the bench, or that the President should be able to legislate from the Oval Office. Because, in effect, unquestioned support of the President right or wrong would give him total dictatorial power.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I hope you don't mean that every member of Congress should support every nomination the President makes, and every piece of legislation the President supports.

No, and I agree with all you said.