Sotomayor: "no right to self-defense"

[Matt Collins]

SOTOMAYOR AND THAT PESKY SECOND AMENDMENT:



http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs073/1102236309048/img/121.jpg?a=1102642356667


"Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? ... I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." -- Supreme Court nominee and federal judge Sonia Sotomayor (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102642356667&s=57420&e=001d_ZeYsV8H2B_3vjcoGmlXX2d_LQU_JUTwKPjP8tdF3tPt V8a5oNhptao_PeKxjTZE3bTCMbqttFS__FE_MTR6zxFPnISIR3 DGl6I4IWTheyBht3nN-U9fhPMBppiGREd2RmOd64lRQkd3hRn3IDQBaGju7F57qN3VjdJ CGAgNAPfAjMu8qUY_eVGFQJPLfFXq_hYnuN3Zqu_ye6xf0-KyQ==), when asked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed the right of self-defense. In 2004 Sotomayor signed an opinion stating "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."


SOURCE:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/archive.html

[BuddyRey]

Someone please tell me they're not actually going to confirm this fascist! :(

[Deborah K]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say you have the right to self defense? I don't think it does. And I think the reason for that is because it's a given, like taking a crap is. Why would the founders need to put that in the Constitution?

[BuddyRey]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

[Cowlesy]

Isn't defending one's life a natural right?

We're going to be stuck with this idiot for probably 40 years.

[Steeleye]

Let's hear her story after an attempted rape.

[heavenlyboy34]

Someone please tell me they're not actually going to confirm this fascist! :(

They've confirmed fascists before, and they'll likely do it again. :(:p:mad: Better stock up before the gun ban causes prices to skyrocket. :eek:

[Deborah K]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Okay, you can determine that to mean self defense. Good point. But not all self defense involves weaponry. Did the content of the question to her include 2nd amendment issues? Or was this some kind of trickery?

[Kotin]

if we have a right to life, then we certainly have a right to defend it.


she is batshit crazy.

[Matt Collins]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say you have the right to self defense? I don't think it does. And I think the reason for that is because it's a given, like taking a crap is. Why would the founders need to put that in the Constitution?Very good point, and this was an argument between Hamilton and others during ratification.

All rights are reserved to the individual. The Constitution does indeed enumerate this right, but even if it doesn't, it's a right we still retain (especially per the 9th / 10th amendments).

[__27__]

Isn't defending one's life a natural right?

We're going to be stuck with this idiot for probably 40 years.

You're assuming this country, it's political structure, or this world will last that long. I don't happen to think all 3 will survive 40 years, so I'm not all that concerned.

[jrkotrla]

Of course she'll be confirmed, such issue has been made of her race on the left that if she's not confirmed it'll be seen as proof that the nay-voting senators are simply racist.

Same thing with Obama. You can either agree with him 100% and view him as a savior or you are racist. No one is allowed to criticize his policies because ... wait for it... if you do you are racist.

side note - interesting psychological use of rolling up the sleeves when he gives speeches to the "working class". Trying to imply that he's one of them and isn't afraid to get dirty and do the necessary work?

[ChaosControl]

She proves how unqualified and how much of an idiot she is when she talks about "constitutional right to..."

[jclay2]

I say we try to lock her up in a u-haul box and send her to Europe where she belongs. It should be pretty easy, especially if she has no right to stop us.

[torchbearer]

I say we try to lock her up in a u-haul box and send her to Europe where she belongs. It should be pretty easy, especially if she has no right to stop us.

deal.

[Steeleye]

I say we try to lock her up in a u-haul box and send her to Europe where she belongs. It should be pretty easy, especially if she has no right to stop us.

Should we include air holes? How about wood chips and one of those water bottles hamsters drink from?

[torchbearer]

Should we include air holes? How about wood chips and one of those water bottles hamsters drink from?

I don't remember seeing that in the constitution, so it must not be her "constitutional right".

[roho76]

I don't remember seeing that in the constitution, so it must not be her "constitutional right".

I demand the government provide me with air holes, dammit. How else am I gonna breath when the government recommends I wrap my house in plastic and duct tape when the bio terrorists come?

[BillyDkid]

Very good point, and this was an argument between Hamilton and others during ratification.

All rights are reserved to the individual. The Constitution does indeed enumerate this right, but even if it doesn't, it's a right we still retain (especially per the 9th / 10th amendments).
Isn't this incredible - that the people who govern us have not even grasped that the role of the Constitution is to delineate the powers of government and not to enumerate our rights? We do not get our rights from the Constitution. Certain very important rights are enumerated, but that could hardly be construed to mean that those are the only rights we have.

[catdd]

It should be pretty obvious why she was chosen now.
The federal government simply is not going to stop until they've finagled a way to get our guns.

[Optatron]

that's what happens when you got people saying you don't have a right to privacy or right to health care, all other rights are the same, up to a person to deny and grant as his/her opinion.

[Theocrat]

SOTOMAYOR AND THAT PESKY SECOND AMENDMENT:



http://origin.ih.constantcontact.com/fs073/1102236309048/img/121.jpg?a=1102642356667


"Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? ... I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one." -- Supreme Court nominee and federal judge Sonia Sotomayor (http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102642356667&s=57420&e=001d_ZeYsV8H2B_3vjcoGmlXX2d_LQU_JUTwKPjP8tdF3tPt V8a5oNhptao_PeKxjTZE3bTCMbqttFS__FE_MTR6zxFPnISIR3 DGl6I4IWTheyBht3nN-U9fhPMBppiGREd2RmOd64lRQkd3hRn3IDQBaGju7F57qN3VjdJ CGAgNAPfAjMu8qUY_eVGFQJPLfFXq_hYnuN3Zqu_ye6xf0-KyQ==), when asked by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed the right of self-defense. In 2004 Sotomayor signed an opinion stating "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."


SOURCE:
http://www.theadvocates.org/liberator/archive.html


The next thing she'll be saying is gays have a right to be married. Oh, wait a minute...

[Matt Collins]

The next thing she'll be saying is gays have a right to be married. Oh, wait a minute...They do.... Or at least that isn't a right the government can deny. Consenting individuals should not have to ask permission to exercise a right. If they have to ask permission (marriage licenses), then it isn't a right.

[xd9fan]

hope the bitch doesnt try a "no knock" in the middle of the night at my door

[Theocrat]

They do.... Or at least that isn't a right the government can deny. Consenting individuals should not have to ask permission to exercise a right. If they have to ask permission (marriage licenses), then it isn't a right.

The point of my statement is if the government can give arbitrary rights in such issues as saying gays have a right to be married, then they can tell us we don't have a right to defend ourselves with guns.

Gay rights come from the State, so it naturally flows that gun rights come from the State, too, especially when people don't believe in a God that gives us all our rights which transcend above what the State says otherwise.

I just want people on here to be consistent in their thinking when they criticize the government for denying rights in one area of jurisprudence (gun ownership) while affirming rights in another area (gay marriage) as deserving equal protection under the law. Without God, rights only become as real as what those in power tell us.

[Optatron]

They do.... Or at least that isn't a right the government can deny. Consenting individuals should not have to ask permission to exercise a right. If they have to ask permission (marriage licenses), then it isn't a right.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/sra/lowres/sran308l.jpg

[Optatron]

The point of my statement is if the government can give arbitrary rights in such issues as saying gays have a right to be married, then they can tell us we don't have a right to defend ourselves with guns.

Gay rights come from the State, so it naturally flows that gun rights come from the State, too, especially when people don't believe in a God that gives us all our rights which transcend above what the State says otherwise.

I just want people on here to be consistent in their thinking when they criticize the government for denying rights in one area of jurisprudence (gun ownership) while affirming rights in another area (gay marriage) as deserving equal protection under the law. Without God, rights only become as real as what those in power tell us.

I'm consistent, I don't believe in rights.

[Matt Collins]

The point of my statement is if the government can give arbitrary rights in such issues as saying gays have a right to be married, then they can tell us we don't have a right to defend ourselves with guns.Government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent to each individual as part of our humanity.


Gay rights come from the State, so it naturally flows that gun rights come from the State, too, especially when people don't believe in a God that gives us all our rights which transcend above what the State says otherwise. No, government doesn't grant rights, it only tramples rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights.


Without God, rights only become as real as what those in power tell us.One does not have to believe in a higher power to recognize that rights are inherent in each individual as part of being human. Many people believe that these rights are placed there by God (as I do), but our individual rights are not contigent upon a belief in a higher power.

[Matt Collins]

No it's not wordplay. There is a difference between rights and privileges. You should learn the difference: http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/assets/chapter2.pdf

[Optatron]

Government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent to each individual as part of our humanity.

No, government doesn't grant rights, it only tramples rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights.

One does not have to believe in a higher power to recognize that rights are inherent in each individual as part of being human. Many people believe that these rights are placed there by God (as I do), but our individual rights are not contigent upon a belief in a higher power.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/Nokari/Amen-Brother.jpg

Except I don't agree "Rights are inherent to each individual as part of our humanity. "

I personally believe "rights are what a person can get away with without the approval or grant of others"

[Optatron]

No it's not wordplay. There is a difference between rights and privileges. You should learn the difference: http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/assets/chapter2.pdf

yeah, and I believe in no rights, only preferences and privileges.

[Theocrat]

Government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent to each individual as part of our humanity.

No, government doesn't grant rights, it only tramples rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights.

One does not have to believe in a higher power to recognize that rights are inherent in each individual as part of being human. Many people believe that these rights are placed there by God (as I do), but our individual rights are not contigent upon a belief in a higher power.

If rights only exist because we exist as humans, then you have to conclude that rights exist for other living things such as animals, plants, and bacteria, too. They exist, as well. If that is the case, then why do we eat animals and plants, violating their right to life, and why do we kill bacteria when we breathe air, violating their right to life, as well?

Once again, without God, there can be no rational basis for rights, and it does not comport with how we live in this universe as human beings.

[heavenlyboy34]

I don't agree with you that often, but you did a good job of point-taking and using logic to win this argument. Congrats. :cool:


Government doesn't grant rights. Rights are inherent to each individual as part of our humanity.

No, government doesn't grant rights, it only tramples rights. Government can only grant privileges, not rights.

One does not have to believe in a higher power to recognize that rights are inherent in each individual as part of being human. Many people believe that these rights are placed there by God (as I do), but our individual rights are not contigent upon a belief in a higher power.

[muh_roads]

Somebody send this to Ventura...lol

I can't believe he said he has no problem with Sotomayor. And he's a huge gun-rights advocate. Or so I thought anyway from what he has said in the past.

[pcosmar]

"Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? ... I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

Duh,
Doesn't this go contrary to hundreds of years of Legal Precedent?
ei.

�Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that �a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.� There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
�If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.� That was the �ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.�� (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

I am sure that there are more, including the recent Wash.DC case.

And from my state Constitution.

1835 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

[James Madison]

Where in the Constitution does it specifically say you have the right to self defense? I don't think it does. And I think the reason for that is because it's a given, like taking a crap is. Why would the founders need to put that in the Constitution?

It's not; that means the right to self defense is protected under the Ninth Amendment.

[tmg19103]

When she is confirmed I will be thankful I live in Pennsylvania where the state Constitution states:

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned".

[Matt Collins]

I don't agree with you that often, but you did a good job of point-taking and using logic to win this argument. Congrats. :cool:Well that's because I'm always right! :D;):p:):cool:

[PrairieQueen]

I heard this and, I believe, when she was talking about "she can't think of one" she was talking about case law - she couldn't think of any case law that a person has the right to self defense. When pressed about her personal opinion - she wouldn't commit.

Anyway, not trying to defend her, I just think that statement was taken out of context.

[Matt Collins]

If rights only exist because we exist as humans, then you have to conclude that rights exist for other living things such as animals, plants, and bacteria, too. They exist, as well. They don't have the ability for reason, rationalization, and self-awareness.



If that is the case, then why do we eat animals and plants, violating their right to life, and why do we kill bacteria when we breathe air, violating their right to life, as well?Because they don't have rights.

1 of 2 scenarios:
1- God gave us dominion over them
or
2- We evolved to the highest part of the food chain.


Either way we win. ;) mmmmm.... tasty tasty animals.


Once again, without God, there can be no rational basis for rights, and it does not comport with how we live in this universe as human beings.Again that is incorrect because God cannot be proven or disproven.

[pcosmar]

I heard this and, I believe, when she was talking about "she can't think of one" she was talking about case law - she couldn't think of any case law that a person has the right to self defense. When pressed about her personal opinion - she wouldn't commit.

Anyway, not trying to defend her, I just think that statement was taken out of context.

Really,
She is a lawyer, right? We could assume that she has read some law books, maybe even a Supreme Court decision. Right?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/

Answering a 217-year old constitutional question, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to have a gun, at least in one’s home. The Court, splitting 5-4, struck down a District of Columbia ban on handgun possession. Although times have changed since 1791, Justice Antonin Scalia said for the majority, “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”

Examining the words of the Amendment, the Court concluded “we find they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weaons in case of confrontation” — in other words, for self-defense. “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” it added.

The individual right interpretation, the Court said, “is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment,” going back to 17th Century England, as well as by gun rights laws in the states before and immediately after the Amendment was put into the U.S. Constitution.

What Congress did in drafting the Amendment, the Court said, was “to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one.”

I say she is full of shit. What say ye?

[Theocrat]

They don't have the ability for reason, rationalization, and self-awareness.

How do you know that animals, plants, and bacteria don't have the ability to reason and be self-aware? Also, if the ability to do those things makes rights existent, then mentally-challenged people, comatose patients, and even little children don't have rights, according to you. Your argument proves too much, in effect, and I don't think you want to go there.


Because they don't have rights.

1 of 2 scenarios:
1- God gave us dominion over them
or
2- We evolved to the highest part of the food chain.


Either way we win. ;) mmmmm.... tasty tasty animals.

According to your view on rights, animals, plants, and bacteria do indeed have rights because they exist as living beings just as humans exist. You're not being consistent with your beliefs, Matt.


Again that is incorrect because God cannot be proven or disproven.

Of course God can be proven. The problem is some people don't like or accept the proofs for God's existence. That's a subject for a different thread, though.

[Kotin]

and yet another thread is hijacked by religious debate..


:rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

and yet another thread is hijacked by religious debate..


:rolleyes:

Believe it or not, determining whether the right to self-defense is indeed a right is a religious issue. It stems from belief in the origin and justification for the existence of rights. We often forget that because we assume religious neutrality whenever we have these kinds of discussions. Nothing could be further from the truth, my friend.

[Matt Collins]

How do you know that animals, plants, and bacteria don't have the ability to reason and be self-aware?
That should be obvious... the lack of mental capacity.




Also, if the ability to do those things makes rights existent, then mentally-challenged people, comatose patients, and even little children don't have rights, according to you.Incorrect again. They are human, but they also do not have the ability to understand or comprehend the responsibilities that go with their rights. With every right comes a responsibility:

- right to carry a gun, responsibility to ensure it's not misused
- right to free speech, responsibility not to libel/slander, or cause a stampede
etc....

when someone is unable to comprehend their responsibilities that come with their rights, they are denied their rights.

A 6 year old is not allowed to carry a gun on their hip because they cannot grasp that responsibility.


According to your view on rights, animals, plants, and bacteria do indeed have rights because they exist as living beings just as humans exist. You're not being consistent with your beliefs, Matt.No, humanity is unique because of our individual ability for rational thought, reason, and self-awareness.




Of course God can be proven. No He can't. That's why it's called FAITH because it can't be proven. If it could be proven then it would be called science.

[PrairieQueen]

Really,
She is a lawyer, right? We could assume that she has read some law books, maybe even a Supreme Court decision. Right?
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/court-a-constitutional-right-to-a-gun/


I say she is full of shit. What say ye?


I say you are right. So either way, she is obviously not wanting to take a stance...she was tap dancing.

[Deborah K]

It should be pretty obvious why she was chosen now.
The federal government simply is not going to stop until they've finagled a way to get our guns.


She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Her stances are not that different from Souter's.

[Objectivist]

Isn't defending one's life a natural right?

We're going to be stuck with this idiot for probably 40 years.

Maybe not if she shares her fathers genes.

[klamath]

I heard this and, I believe, when she was talking about "she can't think of one" she was talking about case law - she couldn't think of any case law that a person has the right to self defense. When pressed about her personal opinion - she wouldn't commit.

Anyway, not trying to defend her, I just think that statement was taken out of context.

There is Case law that says, "A MAN HAS NO DUTY TO RETREAT"

[Athan]

Someone please tell me they're not actually going to confirm this fascist! :(

Do you really need an answer to that question?

[catdd]

"She is a liberal replacing a liberal. Her stances are not that different from Souter's."

I never heard Souter say we don't have a right to self defense. But you are right as one is not much better than another.
The point is that these liberals are like rats trying to find a way to get to that big hunk of cheese called the 2nd amendment.
What she is trying to do is render guns practically useless without the right to use them in self-defense.

[powerofreason]

Let's hear her story after an attempted rape.

Lmao

not likely to happen.

[BuddyRey]

Do you really need an answer to that question?

Yes, I do! :eek::D

I'm scared to death of the implications involved in this woman's appointment, yet, having no cable TV and only sporadic Internet access, I don't know how her confirmation hearings are going, or how much of a backlash she is meeting in the Senate.

[Matt Collins]

She is a liberal replacing a liberal. It depends on how you define "liberal".

modern-day "liberals" have a lot of good ideas about personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, individual rights, etc. That's obviously good. However many modern-day liberals also think the government should regulate markets, provide health care, and stifile upward mobility. Obviously that's bad.

A more ideal label would be "classical liberal" or libertarian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Instead of using terms such as 'liberal vs conservative' a better way to classify these people would be "big vs limited government" or "original meaning of the Constitution vs interpretation". Or "positivest law vs natural law".

[Steeleye]

modern-day "liberals" have a lot of good ideas about personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, individual rights

No they don't. They'd just as soon tell you what's "okay" to think, say, or do as any neo-con.

[Kludge]

So what's the actual source?