TexasCHLforum.com

pdubyoo wrote:

bdickens wrote:Obama appoints another socialist left-wing nutcase to replace one who is retiring. So then the net loss is what...?

For her to say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to military is a direct threat to our 2A right to possess a gun. She wants to knullify the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment for individuals to possess a firearm for private use. Further, she "feels" that states and municipalities should be able to decide their own gun ownership rights. This is a blatent attack on the 2nd Amendment and a glaring example of legislating from the bench...far beyond Souter.

Souter voted the wrong way on Heller, too.

pdubyoo wrote:

In January of 2009, Sotomayor ruled against the Supreme Court's ruling in another case (details to come). She made the statement during that ruling, that the Constitution's 2nd Ammendment only applies to military, and that it should be up to the individual states to regulate their own gun laws. .

Damn glad I live in Texas.

Texas Solo wrote:

pdubyoo wrote:

In January of 2009, Sotomayor ruled against the Supreme Court's ruling in another case (details to come). She made the statement during that ruling, that the Constitution's 2nd Ammendment only applies to military, and that it should be up to the individual states to regulate their own gun laws. .

darn glad I live in Texas.

I think Penn and Teller got it right here

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50[/youtube]

Warning: One F-bomb is dropped in the video.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Of course, since I disagree with her, I must be a white male sexist/racist lacking in her rich latina wisdom, and therefore my opinion is of little or no value.

I've been meanin' to talk to you about that.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Sotomayor is obviously an imbecile and her opinions...(which are over-ruled by higher courts at a rate of 60%, BTW).

The only comment I have to an otherwise rally-cry post is that Sotomayor has had seven rulings heard by SCOTUS; one ruling is pending. Of the six completed and published, five were overturned. In the single ruling upheld, the Justices were unanimous in their opinions that, while the ruling was correct, Sotomayor's reasoning for the conclusion was faulty. So by my count, she's only batting 16.7% in front of SCOTUS. And, personally, I fully expect the pending ruling to be overturned.

Do y'all reckon that the Obamanoids may have put her up as a 'stalking horse' and that they really have someone else in mind to fill the vacancy...maybe somebody named Chew?

I think they'd be fairly confident with their current majorities they don't need to throw up a sacrifice first....they're fairly confident in their power right now...

I've been looking for a little bit, but couldn't find an answer to this question.

How often does the SCOTUS reverse decisions that get to them? I wonder since they also get to decide what they will and won't hear. Do they usually decide to hear a case that they are more likely to reverse?

C-dub wrote:I've been looking for a little bit, but couldn't find an answer to this question.

How often does the SCOTUS reverse decisions that get to them? I wonder since they also get to decide what they will and won't hear. Do they usually decide to hear a case that they are more likely to reverse?

They will also commonly pick cases they are most likely to affirm when there are several like it in the lower courts, or when they feel it needs to be applied on a national basis.

I was thinking about this because of Sotomayor's reversal record with the SCOTUS. I think she's a nut, but also wondered how many "conservative" judges have had as many of their decisions reversed by the SCOTUS.

Oldgringo wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Of course, since I disagree with her, I must be a white male sexist/racist lacking in her rich latina wisdom, and therefore my opinion is of little or no value.

I've been meanin' to talk to you about that.

Joinin' my club?

Skiprr wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:Sotomayor is obviously an imbecile and her opinions...(which are over-ruled by higher courts at a rate of 60%, BTW).

The only comment I have to an otherwise rally-cry post is that Sotomayor has had seven rulings heard by SCOTUS; one ruling is pending. Of the six completed and published, five were overturned. In the single ruling upheld, the Justices were unanimous in their opinions that, while the ruling was correct, Sotomayor's reasoning for the conclusion was faulty. So by my count, she's only batting 16.7% in front of SCOTUS. And, personally, I fully expect the pending ruling to be overturned.

I never was that good at math.

Annoyed,

1st through 10th, except 2nd, have already been incorporated. The only reason 2nd hasn't been incorporated is due to racist politics (yes, politics) following the Civil War and reaching through the mid-20th century. (These are the same racist sentiments that have most southern states, including my beloved Texas, prohibiting open carry. For good reading look up any articles you can find on "The Deacons" to understand why shotguns, but not rifles or handguns were used to protect black churches in Texas and Louisiana following the Civil War.) To the non-lawyers (including me) on the forum, it seems obvious that the BofRs restricts the states in addition to the federal government, but in order to avoid allowing blacks to own "bad" weapons by ruling a state court decision unconstitutional, the SCOTUS contrived the concept of "selective incorporation" and allowed the state court decision to stand. Which court is left as an exercise for the reader(s).

This is a long way of saying that most of your earlier examples are decided law, and are now moot.

However, with the Heller decision, which didn't address incorporation by design, the field is ripe for incorporation on the 2A. Now that 2A, by Heller, is recognized as an individual right, states are open to suits against laws/regulations that limit individual rights. To succeed in these suits requires a ruling on incorporation, thus the battle is set.

I don't think Sotomayor is a strong 2A supporter, but based upon my research she supports the dictum of stare decisis, and the prevailing evidence is that the Framers intended for the BofRs to be like the rest of the Constitution by placing restrictions on what power the government, including the states' governments, may wield against its citizens. Remember, the unenumerated powers are relegated to the states, but by incorporation the RtkBA becomes one of the exclusions over which the states can execute no power.

JAMullins beat me to the punch, but I was about to say that Sotomayor's decision in Maloney may be good news for gun owners. She was correct that right now, the settled law according to SCOTUS is that the Second is not incorporated. She appears to be a strong believer in stare decisis (the philosophy that I was wrong before and am not about to correct myself). So, assuming she is confirmed and gets to a case, she would then vote to uphold Heller as settled law.

And, since the Maloney case is upcoming, she would almost certainly recuse herself from it if she gets confirmed in time. This makes it an 8 man decision which would probably be 5-3 in favor of overturning.

The best news is that her court ruled against incorporation while the 9th circuit voted in favor. As a general rule, the best way to get SCOTUS to address a question is when there is a conflict between the circuits. If they had not caused the conflict this early, we would have to wait until all appeals circuits ruled in favor to have true incorporation.


The second half of the question is whether or not she will be confirmed. I read (my personal opinion) her nomination as a test case. Do the Democrats have the power to push her through and are the Republicans willing to fight the battle? I don't see her as a real battle the Democrats are willing to fight hard for, just enough to test the resolve of the Republicans. If she gets confirmed, it is a double win for the Democrats in they get a judge they like and they show their power over the Republicans. This is a green light to do what they want.

If the Republicans do wage war, the Democrats will right her off. They probably already have a second choice ready and it will be much harder to fight the second nomination. If they nominate someone else who is just nominally better (as in more qualified), the Republicans would lose more public support fighting the second chance (be called obstructionist and so on). So, is she the throwaway to prep for someone even more liberal or is she the real nomination? Given her record of being overturned, her record of being temperamental to work with, her "racist" comments, and the comment that shows she doesn't have the sense of a rock (her 'I know this is being taped and I shouldn't say this but, you know, it is where we make policy decisions' comment), I really do not see her as being the best choice for the bench. On the plus side (for her), she does have a reputation for being someone who very carefully crafts her legal decisions using sound legal logic and thinking.

Steve,

She's definitely not a throwaway. She's the real nominee. The Republicans will not put up a fight because it is futile. They may negotiate a few backroom agreements, but they won't embarrass a newly elected black president over nominating a Hispanic, female jurist. The Republicans are losing too many Hispanics as we speak. The selection by Obama was calculated.

jamullinstx