Sotomayor shoots herself in the mouth

M

michaelr

#1
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51222


Me thinks she is done, better be anyway.

In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.†She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.â€
Mayhap the rag should read the last SCOTUS decision on the second.
 
M

Migi e!

#2
She has already shown that notning matters but empathy & "latina women making better decisions that white men". The law, the constitution? Pfffffft
 
V

Vortex

#3
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51222


Me thinks she is done, better be anyway.



Mayhap the rag should read the last SCOTUS decision on the second.
From the article in your link
Van Alstyne told CNSNews.com that the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat†if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).

However, van Alstyne also said that the court has made rulings that indicate a basic right to defend one’s life.

“Interestingly enough,†van Alstyne said, “I think you may find it, as I would, in the court’s abortion cases.â€
 
M

michaelr

#4
From the article in your link
We as Americans have the right to self defense, and if Sotomayor wants to sit on the bench, she had better realize that.

There are also articles on this board where the feds are interfering with states rights and decisions concerning the second. Sorry kiddo, but you can't have it both ways.
 
V

Vortex

#5
We as Americans have the right to self defense, and if Sotomayor wants to sit on the bench, she had better realize that.

There are also articles on this board where the feds are interfering with states rights and decisions concerning the second. Sorry kiddo, but you can't have it both ways.
Please find me that SCOTUS case that says "US citizens have the constitutional right to self-defense".

The legal expert clearly states in the article:
[T]hat the issue has not come directly before the Supreme Court, and states do indeed have different laws regarding when a person has a right to use deadly force (some say there is a “duty to retreat†if retreat is a safe alternative to deadly force, others say there is not).
So, do you think the mother has the right to self-defense and can abort the child at any time to save her life? Isn't that self-defense?

Don't you think that each individual case has to be reviewed on a individual basis and blanket statements like your statements and what the congress persons were trying to get Sotomayor to say are not wise statements to make? A legal scholar bases their views on the law - not emotions, isn't that what you all have been saying about Sotomayor and her empathy, personal experience statements?

Your second amendment comment in your post makes no sense, it is too early in the evening to not be making sense. Would you please try to stick to the issue of the thread and no go off on some libertarian tangent not based in fact or reason.
 
M

michaelr

#7
Please find me that SCOTUS that says "US citizens have the constitutional right to self-defense".

The legal expert clearly states in the article:


So, do you think the mother has the right to self-defense and can abort the child at any time to save her life?

Don't you think that each individual case has to be reviewed on a individual basis and blanket statements like your statements and what the congress persons were trying to get Sotomayor to say are not wise statements to make? A legal scholar bases their views on the law - not emotions, isn't that what you all have been saying about Sotomayor and her empathy, personal experience statements?

Your second amendment comment in your post makes no sense, it is too early in the evening to not be making sense.
Look, this is about the second. Do you need the ruling from the last decision?

You want to start a thread about abortion, and the rights of the unborn, then be my guest.
 
N

nickcuse

#8
From the article in your link
and:

William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,†he said.

so it would appear this is a seinfeld thread.
 
N

nickcuse

#9
Look, this is about the second. Do you need the ruling from the last decision?

You want to start a thread about abortion, and the rights of the unborn, then be my guest.
how is this about the 2nd? self-defense and the right to bear arms are two different things.

so no, i would say you're wrong. the topic of this thread is about the right to self defense.

if you want to start ANOTHER thread about the 2nd, then maybe do so.
 
M

michaelr

#10
and:

William van Alstyne, a professor at the William and Mary School of Law, said that Sotomayor was technically justified in her answer. “It’s actually a more subtle and elusive question than most people would even reasonably understand,†he said.

so it would appear this is a seinfeld thread.
So a person on the high court, on that advocates that the second does not pertain to us common folk, is a Seinfeld moment, how odd indeed.
 

Similar Discussions