Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
snippet:
"In 2001 at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, Sotomayor stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."
Whether currently elected Rockefeller Republicans in the House and Senate get a dime from conservatives in the next election will depend on how they react to a judicial activist. We may vote for them as in "we have no real choice" but we control how much we give or don't give to political campaigns so in my opinion the winner or loser isn't Sotomayor but the Committe.
It's one lib replacing another.
The Dems will just do their usual predictable stuff....and you know, we won't get a monologue on baseball from Joe Biden at the hearings.
She wrote that as a LAW STUDENT some thirty years ago... and it was/is a commonly held view among many, many jurists. It does not matter now because the SC has stated that gun ownership is an individual right. C'mon... do better.
So what you are saying is that the right to owning a firearm is seen by many judges(including this one) as not in the Constitution....even though the USSC recently ruled otherwise...
She then doesn't believe in the Bill Of Rights I guess.
Can someone explain to me what do they think was implied by inclusion of "well regulated militia" in the second amendment?
My opinion (backed up by a number of scholars, such as The 2nd Amendment Explained ) is that the first part of the 2nd amendment is an explanation of WHY the right can't be infringed. It imposes no conditions on that ban against govt interference. If it were completely omitted from the amendment, the amendment's meaning would not change: The right of the people to KBA shall not be infringed.
In modern language, the 2nd amendment says:
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."
You cannot get more clear than that. Militia != military.
My opinion (backed up by a number of scholars, such as The 2nd Amendment Explained ) is that the first part of the 2nd amendment is an explanation of WHY the right can't be infringed...
The beauty of an interpretation is that everybody can have one, no matter how non-sensical it might be, and how far off it may be from its purpose.
Having said that, why is it that the "well regulated" part is missing in the interpretations you speak for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViewFromThePeak
You cannot get more clear than that. Militia != military.
Correct. Militia is a noun, while military is implied as an adjective (when implied as a noun, it can be used interchangeably with militia). But, that doesn't cover the issue of "well regulated". What do you think that implies?
So what you are saying is that the right to owning a firearm is seen by many judges(including this one) as not in the Constitution....even though the USSC recently ruled otherwise...
She then doesn't believe in the Bill Of Rights I guess.
I've had discussions with you before to know that you don't understand much about law or the Constitution. Heller was the FIRST case in which the SC decided whether the right to own arms was an individual right or one that is attached to the then-nascent country's desire to keep state militias. As evidenced by the 5-4 decision that it is an individual right, this was a very controversial point and judges and lawyers across the country were split almost 50-50.
So, someone ignorant of all this would look at what Judge Sotamayor said 30 years ago and jump to idiotic conclusions about her belief in the Bill of Rights. Other more informed folks would realize that she is squarely in the middle of judicial thought.
In any event, the case is decided... the law is the law.
The beauty of an interpretation is that everybody can have one, no matter how non-sensical it might be, and how far off it may be from its purpose.
Having said that, why is it that the "well regulated" part is missing in the interpretations you speak for?
Correct. Militia is a noun, while military is implied as an adjective (when implied as a noun, it can be used interchangeably with militia). But, that doesn't cover the issue of "well regulated". What do you think that implies?
"Well regulated militia" has been interpreted by constitutional scholars to mean any able bodied patriot, as militia had an extremely loose definition at the penning of the constitution. There were few regulations in the early years, so the interpretation does not hold today. We have more checks and balances than ever before, with NICS background checks and ANY felony (even possession of weed, thank God I've been as lucky as I have ) resulting in permanent loss of firearms ownership rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) resulting in permanent loss of firearms ownership rights.
