PDA

View Full Version : Legal Sotomayor is the best Obama nominee the GOP could ever hope for


alnorth
05-29-2009, 12:53 PM
(tl/dr: When you actually look at her opinions, it seems clear that Sotomayor is a left-leaning moderate who reads laws pretty literally, and is reluctant to broadly interpret laws based on personal opinion. She seems to be about as non-activist as they get. Although she may be liberal on social and civil rights issues, she has actually been very moderate for business cases. She is the sort of nominee that could disappoint Liberals someday.

In other words, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are acting like brainless partisan hacks.)

A few very interesting stories are coming out from the legal analysis of Sotomayor's rulings. It is becoming clear to me that rather than appoint a wild-eyed Liberal activist, Obama has appointed a liberal moderate who is almost the polar opposite of what an "Activist judge" is, who literally reads the law as it is written without trying to creatively interpret it, even for the benefit of someone she may feel sympathy for.

Will Sotomayor disappoint Liberals? Part I (http://washingtonindependent.com/44606/will-sotomayor-disappoint-liberals) Part II (http://washingtonindependent.com/44777/will-liberals-be-disappointed-in-sotomayor-part-ii)

Having just listened to a conference call of legal experts set up by the White House to provide reporters the Obama administration’s spin on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, I have to wonder if liberals, when they’re done defending Judge Sotomayor from the right’s attacks, may end up being disappointed with the president’s choice.

According to the White House’s experts, President Obama’s just chosen an extremely cautious, legalistic nit-picker.

Harvard Law Professor Martha Minow described Sotomayor’s decision in a securities case that turned on the how Sotomayor read the word “buyer.” In fact, she read the law so literally that the Supreme Court reversed her, said Minow: “they said, ‘let’s be not so stingy’ ” about it.

Sotomayor’s opinions, according to Kevin Russell, a partner at Howe & Russell who writes for SCOTUSblog, reveal a “judicial modesty” that’s “very respectful of precedent.” In a case brought by the Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, for example, she rejected a challenge to President George W. Bush’s “global gag rule,” which prevented foreign organizations receiving U.S. funding from using their own money to provide abortions or abortion assistance.

Russell added that Sotomayor has also shown herself to be very deferential to the judgments of government agencies. When passengers were bumped from a flight by an airline and claimed it was due to racial discrimination, Sotomayor ruled that the anti-discrimination laws are trumped by the international Warsaw Convention, which regulates the liability of airlines in international flights.

“Judge Sotomayor is not the sort of judge who sees it as her role to reverse every decision she disagrees with,” said Russell.

Sometimes, those applications have disappointed even plaintiffs in discrimination cases, where her own comments might suggest that Sotomayor would be more sympathetic.

In 1999, for example, she ruled against a black nurse who claimed she’d been fired due to her race, age and a disability. Sotomayor allowed the nurse to move ahead with the disability claim, but threw out the other claims.

“There was ample evidence that the hospital had accommodated white nurses with similar disabilities,” Glenn Greenwald, now a Salon columnist but then a lawyer for the nurse, told The Wall Street Journal. “She rather coldly dismissed what I thought were good claims.”

...

Without a trace of sympathy or even interest in the plight of the plaintiff, Sotomayor methodically recounted the evidence of discrimination and, in as coldly and legalistic a manner as possible, concluded that the Norville ‘produced insufficient evidence at trial to show that the hospital’ discriminated against her.

SCOTUS Blog Analysis (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/)

First Amendment

On appeal, the panel majority held that the NYPD could terminate Pappas for his behavior without violating his First Amendment right to free speech. Sotomayor dissented from the majority’s decision to award summary judgment to the police department. She acknowledged that the speech was “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting,” but cautioned the majority against “gloss[ing] over three decades of jurisprudence and the centrality of First Amendment freedoms in our lives just because it is confronted with speech is does not like.”

Civil Rights

Civil rights cases tend to be the most vague and open to interpretation, and she tends to be more left-leaning and sympathetic with plaintiffs here, but not always. When the law says you dont have a case or cant bring a lawsuit, no matter how sympathetic you may be, she has upheld the law and ruled for the employer. In addition to that nurse claim above, there were a couple other cases:

Sotomayor has rarely written in age discrimination cases. However, she authored a forceful dissent in Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), a case involving a minister who filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) after he was forced by his church to retire at the age of 70.

...

In her dissent, Sotomayor complained that the majority had “violate[d] a cardinal principle of judicial restraint” when it - unnecessarily, in her view - held that the RFRA was constitutional. Moreover, she deemed the panel’s decision to remand the case to the district court for briefing on the RFRA issue “a wasteful expenditure of judicial resources and an unnecessary and uninvited burden on the parties.” Instead, she would have affirmed the district court’s dismissal and held that the ADEA does not apply to employment suits against religious institutions by their leaders.

However, Sotomayor wrote an opinion rejecting retaliation claims in Washington, in which the plaintiffs - African-American correction officers - were subjected to administrative disciplinary proceedings after filing discrimination complaints. The panel agreed that the administrative proceedings had adverse employment consequences on the plaintiffs, but in her view those adverse consequences, standing alone, did not demonstrate retaliation.

There's obviously the highly controversial New Haven Firefighters case, but in this issue Sotomayor wasnt engaging in a wild-eyed Liberal crusade for affirmative action, her decision here was also a case of judicial restraint. It wasnt a question of the courts tossing out the test results, it was a question of whether the city was allowed to toss the results. Their were precedents that said they could, and she basically (properly) left it up to the supreme court to reverse prior decisions and create new precedent if they chose.

2nd Amendment:

She ruled that the 2nd amendment did not necessarily apply to states, which is actually correct. The bill of rights only applies to the federal government until the supreme court decides to incorporate them into the states, and not all constitutional amendments have been incorporated. Prior SCOTUS decisions had already established that the 2nd amendment only applies to federal restrictions, a mere appeal court cant ignore and overturn the decision. This may seem to be a liberal decision, but she was actually showing restraint by deferring this choice to the SCOTUS.

while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

Environment:

There was only one major case in which she ruled for the environmentalists that later got overturned by the supreme court, but even in this case it wasnt really some sort of personal liberal bias. If there was a fault it was that she may have read the law too literally. The law said that the best technology had to be used to prevent fish kills. There was nothing about being able to use a cost-benefit analysis to see if a cheaper method that wasnt as effective could be used, she read "best technology" literally, and said that as long as the "best technology" wasnt unaffordable then they had to use the best technology as stated in the law. The supreme court was the one in this case that creatively expanded on the meaning of "best technology" as somehow allowing for the use of a cost-benefit analysis to allow the use of the cheaper and less-effective technology.

There's another example of restraint in a voting rights case where she dissented, saying basically that the majority (who basically ignored what the law actually said and thought congress didnt really intend the Voting Rights Act to apply to felons) was going too far in trying to interpret the law and the intent of congress.

Sotomayor joined the main dissent from the en banc court’s decision but also wrote a short dissenting opinion of her own in which she opined that the issue was actually much simpler than the majority and concurring opinions would suggest: the VRA “applies to all ‘voting qualifications,’” and - in her view - the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.” “These two propositions,” she concluded, “should constitute the entirety of our analysis.” Rejecting what she regarded as the majority’s failure to grapple with the plain text of the statute, she emphasized that “[t]he duty of a judge is to follow the law, not to question its plain terms. I do not believe that Congress wishes us to disregard the plain language of any statute or to invent exceptions to the statutes it has created. . . . But even if Congress had doubts about the wisdom of subjecting felony disenfranchisement laws to the results test of § 2, I trust that Congress would prefer to make any needed changes itself, rather than have courts do so for it.”

Basically, when congress writes a law, if it is not unconstitutional, then her approach seems to be to take the law at face value and not try to guess at what the congress intended. If the law is vague or poorly written, she basically says its up to congress to go back and fix it, not the courts to creatively try to interpret what they meant.

Considering the likely alternatives to the bench from Obama, I'll take this kind of careful hyper-technical nominee from him any day of the week.

***SPRAYER
05-29-2009, 01:24 PM
http://www.moonbattery.com/sotomayorobamahopechangelaraza.jpg

HolmeZz
05-29-2009, 01:46 PM
The GOP wasn't hoping for a moderate, they were hoping for a radical they could rally the troops against and throw a shitfit about. Right now they're interested in fundraising and getting back in power, not being intellectually honest as it regards their 'ideology'.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2009, 02:22 PM
Thank you, sir. May I have another?

Thank you, sir. May I have another?

http://www.filmdope.com/Gallery/ActorsB/766-13443.gif

SBK
05-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Are these threads for real?

***SPRAYER
05-29-2009, 02:48 PM
Sonia is a member of La Raza:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Isn't that precious.

ClevelandBronco
05-29-2009, 02:53 PM
¡Aquí! ¡Allá!

¡El Yanqui moridá!

KC native
05-29-2009, 02:59 PM
Sonia is a member of La Raza:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Isn't that precious.

So, what's wrong with NCLR?

alnorth
05-29-2009, 03:10 PM
Are these threads for real?

No, it is not real.

As a matter of fact, nothing in your life is real, it is all a dream to keep you happy and sedated. If anyone offers you a red pill, I suggest you not accept it.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 03:27 PM
She makes Hillman look like Whitey Herzog......:)

Taco John
05-29-2009, 03:30 PM
I think I like her.

Taco John
05-29-2009, 03:31 PM
Sonia is a member of La Raza:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Isn't that precious.


So?

alnorth
05-29-2009, 05:01 PM
Here's another example. Recently as many of you know, the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow 5-4 conservative/liberal split that a search is valid even without a valid warrant if the cops reasonably believed they had a valid warrant if it was just a case of a clerical error. Souter dissented in that case, but Sotomayor had ruled the other way in a very similar case in 1999. Had she been a justice last year, it would likely have been 6-3 instead of 5-4

But in the 1999 case U.S. v. Santa (180 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir. 1999)), Sotomayor wrote an opinion affirming a ruling in favor of police in a criminal case, aligning herself with the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc, which would consider a similar issue a decade later.

The defendant sought to suppress drug evidence found during a police search incident to arrest. However the arrest was made based on a warrant that had been vacated months before, but had erroneously remained in the computer system.

Finding the admission of the evidence proper based on the Supreme Court’s standard in Arizona v. Evans, Sotomayor wrote that the error was the fault of a court clerk, not the police.

“We … are troubled by the [court officials’] repeated errors in this case,” she wrote. “The outcome in Evans, however, did not turn on the particular type or magnitude of the error, but on the identity of the individuals responsible for the error.”

Another link

Obama's moderate nominee (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009272698_opinc29dionne.html)

Republicans would be foolish to fight the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court because she is the most conservative choice that President Obama could have made.

And even though they should support her confirmation, liberals would be foolish to embrace Sotomayor as one of their own because her record is clearly that of a moderate. It is highly unlikely that she will push the court to the left. Indeed, on many issues of concern to business, she is likely to make the Chamber of Commerce perfectly happy.

petegz28
05-29-2009, 05:41 PM
Here's another example. Recently as many of you know, the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow 5-4 conservative/liberal split that a search is valid even without a valid warrant if the cops reasonably believed they had a valid warrant if it was just a case of a clerical error. Souter dissented in that case, but Sotomayor had ruled the other way in a very similar case in 1999. Had she been a justice last year, it would likely have been 6-3 instead of 5-4



Another link

Obama's moderate nominee (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2009272698_opinc29dionne.html)




bla bla bla....am I getting a Royals thread tonight or what?

Ultra Peanut
05-29-2009, 06:32 PM
SHE IS NANCY PELOSI GRRRRRR

BucEyedPea
05-29-2009, 09:05 PM
Sonia is a member of La Raza:

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html

Isn't that precious.

That is very bad. Maybe she's a moderate La Raza member or a La Raza member that leans American. :D

KC native
05-29-2009, 11:31 PM
That is very bad. Maybe she's a moderate La Raza member or a La Raza member that leans American. :D

Why is it bad?

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 12:19 AM
I consider La Raza anti-American leaning and radical including more loyalty to Mexico. It means "The Race" for heavens sake.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 12:28 AM
I consider La Raza anti-American leaning and radical including more loyalty to Mexico. It means "The Race" for heavens sake.

Do not fret, the North American Union will alleviate all of our radical opinions on keeping the US and our constitution intact.

KC native
05-30-2009, 12:32 AM
I consider La Raza anti-American leaning and radical including more loyalty to Mexico. It means "The Race" for heavens sake.

Um no it doesn't. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to their actual stances and work before you open your ill informed yap.

First off, La Raza doesn't mean the race. The Spanish word for race is raza however when La Raza is referenced it refers to people of mestizo heritage (mestizo is Spanish and native american mix which almost all Latinos in this hemisphere have.


http://www.nclr.org/content/viewpoints/detail/42500/
The Truth About NCLR: NCLR Answers Critics
Full Text

NCLR Information

Open Letter to the Public:

Those familiar with the work of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) know that we are the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S., and that we are an American institution committed to strengthening this great nation by promoting the advancement of Latino families. Our mission is to create opportunities and open the door to the American Dream for Latino and other families.

We proudly represent nearly 300 Affiliates—community-based organizations providing a range of essential services to millions of Latinos and others in need. Since 1997, NCLR and its Affiliates have helped more than 22,000 low-income Hispanic families purchase their first homes. In addition, NCLR’s network of 115 charter schools provides quality education to more than 25,000 Latino children every year. The health clinics we helped build and the lay health educators we trained provided care and information about prevention and detection of serious illnesses to nearly 100,000 people in 2006. Our Affiliates are working every day to help Hispanic immigrants integrate fully into American society by providing English-language classes, civics courses, and naturalization assistance.

NCLR is also among the most recognized organizations in the nonprofit sector. Our work in the health arena has been honored by the Surgeon General of the United States and numerous professional organizations. Among the many awards NCLR has received, both our former President/CEO and the immediate past Chair of our Board of Directors earned the prestigious Hubert H. Humphrey Civil Rights Award by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and The Nonprofit Times has recognized NCLR’s leadership with its coveted “Power and Influence Top 50” award, honoring the top 50 leaders shaping the nonprofit world. In addition, NCLR is featured alongside Habitat for Humanity and the Heritage Foundation in Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High-Impact Nonprofits, a book that analyzes the practices of 12 nonprofit organizations that have successfully created social change (released in October 2007).

We recognize that some people might be confused about our organization’s name, our mission, and our work. Much of this is understandable. Compared to some of our venerable counterparts in the civil rights and advocacy community, we are a relatively young institution representing Latinos, a historically disadvantaged and often misunderstood ethnic minority. We have a Spanish term in our name, “La Raza” (meaning “the people” or “community”), which is often mistranslated. Furthermore, we are engaged in some of the most controversial issues of our time, which we believe is essential if we are to stay true to our mission.

As an advocacy organization engaged in the public arena, we know that some will disagree with our views. As Americans committed to basic civil rights, we respect anyone’s right to do so.

But it is also clear that some critics are willfully distorting the facts and deliberately mischaracterizing our organization and our work. Recently, we have been the subject of a number of ad hominem attacks that we believe cross the line of civility in public discourse.

At times, we have ignored these attacks, preferring to invest our precious time and resources in our work, believing that the quality of our labors speaks for itself. At other times, we have responded in a civil fashion through private correspondence or by requesting a meeting with a critic so we can discuss our differences. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to do this in every case, especially when our private requests for civil discussion are responded to with further unfounded attacks, often echoed in the media as if they were accurate.

So, today we are engaging in an unprecedented step to make sure that the record is as clear and accessible as we can possibly make it. We do so in the interest of full disclosure and in the spirit of complete transparency. We trust that, after reviewing all of these materials, readers will come to their own conclusions about the merits of these and similar attacks to which we have been subjected.

Janet Murguía
President and CEO
National Council of La Raza

http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/
The Translation of Our Name: National Council of La Raza

Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.

And this is not just NCLR’s interpretation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:

“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”

Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:

“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”

The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:

“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”

http://www.nclr.org/section/separatist/
Support of Separatist Organizations

NCLR has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations. Some critics have accused MEChA (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) of being a separatist organization and denounced NCLR for being a purported “major funder” of the organization. The reality is that in 2003, NCLR provided one chapter of the organization (Georgetown University) with a $2,500 subgrant to support a conference of Latino students—mainly from the Southwest and West Coast—who were attending East Coast colleges but could not afford to travel home for Thanksgiving. These Latino student groups hold mini-conferences with workshops and speakers, bringing together students who are often the first high school graduates and college attendees in their families.

According to its mission statement, MEChA is a student organization whose primary objectives are educational—to help Latino students finish high school and go to college, and to support them while at institutions of higher education. NCLR freely acknowledges that some of the organization’s founding documents, e.g., Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, contain inappropriate rhetoric, and NCLR also acknowledges that rhetoric from some MEChA members has been extremist and inflammatory. In a June 2006 Los Angeles Times op-ed, journalist Gustavo Arellano noted that all of the MEChA members of his class graduated from college and have gone on to successful careers, a rarity at a time when only 12% of Latinos have a college degree. And to the group’s founding documents, Arellano also pointed out that “few members take these dated relics of the 1960s seriously, if they even bothered to read them.”

NCLR has publicly and repeatedly disavowed this rhetoric as we have others that we believe are inappropriate, as we did when we criticized a pro-separatist Latino website for its racist and anti-Semitic views. We will continue, however, to support programs and activities that help more Hispanics enter and finish college.

Throughout its history NCLR has supported numerous initiatives to oppose all forms of unlawful discrimination; for example:

* A series of campaigns in conjunction with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund calling on all Americans to be tolerant of diversity
* Joint initiatives with the National Urban League, the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, and Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics to identify and denounce hate crimes and other acts of intolerance
* Educational seminars and roundtables to expose and explore the causes of discrimination against Afro-Latinos and Indigenous Latinos, including instances of discrimination perpetrated by fellow Hispanics
* Public service campaigns with the National Fair Housing Alliance, the Children’s Defense Fund, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, and other partners to prevent housing discrimination against minorities, families with children, and individuals with disabilities

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 12:35 AM
Someone doesn't know what an opinion is. I said I "consider."
Try Hooked on Phonics. BTW I am not reading all that crap.
But your link in one says it does also mean my meaning.

While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish

As for the community part. Why not just become an American.
Oh and I didn't say anything about separatist organizations.

KC native
05-30-2009, 12:36 AM
Someone doesn't know what an opinion is. I said I "consider."
Try Hooked on Phonics. BTW I am not reading that crap.

I forgot you only like to read nonsense that reinforces your narrow world view.

BTW did you not incorrectly translate La Raza?

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 12:38 AM
She's made some racist statements for a judge....things that would deny the right to be on a jury.

KC native
05-30-2009, 12:41 AM
She's made some racist statements for a judge....things that would deny the right to be on a jury.

So do you know the context of those remarks or are you just working off what the echo chamber has told you?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 12:43 AM
1st you have to define what is is.

BucEyedPea
05-30-2009, 09:17 AM
So do you know the context of those remarks or are you just working off what the echo chamber has told you?
Better than using a sanitized website. Or a public relations piece.
Echo chamber? Sounds like some projection is going on here.
Oh and my last name is Spanish.

***SPRAYER
05-30-2009, 09:39 AM
Someone doesn't know what an opinion is. I said I "consider."
Try Hooked on Phonics. BTW I am not reading all that crap.
But your link in one says it does also mean my meaning.



As for the community part. Why not just become an American.
Oh and I didn't say anything about separatist organizations.

I'm glad I have that idiot on ignore.

:drool:

Taco John
05-30-2009, 11:51 AM
La Raza is a harmless group that spend their time trying to raise money to send kids to college. I've got several family members in the group, all of them business professionals who have made it through a tough life of hardship and simply want to turn around and help others on their way up.

You people who are afraid of this group and painting it as some radical seperatist organization are Xenophobic morons.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 01:16 PM
La Raza is a harmless group that spend their time trying to raise money to send kids to college. I've got several family members in the group, all of them business professionals who have made it through a tough life of hardship and simply want to turn around and help others on their way up.

You people who are afraid of this group and painting it as some radical seperatist organization are Xenophobic morons.

So La Raza helps all races?

Taco John
05-30-2009, 02:07 PM
So La Raza helps all races?

Not any more than the United Negro College fund does, so far as I know. What does it matter?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 02:34 PM
Not any more than the United Negro College fund does, so far as I know. What does it matter?

Well most of us would prefer someone on the SC who has actually helped helped out the most important race of all the entire human race. All of these groups do create racial division wether or not most would admit it.

Taco John
05-30-2009, 02:41 PM
Well most of us would prefer someone on the SC who has actually helped helped out the most important race of all the entire human race. All of these groups do create racial division wether or not most would admit it.


Yeah. It's these groups that have created the racial divisions in this country. You're so spot on.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 02:41 PM
Yeah. It's these groups that have created the racial divisions in this country. You're so spot on.

They certainly don't help.

Taco John
05-30-2009, 02:43 PM
They certainly don't help.

Yeah? How has La Raza hurt you? Maybe you have a legitimate beef. Let's hear it.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 02:45 PM
Yeah? How has La Raza hurt you?

I'm not saying they have hurt me, I just think these type of groups do more to alienate the majority no matter what race they represent. Of course i don't really consider my race or mix thereof to be of any importance whatsoever.

stevieray
05-30-2009, 02:47 PM
according to my neighbor, the taking back of California is well underway.

Taco John
05-30-2009, 02:53 PM
I'm not saying they have hurt me, I just think these type of groups do more to alienate the majority no matter what race they represent. Of course i don't really consider my race or mix thereof to be of any importance whatsoever.


That's fine. You can hold that opinion. But it doesn't make La Raza a group with devious designs, and it sure doesn't disqualify this woman from being qualified to serve on the Supreme bench. All the people I've ever known who have been in La Raza have been very fine, self-sufficient Americans who just want to help those that they've left in their wake on their way up.

HonestChieffan
05-30-2009, 03:41 PM
LaRaza is a bunch of kooks. They raised hell in KC becuse there wasn't a street sign to one block in downtown....said it was racists in city hall who didnt want anyone to know where this one street is. La Raza means "the race"...sorta seems funny huh?

***SPRAYER
05-30-2009, 04:50 PM
Yeah? How has La Raza hurt you? Maybe you have a legitimate beef. Let's hear it.


That's some pretty twisted logic.

The Ku Klux Klan has never done anything to hurt me, so I guess that makes them an ok organization?

What's your point?

***SPRAYER
05-30-2009, 04:50 PM
LaRaza is a bunch of kooks. They raised hell in KC becuse there wasn't a street sign to one block in downtown....said it was racists in city hall who didnt want anyone to know where this one street is. La Raza means "the race"...sorta seems funny huh?

Para la raza blanca todo. Fuera de la raza blanca, nada!

ROFL

trndobrd
05-30-2009, 05:11 PM
according to my neighbor, the taking back of California is well underway.


California is about to be auctioned off at a forclosure sale anyway.

bandwagonjumper
05-30-2009, 06:04 PM
I'm not saying they have hurt me, I just think these type of groups do more to alienate the majority no matter what race they represent. Of course i don't really consider my race or mix thereof to be of any importance whatsoever.

Long live the Aryan Race.

KC native
05-30-2009, 09:05 PM
LaRaza is a bunch of kooks. They raised hell in KC becuse there wasn't a street sign to one block in downtown....said it was racists in city hall who didnt want anyone to know where this one street is. La Raza means "the race"...sorta seems funny huh?

Do you have problems reading because I've already shown you jackasses that La Raza doesn't mean the race.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-30-2009, 10:26 PM
Long live the Aryan Race.

Long Live the HUMAN RACE!!!!!!

BucEyedPea
05-31-2009, 12:16 AM
Yeah? How has La Raza hurt you? Maybe you have a legitimate beef. Let's hear it.

I wouldn't say they hurt me personally, but I don't support the idea of open borders is all. I care about my country's borders. My understanding is that they support open borders. I've read, just saying I've read, they've sponsored events for radicals who do support taking back part of our west even if they may not as a group. Even if they also help their members....I still don't support open borders.

Taco John
05-31-2009, 03:22 AM
The Ku Klux Klan has never done anything to hurt me, so I guess that makes them an ok organization?



Who said the harm had to be personal? You don't think that the KKK has done anything to hurt you? Are you sure about that?

***SPRAYER
05-31-2009, 01:20 PM
Who said the harm had to be personal? You don't think that the KKK has done anything to hurt you? Are you sure about that?

Are you sure La Raza has never done anything to hurt me?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 09:56 PM
Sotomayor on the Supreme Court: A Gun-grabber’s Dream Come True

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 28, 2009

Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.



Sonia Sotomayor has an extensive track record revealing her hostility toward the Second Amendment.

As a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor makes the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to Sotomayor, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” In another case, Sotomayor ruled that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that “Judge Sotomayor’s position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama’s claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service,” reports CBS News.

“Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute.

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to “a declaration of war against America’s gun owners.”

Earlier this year, Sotomayor ruled that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, according to CNSNews. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

Sonia Sotomayor would be a perfect Supreme Court justice for the Obama administration. Obama the supposed constitutional scholar is a notorious gun-grabber, although the corporate media refuses to underscore this fact. He endorsed the unconstitutional Illinois gun ban. In classic doublethink fashion, he has declared support for the Second Amendment in principle but backed local gun bans. Obama wants to ban “all forms” of semi-autos. But it is not simply semi-automatics — he would even ban most common rimfire target pistols, including those used in Olympic competition. For more on Obama’s gun-grabbing philosophy, see Barak Obama’s Gun Control Positions.

Many Americans understand Obama wants to outlaw guns and in response they are purchasing guns and ammo in record numbers. “Gun sales are on the rise across the U.S. and many dealers are having trouble keeping guns and ammunition in stock. Sales of guns moved sharply upward last November, the same month voters chose a new president,” reports VOA News.

A growing number of states understand the federal government is gearing up to not only outlaw firearms and trash the Second Amendment, but possibly confiscate them as well.

For instance, Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has promised to sign a bill today making it legal to possess a firearm during martial law. “Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,” reports the Associated Press.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5044428.shtml

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=48718

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/630645/barak_obamas_gun_control_positions.html?cat=17

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-05-14-voa68.cfm

http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=10415228&ClientType=Printable

http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-on-the-supreme-court-a-gun-grabbers-dream-come-true/

KC native
05-31-2009, 09:59 PM
Sotomayor on the Supreme Court: A Gun-grabber’s Dream Come True

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 28, 2009

Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.

http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-on-the-supreme-court-a-gun-grabbers-dream-come-true/

YAY!!!! More fear mongering from the gun crowd. Now I won't be able to go to the fucking range for another 6 months.

Seriously, do you post every single thing that infowars puts on their sight in the hope that we will give a fuck about it?

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 10:02 PM
YAY!!!! More fear mongering from the gun crowd. Now I won't be able to go to the ****ing range for another 6 months.

Seriously, do you post every single thing that infowars puts on their sight in the hope that we will give a **** about it?

I could care less, i just post the facts. For goodness sakes she wrote a book about it, were not allowed to question it?

KC native
05-31-2009, 10:04 PM
I could care less, i just post the facts. For goodness sakes she wrote a book about it, were not allowed to question it?

Never said you couldn't question it but this article is inflammatory and from a conspiracy nut website. If you used a credible source it might bear a little more weight.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 10:05 PM
Never said you couldn't question it but this article is inflammatory and from a conspiracy nut website. If you used a credible source it might bear a little more weight.

Nothing but facts wether you want to believe it or not, it even lists source articles from MSM. I believe in constitutional rights and will defend them wether it's George Bush attacking them or Barack Obama.

KC native
05-31-2009, 10:22 PM
Nothing but facts wether you want to believe it or not, it even lists source articles from MSM. I believe in constitutional rights and will defend them wether it's George Bush attacking them or Barack Obama.

...:shake:Let's look at the CBS article which has a decidedly less fear mongering tone.


Home » Blogs » Political Hotsheet
Political Hotsheet
May 27, 2009 5:40 PM
Gun Rights Groups Are Wary Of Sotomayor
Posted by Declan McCullagh | Comments 74


(AP)


Second Amendment advocates are responding warily to President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that "Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama's claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service."

Dave Kopel of the free-market Independence Institute predicts that "Judge Sotomayor's record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms." And Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to "a declaration of war against America's gun owners."

The difficulty in evaluating Sotomayor's views on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the lack of definitive statements. No old law review articles advocating a Scalia-esque originalist approach have been unearthed; no speeches to the Brady Campaign calling for nationwide gun confiscation have surfaced.

A handful of Sotomayor's Second Circuit decisions, however, have.

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Another case involved a fellow named James Maloney who was arrested in Port Washington, N.Y. for possessing a nunchaku -- typically sticks connected by rope or chain -- in his home. Maloney claimed that the Second Amendment rendered the state law banning nunchakus unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it relies on a 1886 case called Presser v. Illinois, which did in fact say the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." But that was before a long line of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that applied the Bill of Rights to state governments; the concept is known as the "incorporation doctrine."

(And, besides, even in Presser, the Supreme Court went out of its way to note "the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.")

That has left gun rights advocates feeling a bit like the decision from Sotomayor's panel this year cherry-picked cases to reach a desired result -- instead of trying to interpret the law fairly. "The Sotomayor per curiam opinion ignores Due Process incorporation, even though any serious analysis of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against the states would have to address the issue," Kopel says.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit, by some counts the most liberal in the nation, ruled in April that the Second Amendment does apply to state laws. Meanwhile, Maloney, the defendant in the New York case, is appealing his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments this week in a related case.

Something with a name like "incorporation doctrine" may sound like an obscure topic only a law professor could love, but it's really not. These disputes will decide whether or not states and municipalities can legally disarm their residents, or whether the Second Amendment right the Supreme Court recognized last year in D.C. v. Heller applies to state and federal laws equally.

In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing on to a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

But based on Candidate Obama's remarks last year, gun owners may have hoped for more. Mr. Obama's campaign platform said he "believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms."

Souter rejected the idea of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right; in her 2004 joint opinion, so did Sotomayor. During confirmation hearings, expect pro-gun senators to ask the judge if she agrees more with her predecessor or the stated views of the president who nominated her.

Now let's move to VOA article

Gun Sales On Rise in US
By Jeff Swicord
Washington
14 May 2009

Swicord video report - Download (WM) Download
Swicord video report - Watch (WM) video clip

Gun sales are on the rise across the U.S. and many dealers are having trouble keeping guns and ammunition in stock. Sales of guns moved sharply upward last November, the same month voters chose a new president. We visited a gun show outside Washington D.C. where gun dealers and buyers said the results of the election pushed gun sales higher.

Joyce Anderson
Joyce Anderson
Like millions of Americans, Joyce Anderson is a gun owner.

"I Enjoy it," said Anderson. "I found a hobby that I enjoy."

According to statistics, Joyce is not alone. FBI figures show federal background checks, which are required to buy a gun, are up over one quarter in the first four months of this year. We visited this gun show outside Washington D.C. to try and find out why.

"Cocrane's guys are really busy."

Annette Elliot has been promoting gun shows for almost 30 years. Her shows are a 50/50 [50 percent of each] mix of antique firearms and modern weapons.

Annette Elliot
Annette Elliot
"Our main clients are collectors and hunters," said Eliot. "We have a lot of vets, they come to the shows, veterans of wars."

Dealers at this show say their sales are up 60 percent since late last year. Here in Virginia, background checks spiked up more than 50 percent the month Barack Obama was elected. Annette says many gun buyers fear the new president plans to ban gun sales.

"We are definitely getting back ordered now on guns," she said. "The back orders started all the way in November and the crowds started showing up in October when they saw the writing on the wall and thought Obama was going to get in."

The National Rifle Association ran this TV ad during the presidential campaign.

"Now I learned that Barack Obama supports a huge new tax on my guns and ammo." said the ad. "And voted to ban virtually all deer hunting ammunition. Where is this guy from?"

Critics point to the NRA, the biggest gun ownership lobby, for leading many voters to conclude then-candidate Obama wanted to restrict gun ownership.

"No Politician is going to take away my guns and ammo," said an NRA ad.

Organizations like Factcheck.org and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence say the ad is misleading and inaccurate. Paul Helmke is with the Brady campaign.

"Obviously the people that received those ads believe the message," said Paul Helmke. "They are fearful. They are fearful that they cannot stock their arsenals anymore and they are running out and buying more guns."

The National Rifle association declined our request for an interview.

[insert caption here]

Gun dealer Randy Clark who sells rare firearms, says his sales have jumped 40 to 50 percent recently.

"People feel probably like they should get their guns now," said Randy Clark. "They feel like there is legislation coming is not favorable to gun collectors. And I sell primarily to collectors. "

"This one it says Austria," said Elliot. "It is a Glock. What is it a nine millimeter?"

The downturn in the economy and fear of crime contributes to the rise in gun sales. We talked to several new gun owners like Willie Beverly.

"We had a family member that was broken into that was probably two miles away from us," he said. "And so that scared my wife and she was like, we have got to do something now."

"We've got different newspaper ads," said Annette Elliot.

Annette is not shy about appealing to fear among gun owners. She put a line in one of her newspaper ad's that reads "Come and get them while you still can."

"If I could do a one liner like that in my advertising and cause these crowds to come out, I would do it all the time," she said.

The Obama administration says it has no plans to pursue additional gun control measures at this time.

The other sources aside from the short local news story are not credible. Associated content will publish anything. CNS is a stated conservative news outlet.

It's quite clear from the two credible sources that their tones aren't even close to the level of fear mongering of the Infowars article.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 10:29 PM
...:shake:Let's look at the CBS article which has a decidedly less fear mongering tone.



Now let's move to VOA article



The other sources aside from the short local news story are not credible. Associated content will publish anything. CNS is a stated conservative news outlet.

It's quite clear from the two credible sources that their tones aren't even close to the level of fear mongering of the Infowars article.

Having the 2nd amendment is not a conservative view it is a 100% American view. It really isn't fear mongering it's truly a fact.

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

This IS unconstitutional, and not worthy of spin.

Taco John
05-31-2009, 10:54 PM
Are you sure La Raza has never done anything to hurt me?


I'm certain that you haven't mentioned anything worth discussing.

KILLER_CLOWN
05-31-2009, 10:54 PM
I'm certain that you haven't mentioned anything worth discussing.

So TJ do you consider Sotomayor a gun grabber? What is your overall opinion of her?

Taco John
05-31-2009, 11:10 PM
So TJ do you consider Sotomayor a gun grabber? What is your overall opinion of her?


I think that she's probably weakest where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, but I'm hardly worried about that. Open civil war would break out if something happened to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that it's an untouchable amendment. They'll tinker with it, like with every other right we have, and they'll put regulation after regulation, but at some point states will fight back.

Aside from the untouchable amendment, as far as civil rights go, I think she's top notch. I think as far as candidates go, we could have faced a lot worse. Plus, I think it will be political suicide for Republicans to go after her. There's very little upside to opposing her confirmation. This isn't Bush nominating Harriet Miers here.

WoodDraw
06-01-2009, 12:25 AM
I think that she's probably weakest where the 2nd Amendment is concerned, but I'm hardly worried about that. Open civil war would break out if something happened to the 2nd Amendment. I believe that it's an untouchable amendment. They'll tinker with it, like with every other right we have, and they'll put regulation after regulation, but at some point states will fight back.

Aside from the untouchable amendment, as far as civil rights go, I think she's top notch. I think as far as candidates go, we could have faced a lot worse. Plus, I think it will be political suicide for Republicans to go after her. There's very little upside to opposing her confirmation. This isn't Bush nominating Harriet Miers here.

Open civil war would break out if something happened to the 2nd Amendment? I'm going to go roll Lincoln back over in his grave after his historical laughing attack.


These are the comments I hate. Civil war? Come on. You advocate killing your fellow citizens over disagreements over gun rights?

This is the reason I hate making posts here any more. Could there be a less well reasoned post?

sportsman1
06-01-2009, 12:38 AM
Seriously.. I don't get how anyone can think wide open borders is a good thing. If this is a good thing, why even have a homeland security department, or Laws at all? Because with this stance we obviously have no control over anything. AND idiots need to quit thinking the second amendment is about hunting.

KILLER_CLOWN
06-01-2009, 01:40 AM
idiots need to quit thinking the second amendment is about hunting.

Absolutely.

Taco John
06-01-2009, 03:08 AM
Open civil war would break out if something happened to the 2nd Amendment? I'm going to go roll Lincoln back over in his grave after his historical laughing attack.

These are the comments I hate. Civil war? Come on. You advocate killing your fellow citizens over disagreements over gun rights?

This is the reason I hate making posts here any more. Could there be a less well reasoned post?


It's painful - your reading comprehension.

I didn't advocate killing anyone, you dope. Anyone in this forum worth their salt here knows that killing people is the LAST thing I would advocate, so put your panties back on Ethel.

My post, unlike yours, was very well reasoned. Yes, civil war would break out if the second amendment was jerked with. Yes, there are people in America who will put their lives on the line for this right. I'm not advocating anything here. I'm just stating what I believe to be a fact. If the second amendment was jerked with, this country would go to war with itself. Look at a Bush vs. Kerry electoral map. See ALL the states that are red? That's where it will start with many of them declaring their independence. I'm not wild about the idea of this happening, but given what we've seen from state legislatures in just the last six months, I've got little doubts about how this nation would react to a gun grab.

Open civil war would break out if something were to happen to the second amendment.

Velvet_Jones
06-01-2009, 08:18 AM
...:shake:Let's look at the CBS article which has a decidedly less fear mongering tone.

You are an idiot if you think CBS does not do its fair share of fear mongering. Or maybe you're just stupid that way.

KC native
06-01-2009, 12:29 PM
You are an idiot if you think CBS does not do its fair share of fear mongering. Or maybe you're just stupid that way.

You can't read. I said a marketdly less fear mongering tone. I was comparing source material to the article that Infowars wrote. ROFL

KILLER_CLOWN
06-01-2009, 12:46 PM
You can't read. I said a marketdly less fear mongering tone. I was comparing source material to the article that Infowars wrote. ROFL

Sometimes being in your face with information is the way to wake people from their "no matter what happens everything will be fine" attitudes.

KC native
06-01-2009, 01:02 PM
Sometimes being in your face with information is the way to wake people from their "no matter what happens everything will be fine" attitudes.

Being in your face and being honest are not mutually exclusive.