TexasCHLforum.com

stroo wrote: "But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January."

Well, I don't think it does, by default, until the SCOTUS says it does. Isn't that how it works?

Of course, it SHOULD, but until it's incorporated, it doesnt.

Or do I understand this incorrectly?

According to CNN, the following are cases she ruled on as a judge that made it to the Supreme Court. Note SCOTUS reversed 6 out of 7 of these cases, and in the one they upheld they said - unanimously - her reasoning in the decision was faulty. This is a woman we want on the Supreme Court?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/ ... index.html

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

I have a question about her statement that the second amendment not applying to the states. I've thought about it for a few minutes and something about this doesn't sound right, but I can't quite figure out what it is.

If it doesn't apply to the states, who does it apply to? The people, right? I'm not getting what she meant by it not applying to the states. I guess I also need that East Texas translation.

74novaman wrote:and some quotes:
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor

Try this on: I've been nominated for the Supreme Court. Someone quotes me as saying, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life."
Tell me that wouldn't get a reaction.

mgood wrote:

74novaman wrote:and some quotes:
“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,” said Judge Sotomayor

Try this on: I've been nominated for the Supreme Court. Someone quotes me as saying, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn't lived that life."
Tell me that wouldn't get a reaction.

I mentioned later in my post my belief that racism SHOULD be considered a bad thing both ways, but I understand you're trying to make a point about the hypocrisy of only being angry when white people say racist things.

Maybe when we're under 50% percent of the population of the US and an official "minority" whites can establish "white churches" much like the "black church" BHO attended, or make statements such as the Hon. Judge Sotomayor.

Until then, I guess we're the only ones that are racist.

Though her racist/sexist comments are worrysome, I find the fact the SCOTUS has reversed her ruling or disagreed with her all 6 times they've ruled on the same case worrying. Obviously she's at odds with the current makeup of the court.

I find the fact the SCOTUS has reversed her ruling or disagreed with her all 6 times they've ruled on the same case worrying

The Riverkeeper v EPA decision is pretty sound in it's own right. It may have been overturned, but Souter, Ginsburg and one other justice dissented in siding with Sotomayor. The decision of Sotomayor and the Second Circuit in that case is fairly sound. It is written up in depth with great detail and clarity. Clearly Sotomayor is someone to be reckoned with. She works all of her cases up like Riverkeeper, she is at the least one slam dunk of a practitioner.

You know...

Over the last few years, I have been accused of being a racist, to my face no less...

I just smile, let them get it out of their system, then I introduce them to the former Miss Morales of Pasadena...(a.k.a. "Wife Unit")

Usually shuts them up pretty quick...In one case I didn't have to say a word because she was standing right there when they said it...

In this case this Judge will be confirmed...Nothing will stop this...What we need to remember is that this will create a solid liberal (empathetic) position on the court for the next 20-25 years...

When Ginsburg and Stevens either retire or kick the bucket, Obama will get two more chances to get some youngsters imbedded in there as well...So for the most part we'll replace liberal/activist justices with the same, just younger...

What we need to hope for is that Scalia and Thomas hold out for at least another 8 years...We lose any of the 4 originalist justices, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia, we may have some problems above and beyond our Second Amendment right...

But then again...I have always held the belief that that right is above any authority instituted among men...

Unfortunately for her, Ms. Sotomayor cannot introduce her white husband, or black one, or Oriental one in defense of her racist comment because she doesn't have one. Methinks the Republicans are fixing to Bork her nomination at the hearings. Will it be a high-tech lynching of an uppity Latina? LOL, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks. Now, where is that darn Coke, and what foreign object is Newt Gingrich pointing at?

Just sitting here pondering some other stuff, and all of a sudden I had one of those epiphany moments.

Judge Sotomayor is divorced, and she was raised Catholic.

Divorce is still, like contraception and abortion, considered a sin within the Catholic church.

I recall very vividly when JFK was running for President, and so many questions were raised about his loyalty to his church as opposed to his loyalty to the country.

There are already several Catholics serving on SCOTUS (five?) so this is not that big of an issue, until, that is, you consider:

Has the newly nominated SCOTUS candidate renounced her religious upbringing? This would bring up one set of considerations concerning her stances on issues which the church has very specific and dogmatic instructions and rules on.

Has the newly nominated SCOTUS candidate just lived as a failed Catholic, living within the bounds of the Church and able to participate in communion, but prohibited from remarrying by Church rules.

Or has she actually gone through the tribunal process and obtained a Church annulment.

Each scenario has implications that may be gross or even too subtle to define, but may have long lasting effects on our freedoms.

Nitrogen,

If the Circuit courts say the 2nd applies to the states, then the question never gets to SCOTUS. So lower courts can and should be applying the 2nd to the states right now.

The ice under Sotomayor is already growing thin. If she breaks through, this guy could become the man of the hour. Half Hispanic, half Chinese, Texan, Naval Academy graduate,Texas Appeals Court judge, something for everybody. Obama has hinted someone from a state court is a possibility. The Republicans would look like idiots trying to disqualify Chew. The Democrats are already idiots for picking Sotamayor and may need to redeem themselves soundly if she flops.

http://texasapis.org/Chew.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.elpasoinc.com/showArticle.asp?articleId=738" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

casingpoint wrote:The ice under Sotomayor is already growing thin. If she breaks through, this guy could become the man of the hour.

Casingpoint,

Do you think its already that bad for her? I know most of us aren't fans of her, but that would ring true for 98% of people Obama would want to nominate for the Court. I'll wait until congressional hearings to see if the Repubs decide to have a spine or not, but I'm still getting the feeling she's going to get pushed through with only a few wimpers.

I'm reading more bad than good about Sotomayor. But I really don't feel it's going to be enough to derail her nomination. The same people who swallowed Obama hook, line and sinker are lapping her up. But is is unlikely she would be the total left hook some think she is if confirmed to the SCOTUS. Sotomayor may be slightly left of center, but a Lani Guinier she is not.

Latina, Isn't that another word Roman woman? Is She Italian? Is Puerto Rico in Italy? Has she ever been in Italy? Puerto Rico? If she went to Italy did she have an Italian passport or Latin Passport. Where is New Yorico? Maybe they have a better school system in Rome. because she is going to be able to make better decisions than any white guy.

Not the end of the world I guess, but I don't think we are going to like this one much.

Not every person of color sees black robes and the bench like Sotomayor does:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell052709.php3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;