Not really a hard question
Senator Coburn questioned Judge Sotomayor. WaPo:
COBURN: As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself — personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self- defense?
SOTOMAYOR: 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.
SOTOMAYOR: Generally, as I understand, most criminal law statutes are passed by states. And I’m also trying to think if there’s any federal law that includes a self-defense provision or not. I just can’t.
What I was attempting to explain is that the issue of self- defense is usually defined in criminal statutes by the state’s laws. And I would think, although I haven’t studied the — all of the state’s laws, I’m intimately familiar with New York.
COBURN: But do you have an opinion, or can you give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense?
SOTOMAYOR: I — as I said, I don’t know.
COBURN: I’m talking about your…
SOTOMAYOR: I don’t know if that legal question has been ever presented.
COBURN: I wasn’t asking about the legal question. I’m asking about your personal opinion.
SOTOMAYOR: But that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me
The WaPo reported on this issue a year ago:
The Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s ban on handgun possession yesterday and decided for the first time in the nation’s history that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense…”We hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.
Once again we see the appalling behavior of Sotomayor, which even liberals have condemned. There are only two explanations for Sotomayor’s evasive answer (ignorance or dishonesty) and neither of them is attractive.
July 18th, 2009 at 10:15 am
But she gave her answer…right here:
“that is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me”
By calling a direct question an “abstract question,” and further saying it had “no meaning to me,” she was doing that “looking up to their left” thing that liars do.
Of course she doesn’t believe it.
AND furthermore, just because a judge or court has said that’s what the law is, that doesn’t make it so. They interpret laws, yes, but they don’t set them (or at least they weren’t supposed to, according to the Constitution).
It’s right there in the Second Amendment, Sonia. If you can’t read, I’m really friggin’ sorry for you: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Perhaps you need to go back to kindergarten to learn the English language again?
July 18th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Too bloody right. This “affirmative action” (self admitted) SCOTUS candidate is just wrong for the nation.
July 18th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
I’ve just put you on my blogroll. Looking through your site I’m well impressed!
July 19th, 2009 at 12:55 am
What??? Was she out of the country when DC vs Heller was decided? Honestly, she can find the “right to privacy” which doesn’t exist ANYWHERE in the Constitution, but she can’t find the right to bear arms right in the Second Amendment???
She sin’t ignorant….she is a puppet, a willing puppet. She is a disgrace to her field.
July 19th, 2009 at 4:38 am
This is a disgusting example of how unqualified she is for the court. she literally lied her way though the hearings and not even in a slick, impressive way. Rather, she showed herself to be intellectually unqualified for the court. Of course, the silver lining there is that at least she’s not bright enough to have a big impact outside of her vote.
July 19th, 2009 at 7:52 am
And yet, they’ll get her in. And we’ll be stuck with her until impeachment, retirement, or death. Or revolution and restructuring. What will it be?
July 21st, 2009 at 12:19 am
Those are not mutually exclusive explanations.