The Sotomayor confirmation hearing is going to be a good chance for the Republicans to show us how much better they are than the Democrats when it comes to the Second Amendment, and kudos to DeMint for getting the ball rolling on this. Here’s another story on her position on the Second Amendment:
Democratic Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado said Sotomayor told him during a private meeting that she considers the 2008 ruling that struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun ban as settled law that would guide her decisions in future cases. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that individuals have a constitutional right to guns.
But the statement gave little comfort to gun rights activists. Conservative Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said that earlier in the week, Sotomayor told him in a similar closed-door session that she stood by an appellate court decision she signed this year that said the Second Amendment protection from curbs on the right to bear arms applied only to federal laws – not state or local ones.
This position is essentially no different than that of the Brady Campaign. Democrats may be reluctant to bring this issue up, because of not wanting to jeopardize their President’s nominee, and cross the leadership. The pro-gun Democrats will be at a disadvantage, and this is an opportunity for Republicans to show us they are better.
I still will not go so far as to say we should scuttle this nomiee. Let’s see what comes out in the hearings. It’s not that I don’t think Sotomayor is bad — I think she is. It’s a real worry that what comes behind her will be worse.
Sebastian says:
“I still will not go so far as to say we should scuttle this nomiee. Let’s see what comes out in the hearings. It’s not that I don’t think Sotomayor is bad — I think she is. It’s a real worry that what comes behind her will be worse.”
I for one disagree with this logic. The way to win this battle isn’t to worry about who might come next, but rather to hold firm and don’t accept anyone who isn’t at least an acceptable compromise. To do anything less negates the entire purpose of the Senate confirmation process. I don’t subscribe to the popular view that the President should get special treatment on his appointees, there’s a reason they must be vetted: to prevent the President from abusing his power.
If the GOP blocks Sotomayor’s nomination, it SHOULD send a message to the Dems that they need to put up a more centrist judge. If it doesn’t and they try to put up someone worse, then the GOP needs to have the stones to block that person as well. If the GOP isn’t prepared to stand firm, well, then they shouldn’t try to block Sotomayor in the first place.
An addendum to my previous post: I do believe any decisions should be made after Sotomayor has been given a proper hearing. I don’t like her views from what little I know of her, but if nothing else it’s a chance to find out more about her to either confirm my suspicions or maybe change my opinion.
I for one disagree with this logic. The way to win this battle isn’t to worry about who might come next, but rather to hold firm and don’t accept anyone who isn’t at least an acceptable compromise. To do anything less negates the entire purpose of the Senate confirmation process. I don’t subscribe to the popular view that the President should get special treatment on his appointees, there’s a reason they must be vetted: to prevent the President from abusing his power.
I am not of the opinion that the president deserves his nominee either, but we’d be very hard pressed to defeat one nominee, let alone two. You’ll lose people with every iteration, until eventually one passes. In fact, I can’t think of any case where two nominees have been scuttled in a row.
The other worry I have is that enough is coming out on Sotomayor, that guns might be lost as just another issue in the mix. To get a more acceptable candidate on the Second Amendment, we’d have to make it clear that’s the reason she was rejected. That’s one reason I’m waiting for the hearings. If guns get lost in a hodgepodge of issues, I’m not sure it’s going to do us any favors.
She a democrap and a politician. Both positions guarantee that she will say whatever she thinks her audience wants to ear.
damn; ear = hear
I doubt the Republicans will do anything more than have Lucy er Lindsey Graham squeal.
If they were smart, they chase down the incorporation issue then link it to Abortion and have her explain why abortion is incorporated but the 2nd Amendment isn’t. She ain’t smart enough to get out of that box, even if she is a Wise Latina.
Here is a great reason to support extended hearing and filibusters ……. Nordyk and Chicago seem to be heading to SCOTUS in Oct/Nov. If she’s not on the court at that time, we increase our likelihood of incorporation.
But don’t fear, the Republicans will make sure she is seated in time.
Folks…we’re talking DC GOP! The’re clueless & gutless. With Gramnesty on the committee not only will all the spineless pubs vote for her but so will 10 dead Conservatives!
.
Afterwards the DC GOP will hold a fundraiser for the Bradey Bunch…