[anniegetyourgun]

I done told ya.

[Ahithophel]

Right: Sotanomore

[ataDude]

As I posted on another thread... that's not all bad. Using her theory, that means the states can just pass local legislation that says we don't pay income taxes, and wah-lah... the 16th Amendment is dead.

Plus, I live in TX so I have no fears about gun restraints... at least yet.

[NativeNewYorker]

It’s noteworthy that our legal class seems not to believe in the law.

[lormand]

My two Texas Senators will gladly vote for her so as to avoid the racism charge of not voting for her.

[TheThinker]

She also said that judges should make policy.

[kromike]

Molon labe, Judge Latina.

[vox_freedom]

Constitutional rights should be protected in the Courts and in the legislative and executive branches of government. The Federal government should first and foremost be a protector.

This is why "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" should be cornerstones for our inalienable and God-given freedoms. And Life includes protection of life at the beginning -- and pro-life should, therefore, not be a state prerogative, but a federally protected right.

[ScreamingFist]

Yuri Brezmenov (Tomas ScHuman), 1983, explains in detail what we are seeing today. First you will face-palm, then you will cry. I suggest watching all of it before it’s pulled from YouTube, again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN0By0xbst8&feature=PlayList&p=52E369C842A46818&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=45

[a fool in paradise]

Then neither does the first amendment.

[frog in a pot]

Thanks for this (provocative) link!

“I figured that the Republicans can’t stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.”

Or perhaps this, if our Republicans on the Senate Judiciary have the gonads to represent us Republicans, it appears they have the power to thwart the nomination:

“Law professor Michael Dorf wrote that the Senate Judiciary Committee has a rule that one member of the minority party must agree for a matter to be brought to a vote. Otherwise the matter will not be voted on. Dorf is a law professor at Cornell University and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.”
“We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, “The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”

However, if on the committee, before I refused to vote for Sotomayor, I would ask her, “If, as you say it is undecided, what legal theory is required to apply the 2d to the states, and was such a theory required to apply the lst Ad. to the states; i.e., what is the difference between the two amendments?

“Government exists by the consent of the governed; however, if the governed are denied the right of self defense, those in power may exist in whatever form they choose.”

[hflynn]

None of the Washington liberal elite seem to be aware of or remember the Place de la Concorde. Heads will be rolling soon in Washington because of Obama and I can assure all you Obama Kool-Aid drinkers Madame Hillary will be doing the knitting when the basket welcomes its collection of heads.

[Czar]

So she evidently feels the states are free to ignore the U.S. Constitution and proceed to strip away Second Amendment rights from U.S. citizens; in other words, the U.S. Constitution is subordinate to state law when it comes to the Second Amendment.

Obambi has picked a real winner here...

[sanchmo]

I could see saying that the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply to the states, since the phrasing is “Congress shall make no law...” but it is nonsensical to believe that an Amendement that reads “the right of the people to *insert anything here* shall not be infringed” places a limit on who is prohibited from doing the restricting.

[BillyBoy]

>> When the lefties are replacing a lefty on the Supreme Court with another lefty, the balance is preserved and the downside to the country is somewhat minimized. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. If Obama were filling Scalia's seat for example, this would be a Battle Royale <<

Right. That's why the Republicans went for a "battle royale" when Bill Clinton decided to change the "delicate balance of the court" by replacing the center-right Byron White with rabid leftist ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Oh wait...

[Carley]

And she had no idea that abortion stops a beating heart.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

Does her interpretation extend to the rest of the Bill of Rights? If not, why not?

Regards,
GtG

PS SS, you don't get to pick and chose your rights. It's a package deal.

[PBinTX]

Sotomayor is not qualified. Apparently she’s either never heard of the Supremacy Clause or chooses to ignore it.

Article VI, Clause 2:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

[EGPWS]

Okay, the gloves are off.

Yep!

Wasn't something comparable to this tried during the Heinous' husbands term?

If I recall, it didn't work out so well for them, however these lifetime appointments IMO are the most crucial because of the term of office given.

Molon labe

[cranked]

Oh great, another moronic advocate for flushing the Constitution down the toilet....

[backtothestreets]

To make such a change stick, Sotomayor, if confirmed, would first have to wait for the court to hear a case that challenges the “Incorporation Doctrine” by which the Supreme Court extended the limitations set upon the federal government to the state government.

Until the “Incorporation Doctrine” ruling and subsequent rulings based upon it were made, states enjoyed the freedom to dictate prayer in public schools, indeed, declare a state religion, plus place limitations in behavior the federal government could not.

I doubt there's even the slightest chance of the court hearing a case that would overturn the “Indoctrination Doctrine”, be it a Democrat or Republican court.