Posted on 06/24/2009 6:34:53 AM PDT by anniegetyourgun
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a new narrative ahead of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, questioning her commitment to constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms and equal treatment under the law regardless of race or gender.
The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism, citing what he said was the "extensive work" she had done for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
"This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama said.
(Excerpt) Read more at islandpacket.com ...
Yeah, that’s a ‘tack’,Laurie.What a ridiculous, partisan thing to ask a Supreme Court nominee.
No, she hates everything the original intent of the Constitution stands for. She will turn it upside down every chance she gets....stupid question, next.
There is no constitutional right to equal treatment based on "gender".
She’d be the first. At any level of Federal government.
Only if it’s hanging from a dispenser in the ladies room.
“Original intent” is antithetical to liberal ideology.
Liberals believe that they, through benefit of living NOW, are indeed smarter than those who originally wrote the contract called the Constitution.
Almost certainly not.
I’ll just ditto all the nay’s here.
In a word. NO!
Yes there is.
The 14th Amendment’s usage of the word “person” covers it quite nicely, which is why the “ERA” was wholly unnecessary.
Unless, of course, one is a member of some bizarre religious sect that does not consider women to be persons.
Still, "half a loaf is better than no bread." I don't actually think that their whining at this late date is going to change much, but at least they are showing a semblance of a spine.
she hasnt bothered to read it, why uphold it?
Sorry my FRiend, but the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th amendment was to prohibit discrimination by virtue of race, not gender. If, in fact, the 14th amendment was intended to prohibit all discrimination based on gender, then women would have been drafted and forced to serve in combat. Further if the 14th amendment was originally intended to prohibit discrimination based on "gender" then women would have had the right to vote and the 19th Amendment would have been wholly unnecessary.
The ERA was not passed because it would have required women to be drafted and placed in combat roles in the military.
Gender discrimination is not a constitutionally prohibited practice. It never has been.
Now are you one of these people that believes in a living-breathing and changing-with-the-times Constitution?
How dare the GOP ask this!
(sarcasm)
Took some of that citrusy tasting liquid stuff prior to a medical test and it cleaned by constitution's riflings.
Fire-Breathing constitution..... :>)
Raise your hand if you trust Senate Republicans to uphold the Constitution.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just as I expected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.