Americans Disappointed In Confirmation Of Anti-Constitution Sotomayor - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Americans Disappointed In Confirmation Of Anti-Constitution Sotomayor

  1. #11
    Gun Control Advocates Bragging They Are On A Roll...



    The Senate confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court yesterday. Gun-control groups are crowing that the 68-31 vote was a major defeat for the National Rifle Association, which actively opposed the nomination. The gun controllers are reading too much into this vote.
    The NRA scored Judge Sotomayor's confirmation and ran ads to defeat her, but the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence counted eight NRA-endorsed senators who spurned the powerful gun-rights group to support her nomination. Some Democratic senators, such as Virginia's Mark R. Warner, even took to lecturing the NRA about being hijacked by extremists.
    The Sotomayor vote and the successful filibuster of state reciprocity for right-to-carry laws are being hailed as gun-control victories. The two votes supposedly show that politicians "can vote against the NRA and still win, and win in gun-friendly areas," as Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, phrased it.
    But a new Zogby poll suggests that things are a little more complicated. Zogby found that 52 percent of American voters would be against the re-election of any senator simply because he supports confirming a Supreme Court nominee "who does not believe in the right to keep and bear arms." Just 26 percent would support that senator. Mr. Helmke is right to believe that Judge Sotomayor is against gun ownership, and the Supreme Court is closely divided on the issue. What the poll tells us is that senators who voted for her should worry when their constituents find out about it.
    The polls on concealed handguns confirm the pro-gun attitudes of most Americans. Eighty-three percent support letting citizens carry concealed handguns; only 11 percent oppose it. Even among Democratic voters, the support is extremely high: Eighty percent of those who voted for Barack Obama for president support the right to carry a handgun. This reality is not just what voters tell pollsters. People are now packing heat in record numbers, according to USA Today.
    The positive results in the 39 states with right-to-carry laws have made a big difference in the popularity of the concealed-carry movement. The pro-gun views of the public suggest that the reciprocity bill for right-to-carry laws -- which was shot down on July 22 -- will be brought up again. The 58-39 majority in the Senate in favor of reciprocity was just two votes short of overcoming a Democratic filibuster. The NRA will have a chance to reload soon enough.



    EDITORIAL: Gun control on a roll? - Washington Times

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    As I've been saying all along, if there is one thing we can be satisfied about, it's that the 5-4 balance of conservatives versus liberals hasn't changed. Furthermore, the justices most likely to step down during Obama's administration, liberals John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are also liberals who would be replaced by liberals. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito probably won't be going anywhere as long as Obama is president. I could have mentioned Anthony Kennedy too, but he is a swing vote (although conservative on the issues that matter most, so I'll tentatively put him on the conservative wing).
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  4. #13
    Anything can happen in four years. If one or more of the conservatives on the court, God forbid should die, then we are in a world of trouble. If we do not have enough patriots in congress to stop the likes of Sonia Sotomayor then we are done for. Our government has been high jacked by a bunch of one world government, Marxists traitors.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  5. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    As I've been saying all along, if there is one thing we can be satisfied about, it's that the 5-4 balance of conservatives versus liberals hasn't changed. Furthermore, the justices most likely to step down during Obama's administration, liberals John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are also liberals who would be replaced by liberals. Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Alito probably won't be going anywhere as long as Obama is president. I could have mentioned Anthony Kennedy too, but he is a swing vote (although conservative on the issues that matter most, so I'll tentatively put him on the conservative wing).
    And you continue to be wrong...

    Souter was not one of the Justices anticipated to be replaced over the 2008-2016 interval...
    Justice Scalia (One of the good guys) who has significant health problems, is actually anticipated to be replaced at or near the same time as Justice Ginsburg (Not one of the good guys) whom also has significant health problems...
    Followed closely by Justice Stevens (Not one of the good guys)...
    Followed by Justice Kennedy (Whom is on the fence most of the time)...

    With Souter being replaced by the young SOTOMAYOR and the most radical Justice to ever be nominated or confirmed to the LIFETIME position of Justice... we are in deep s#*&...

    The NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO and others all agree that Sotomayor is much worse then Souter she was nominated to replace...

    No Justice/Nominee in history has a worse record of having their cases overturned by the very court they were nominated to then Sotomayor...
    Over 90% ...

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    Sometimes I think you argue with me on these threads just for the sake of arguing.

    What I expressed in my last post was an opinion. Just because I said it that doesn't mean that's the order in which the justices will resign. Heck, for about the past five years, I've believed that John Paul Stevens, by virtue of his age (he's 89 now), would be the next to step down, and of course I was wrong.

    You, on the other hand, will never acknowledge that what you're saying is opinion and could be wrong. Where does your information on the anticipated order of departure come from, and what makes you so confident that it's right and I'm wrong? Couldn't we both be wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    And you continue to be wrong...

    Souter was not one of the Justices anticipated to be replaced over the 2008-2016 interval...
    Justice Scalia (One of the good guys) who has significant health problems, is actually anticipated to be replaced at or near the same time as Justice Ginsburg (Not one of the good guys) whom also has significant health problems...
    Followed closely by Justice Stevens (Not one of the good guys)...
    Followed by Justice Kennedy (Whom is on the fence most of the time)...

    With Souter being replaced by the young SOTOMAYOR and the most radical Justice to ever be nominated or confirmed to the LIFETIME position of Justice... we are in deep s#*&...

    The NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO and others all agree that Sotomayor is much worse then Souter she was nominated to replace...

    No Justice/Nominee in history has a worse record of having their cases overturned by the very court they were nominated to then Sotomayor...
    Over 90% ...
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Sometimes I think you argue with me on these threads just for the sake of arguing.

    What I expressed in my last post was an opinion. Just because I said it that doesn't mean that's the order in which the justices will resign. Heck, for about the past five years, I've believed that John Paul Stevens, by virtue of his age (he's 89 now), would be the next to step down, and of course I was wrong.

    You, on the other hand, will never acknowledge that what you're saying is opinion and could be wrong. Where does your information on the anticipated order of departure come from, and what makes you so confident that it's right and I'm wrong? Couldn't we both be wrong?
    I have no desire to argue with you or anybody else...

    You might want to differentiate between an opinion and a statement of fact which is exactly how you are coming off...

    Everything you have been superfluously been repeating to the effect that Sotomayor is an insignificant confirmation/nomination is in direct contradiction to the FACTS, which I have in painstaking detail itemized over and fricking over...

    It only takes a few minutes to figure out from primary sources which Justices have significant health issues to back up what has been common knowledge for the last 3 years...

    That Souter was NOT one of the Justices anticipated to be replaced between 2008-2016...
    And who is...

    And the oldest guy on the Supreme court is not the least healthiest of the bunch...

    Historically, the majority of SCOTUS Justice's die in office...

    Roberts - 54
    Sotomayor - 55
    Alito - 59
    Thomas - 61
    Breyer - 70
    Scalia - 73
    Kennedy - 73
    Ginsburg - 76
    Stevens - 89 (Has been a Supreme Court Justice for 34 years...Justice Stevens was appointed at the same age Sotomayor is now)

    WTFU Sheeple...

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,669
    Since when have I ever suggested that Sotomayor's nomination is insignificant? Is it because I repeatedly said that her nomination was inevitable, which it was? Saying that her nomination is inevitable in no way downgrades the significance of it, even if, as I have correctly said many times before, putting her on the court doesn't alter its ideological balance.

    Furthermore, the justices' "ANCICIPATED" dates of departure are just that, anticiapted. I don't know who anticipated these, but there is nothing at all "FACTUAL" about something as speculative as "ANTICIPATED" dates of departure.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    I have no desire to argue with you or anybody else...

    You might want to differentiate between an opinion and a statement of fact which is exactly how you are coming off...

    Everything you have been superfluously been repeating to the effect that Sotomayor is an insignificant confirmation/nomination is in direct contradiction to the FACTS, which I have in painstaking detail itemized over and fricking over...

    It only takes a few minutes to figure out from primary sources which Justices have significant health issues to back up what has been common knowledge for the last 3 years...

    That Souter was NOT one of the Justices anticipated to be replaced between 2008-2016...
    And who is...

    And the oldest guy on the Supreme court is not the least healthiest of the bunch...

    Historically, the majority of SCOTUS Justice's die in office...

    Roberts - 54
    Sotomayor - 55
    Alito - 59
    Thomas - 61
    Breyer - 70
    Scalia - 73
    Kennedy - 73
    Ginsburg - 76
    Stevens - 89 (Has been a Supreme Court Justice for 34 years...Justice Stevens was appointed at the same age Sotomayor is now)

    WTFU Sheeple...
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  9. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by tattedupboy View Post
    Since when have I ever suggested that Sotomayor's nomination is insignificant? Is it because I repeatedly said that her nomination was inevitable, which it was? Saying that her nomination is inevitable in no way downgrades the significance of it, even if, as I have correctly said many times before, putting her on the court doesn't alter its ideological balance.

    Furthermore, the justices' "ANCICIPATED" dates of departure are just that, anticiapted. I don't know who anticipated these, but there is nothing at all "FACTUAL" about something as speculative as "ANTICIPATED" dates of departure.
    Are you intentionally being obtuse? or were you born that way?

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast