cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

- Politics (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - Scotus pick (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26083)

What's her record on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't some liberal blogger already make a snarky comment about her diabetes and life expectancy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 305577)

What's her record on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't some liberal blogger already make a snarky comment about her diabetes and life expectancy?

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueK (Post 305579)

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-s...n-civil-cases/

Quote:

Second Amendment: Sotomayor was also a member of the panel that issued a per curiam opinion in another controversial case that may be headed for the Court next year. In Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009), the panel considered (as relevant here) a claim by a New York attorney that a state law prohibiting possession of a chuka stick (also known as nunchaku, a device used in martial arts consisting of two sticks joined by a rope or chain) violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The district court rejected the claim on the ground that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. On appeal, the panel affirmed. Relying on the Supreme Court’s 1886 decision in Presser v. Illinois, it explained that it was “settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the individual’s right to bear arms. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the court continued, “does not invalidate this longstanding principle.” And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.

So a state can ban all guns within its borders, and the 2nd Amendment offers no protection, because it does not apply to state law?

Well, golly, gee-whiz, what a wonderful advocate of states' rights.

Does that apply to all civil liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights?

Now we have our first real controversy: is Sotomayor is confirmed, is she the first Hispanic on the court.

One argument says Cardozo was the first Hispanic, as he was of Portugese descent.

Some arguments about the definition of "Hispanic": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispanic

Maybe modern day Hispanics don't care for the fact that the first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court was a Jewish white male. Who knows.

So now, it is agreed by all, that Sotomayor would be the first "Latina" on SCOTUS.

Meanwhile Asian-Americans shake their fists at the sky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 305592)

No, because most specifically are incorporated against the states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 305594)

No, because most specifically are incorporated against the states.

the 9th circuit just recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated.

http://arizonaccwpermit.com/2009/04/...ted-to-states/

Is the 1st amendment incorporated? I don't remember any language in the amendment to suggest that it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 305593)

Meanwhile Asian-Americans shake their fists at the sky.

Let me go grab my assault rifle right now...

Axelrod, interviewed today, said that Obama prayed last night about his decision to choose Sotomayor.

I thought that was interesting.

I don't think many people here have a problem with Obama praying about his decisions, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 305595)

Yes, per Supreme Court rulings (Everson, Cantwell, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug (Post 305602)

Yes, per Supreme Court rulings (Everson, Cantwell, etc).

So is it arbitrary? Meaning that SCOTUS at some point arbitrarily decides which civil liberties are incorporated?

Don't they have philosophies withe fancy names that makes it seem non-arbitrary?