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

Go Back   cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board > non-Sports > Politics
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-26-2009, 04:56 PM   #1
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Scotus pick

What's her record on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't some liberal blogger already make a snarky comment about her diabetes and life expectancy?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2009, 06:00 PM   #2
BlueK
Senior Member
 
BlueK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 2,368
BlueK is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
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/
__________________
I am a libertarian
BlueK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:50 AM   #3
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
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?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:55 AM   #4
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 12:56 AM   #5
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
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?
No, because most specifically are incorporated against the states.
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 01:28 AM   #6
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
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.
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:35 AM   #7
ChinoCoug
Senior Member
 
ChinoCoug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
ChinoCoug is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post

Meanwhile Asian-Americans shake their fists at the sky.
Let me go grab my assault rifle right now...
__________________
太初有道
ChinoCoug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:42 AM   #8
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

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?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 03:47 AM   #9
Cali Coug
Senior Member
 
Cali Coug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
Cali Coug has a little shameless behaviour in the past
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeWaters View Post
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.
Yes, per Supreme Court rulings (Everson, Cantwell, etc).
Cali Coug is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2009, 04:09 AM   #10
MikeWaters
Demiurge
 
MikeWaters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,365
MikeWaters is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali Coug View Post
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?
MikeWaters is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.