White Male Conservatives v. Sotomayor

[tonymctones]

Hey 240 - what do you think about her 2nd amendment opinions?

LOL 

240 - "pendulum"

[Decker]

why?

Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?

You tell me. 

[Soul Crusher]

Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?

You tell me. 

No not at all, but I vehemently disagree with her interpretation of the 2nd amendment based on the decision she wrote. 

[Decker]

No not at all, but I vehemently disagree with her interpretation of the 2nd amendment based on the decision she wrote. 

That's cool.

That's what makes all this fun.   Group right v. individual right, changed circumstances, public safety...that's all fair game in the mix.

[Soul Crusher]

That's cool.

That's what makes all this fun.   Group right v. individual right, changed circumstances, public safety...that's all fair game in the mix.

My biggest thing is that if we say that the 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, amendments are all INDIVIDUAL rights conferred upon the individual, why should we then assume the 2nd amendment is a collective right???

To me, it makes no sense to construe it any other way.   

[Decker]

My biggest thing is that if we say that the 1, 4, 5, 6, 14, amendments are all INDIVIDUAL rights conferred upon the individual, why should we then assume the 2nd amendment is a collective right???

To me, it makes no sense to construe it any other way.   

The SCT has viewed it as a group right for a long time.  Only recently has that interpretation changed.  Judicial activism at its finest.

[Soul Crusher]

The SCT has viewed it as a group right for a long time.  Only recently has that interpretation changed.  Judicial activism at its finest.

The SC never really addressed the issue directly before Heller.   

[shootfighter1]

I'd be ok with outlawing guns if we could 100% guarantee that criminals would never have access to them.
It only takes 1 person and 1 gun to kill you (at that point statistics don't matter) and there are way too many criminals with guns.  I want to have the opportunity to protect myself if someone breaks in my house.

[Soul Crusher]

I'd be ok with outlawing guns if we could 100% guarantee that criminals would never have access to them.
It only takes 1 person and 1 gun to kill you (at that point statistics don't matter) and there are way too many criminals with guns.  I want to have the opportunity to protect myself if someone breaks in my house.

Sorry Shoot - we part ways on this.  The 2nd amendment is not about crime alone. 

[shootfighter1]

I agree that the 2nd ammendment protects this right, but in my mind, I want that right upheld because I don't have faith that some scum bag f-cker isn't going to threaten me or my family.  We see enough cases of shooting on the nightly news.

[Decker]

The SC never really addressed the issue directly before Heller.   

The MIller case laid out the, albeit indirectly, the principle that the 2nd amendment is a group right.  Hardly black letter law but the subsequent cases have followed that principle.

[andreisdaman]

There are always going to be people on the far ends of each party who make things worse than they are.
Nonetheless, Sotomayor has made some publicly poor comments that need to be criticized. 

If we stop Affirmative Action policies then these criticizms won't come up.

I don't like when anyone is very focused on their own race, I think it could be dangerous when they are in a position to judge others, as we have seen historically.

there are a whole bunch of white judges and whites guys in other professions that got moved up the ladder due to knowing someone or having dad grease the way for them..you like a lot of whites always try to play the merit card but refuse to acknowledge that many whites get good jobs due to the above.....by who they know.....in the case of whites, it's not called affirmative action....but when a minority gets a shot.... then suddenly he/she is unqualified, or given something they don't deserve.....George W. Bush and John Kerry were both "D" students in college..yet they ascended to president and runner up respectively....why is that?..because daddy was someone important.....and greased the way for them.....thats how they got in Yale and how they got to run for president..yet you can make an argument that they were both not qualified if you look at the "merits"

[shootfighter1]

Dude, I agree about Bush.  I don't think he would have gotten where he was without his dad.  I see your point but I will add that money is more important than race.  To make your generalized statement that whites get a leg up specifically because of their white skin color, implies that all whites would receive that advantage, which is obviously not true.  A person would need a wealthy family with connections to get preferential treatment.  Historically, that occured mostly with whites, but now occurs with anyone who comes from a wealthy and influential background.  Again, it comes down to the most important color....green.

[MRDUMPLING]

Why should 2nd amendment cases be exempt from the process of judicial interpretation of the law?

You tell me. 

No, I don't believe the 2nd ammendment is exempt from arguement; my point is that it seems(at least from the news etc.) that it is the ONLY one being questioned when the other nine of the bill of rigths has been confirmed as being an individual rights.

[Soul Crusher]

No, I don't believe the 2nd ammendment is exempt from arguement; my point is that it seems(at least from the news etc.) that it is the ONLY one being questioned when the other nine of the bill of rigths has been confirmed as being an individual rights.

That was my point.  It seems extremely ridiculous to argue that the 1st amendment, 4th, 5th, and 6th, are all individual rights, but the 2nd is a collective right.