Obama's Supreme Court pick...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Think of it this way, since it is necessary for a state to remain free to have a militia, [who] will not infringe upon the right of the state? The obvious answer to me is the federal government. It is the security of the State we are talking about.

True, but being from the Lone Star State and having the Alamo in mind......and also having the American Revolution fresh in mind - I take it further than our federal government being the only infringement. I view it as all encompassing.

Now, I have to go exercise while I'm in the mood.

Thanks for taking the time - I appreciate it!!!

I had also edited post #54, which part you missed. If you care to - would you review that and give a response? Thanks!

[Pressing-On]

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-fodder-to-f/

She will get through the process, I believe, and so I agree with this portion of an article in the Wall Street Journal. Excellent article, BTW!:

The 'Empathy' Nominee

As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor's Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338457658756731.html

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right and that was a typo. I meant the 14th.


Thanks for the explanation. What answer would there be if the SCOTUS says that the government cannot infringe upon a fundamental right except when necessary to promote a compelling governmental interest that cannot be achieved by less restrictive means.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I had also edited post #54, which part you missed. If you care to - would you review that and give a response? Thanks!

Well first I would like to point out that I looked up which of the first ten amendments has not been applied to the states in my bar review material...Second Amendment, Grand Jury Clause of the 5th, and jury in civil cases 7th. So she wasn't completely crazy to say it wasn't incorporated against the states.

What you described is strict scrutiny, government action generally fails under strict scrutiny however it is difficult to get something classified that way. That puts the burden of proof on the government to prove the law is necessary.

Your fundamental rights are: Your First Amendment rights, Right to travel, Privacy and Voting. That's it.

But the government can restrict these things for example, speech when it falls into certain categories, such as hate speech, or appropriate time place and manner restrictions so it’s not like making it a fundamental right would keep the government from regulating it.


Most likely it would be intermediate scrutiny - substantially related to an important government purpose. Burden of proof is usually on the government but no clear ruling.

Doubt that it would fall to rational basis test which means that the challenger must show that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. As you might guess these are tough laws to challenge successfully.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Well first I would like to point out that I looked up which of the first ten amendments has not been applied to the states in my bar review material...Second Amendment, Grand Jury Clause of the 5th, and jury in civil cases 7th. So she wasn't completely crazy to say it wasn't incorporated against the states.

What you described is strict scrutiny, government action generally fails under strict scrutiny however it is difficult to get something classified that way. That puts the burden of proof on the government to prove the law is necessary.

Your fundamental rights are: Your First Amendment rights, Right to travel, Privacy and Voting. That's it.

But the government can restrict these things for example, speech when it falls into certain categories, such as hate speech, or appropriate time place and manner restrictions so it’s not like making it a fundamental right would keep the government from regulating it.


Most likely it would be intermediate scrutiny - substantially related to an important government purpose. Burden of proof is usually on the government but no clear ruling.

Doubt that it would fall to rational basis test which means that the challenger must show that it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest. As you might guess these are tough laws to challenge successfully.

Again, thank you for taking the time! Very interesting and informative!!! We don't know enough on our level!

[Pressing-On]

Too hilarious not to include in the conversation! LOL!

I Feel Your Pain. Not Theirs. Yours.

Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming -- as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC -- that she was merely applying "precedent" to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.

This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.

...The lower court's dismissal of the firefighters' case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, "Talk to the Hand."

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32042

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Too hilarious not to include in the conversation! LOL!

I enjoy Ann Coulter's stuff. One thing people may not realize is that an unpublished opinion isn't one you can't find, it just doesn't have anything new to add to the law. And an unsigned opinion in one usually no justice wants to take credit for. The Supreme court does this at times as well, an unsigned ruling, is called "per curiam". One famous example is Bush v. Gore.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

I enjoy Ann Coulter's stuff. One thing people may not realize is that an unpublished opinion isn't one you can't find, it just doesn't have anything new to add to the law. And an unsigned opinion in one usually no justice wants to take credit for. The Supreme court does this at times as well, an unsigned ruling, is called "per curiam". One famous example is Bush v. Gore.

Yes, and I understand that one court may use the "per curiam" frequently, while another may not use it at all. I guess I don't like the whole aspect as you don't really understand or know why a decision is authored "per curiam".

But, on this issue and the bottom line would be exactly what Charles Krauthammer is saying here - referring to her remark about having the edge as a Latino woman over a white male. That is a very huge remark and largely, as Charles says, is the politics of identity that is so reminiscent of the Democratic party. He is the most balanced on issues of anyone I have ever read or listened to.

What really disheartened me was seeing young minority students being interviewed yesterday. The students were saying that now they have "a voice", etc., yada, yada - having no clear understanding of "Lady Liberty". They need a lesson on the why she wears a blindfold!!!

The women over the La Raza (The Race) organization, stated that it was "empowerment" that Sotomayor would be placed on the Supreme Court bench. That goes against the fairness being ruled on the basis of law alone! Someone should step up and teach them or remind them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zallI3sWZgk

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

".

But, on this issue and the bottom line would be exactly what Charles Krauthammer is saying here - referring to her remark about having the edge as a Latino woman over a white male. That is a very huge remark and largely, as Charles says, is the politics of identity that is so reminiscent of the Democratic party. He is the most balanced on issues of anyone I have ever read or listened to.

Well I guess if Jerome Frank, Us Court of Appeals 2nd Cir., could say a "judge's decision may be influenced by mundane things like what he or she ate for breakfast" then I guess it can be influenced by your background.

Ultimately I think it loses sight of justice to think this way but on the other hand there is a bit of realism to it as well.

On the topic of Justice - "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. " Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

Well I guess if Jerome Frank, Us Court of Appeals 2nd Cir., could say a "judge's decision may be influenced by mundane things like what he or she ate for breakfast" then I guess it can be influenced by your background.

Ultimately I think it loses sight of justice to think this way but on the other hand there is a bit of realism to it as well.

On the topic of Justice - "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice. " Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Love the quote by Holmes!

And, yes, I do agree with your point, which I enlarged. It has to have some play in it, but the overall fairness must come to mind. In a way, I can see what Sotomayor is saying, but then, on the other hand, she shouldn't have said it. It leaves her open to speculation as to intent.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Love the quote by Holmes!

And, yes, I do agree with your point, which I enlarged. It has to have some play in it, but the overall fairness must come to mind. In a way, I can see what Sotomayor is saying, but then, on the other hand, she shouldn't have said it. It leaves her open to speculation as to intent.

Which is why her record is so important.

For all the folks President Obama could have nominated, he chose nominated someone qualified who is not really far left of center.

I think this was a very wise choice.