The Libertarian Party is voicing it’s opposition to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, based on her stance on the Second Amendment.
In response to a question of whether or not there is a Constitutional right to self-defense, she stated, “I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”
“The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That’s why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor’s answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
Source: SmallGovTimes.
Nate , saying a wise Latina is better a judging than a white man is racist in nature. so is supporting the fire fighting ruling . the promotions go to the folks who scored the best , which included minorities just not enuf for affirmative action folks .
did you watch the testimony of the Latino fire fighter who studied super hard and did well only to have all results rebuked . he’s siding with the firefighters who want the test results used to determine advancement.
Libertarians Take Aim At Sotomayor’s Anti-Gun Stance
How about also taking aim at Obama’s “war on terror”?
LG,
she may well be racist. As I have stated, I don’t really know that much about her. But if you are basing this on her “wise latina” comment and/or her ruling in the firefighter case, perhaps you should have another look.
To me neither of those shows any real racism. She ruled that the city could look into testing that the city thought delivered strange results and therefore wanted to reconsider. Was her ruling correct? I don’t know. Was it racist? I certainly don’t see it as such.
Even if the act itself is racist, a judicial ruling that the act was *legal* does not make the judge racist.
Steve,
“The right to bear arms implies the right to self defense”
No, it doesn’t. But even if it were *implicitly* part of the 2nd amendment, it isn’t the “literal wording of the Constitution” Donny claims it to be.
“and why in the world would any sane person deny someone that right?”
How about “two wrongs don’t make a right”?
Not really the point though, as Sotamayor doesn’t seem to have denied anyone the right to self defense, she merely stated that as far as she knows there is nothing in the constitution that grants such a right. There may be, she admits as much herself, but I for one agree that the 2nd amendment doesn’t grant it. That says nothing about my beliefs as to whether one has or should have the right to self defense, it merely shows that I don’t think the *constitution* grants or guarantees that right.
“Why would one choose to possess a weapon if not to use it as a tool at some point or another?”
So when are we going to drop our remaining nukes? Why have the damn things if we aren’t going to use them, right?
You yourself then list a number of reasons for owning a gun other than self defense.
“It is very clear and Sotamayor is just playing dumb because she really does not support the amendment at all. We all know she is very intelligent yet has a very oppressive mentality.”
I actually know little to nothing about the woman. So no, “we all” don’t know these things.
The right to bear arms implies the right to self defense and why in the world would any sane person deny someone that right? Why would one choose to possess a weapon if not to use it as a tool at some point or another? It could be for hunting, self defense, military service, or just plain old fun. I suppose they might look nice hanging over your mantle… Its kind of like saying that just because one buys a car does not mean they intend to use is for transportation. Or that just because someone has the right to property that they will not want to live on it or use it in any way…. you see the point? If that is not enough for you all you need do is read the writings of the drafters on that amendment to see their intent for it. It is very clear and Sotamayor is just playing dumb because she really does not support the amendment at all. We all know she is very intelligent yet has a very oppressive mentality.
Richard Winger said earlier that she’s made decisions on the side of more open ballot access, for some consolation now that she’s definitely on.
not to mention anti-numchuck
I don’t know that the right to self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution, but that does not mean it doesn’t exist. It certainly is not in the 2nd amendment. The right to keep arms is not quit the same thing.
I think it would be more effective if the voicing of this opinion were directed to senators who are going to vote on this nomination. I have sent my opinion there.
Duh, plenty of other alternative parties have never said any thing against the 2nd Amendment! The claim of Libertarian exclusivity is not only ‘exaggeration’ but out right fraud!
Rich, you gripe against the truth
and shes a racist , people freaked the fuck out 2 months ago when Wayne Root said it , now it turns out to be true.
not that it matters , only an act of god will prevent her from being confirmed
Sure, anybody could say that Sotomeyer is a gun grabber … and everybody should! Why does that bother you, Donald?
Just because somebody else could have reported the truth does not make it less true.
Oh come, Donny, such hypocrisy and hyperbole! All kinds of alternative organizations can make that claim. Yet another Lib strategy, deceit, deceit, deceit!