Obama's Supreme Court pick...

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

She didn't just comment and make a stand she ruled on it, the case was before her she had to pick which way she would rule. The SC doesn't care what the Circuits say they rule how they see it. The Precedent of the 2nd Circuit in that case applies only to cases out of NY. Also the reverse of what was said in the article is that 3 of the 6 judges ruled it wasn't incorporated.

Thank you, much more concrete - she ruled on it.

She made her choice and stood with - it is NOT fundamental to state's rights. And - YES - a 50/50 split! Why couldn't she have ruled that it WAS incorporated.

I would say it was "fundamental" and should be "incorporated" because of the wording:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you, much more concrete - she ruled on it.

She made her choice and stood with - it is NOT fundamental to state's rights. And - YES - a 50/50 split! Why couldn't she have ruled that it WAS incorporated.

I would say it was "fundamental" and should be "incorporated" because of the wording:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

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.

[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.