Skip to main content

Thursday:

Other senators have come away from their meetings with Sotomayor concerned about her position on gun rights.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Tuesday that he was disappointed that the judge refused to say during their visit that the Second Amendment ''protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans.''

DeMint said Sotomayor's statement on Heller ''doesn't tell us much'' about her view of the issue, noting that she stands by her ruling that held that the Second Amendment only protects against federal government curbs on the right to bear arms -- not state or local limits.

''(H)er opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms. She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her,'' DeMint said Thursday.

Nor should she have.

As I explained last week, Judge Sotomayor's agreement with a per curiam opinion that the Second Amendment's protections did not apply against state or local regulations is one that is compelled by a trio 19th Century opinions of the Supreme Court (as well as a recent Second Circuit decision) which she -- like her conservative colleagues on the Seventh Circuit -- were powerless to overrule, no matter how wrong they may have been.  So, on that ground alone, Judge Sotomayor was correct in her claims to Sen. DeMint.

Moreover, the only body which can determine that the Second Amendment confer a right to keep and bear arms upon citizens against state and local regulation, and overturn those precedents, is the Supreme Court of the United States itself.  As of this week, there's not just one but two petitions for a writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court on this very issue, each asking the Court to resolve whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the states.  It is a large and important issue, and one for which the Court has more-or-less solicited a test case to revisit the question, as indicated Justice Scalia's footnote 23 in for the Heller majority:

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Translated: "Not that we can say it explicitly here, but c'mon.  Those old cases got it wrong. They didn't even think the First Amendment applied to the states.  Like, duh!"

Accordingly, when confirmed to the Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor will hear and rule upon the very question about which Sen. DeMint asked. It would be a massive breach of judicial ethics for her to pre-judge the issues involved or promise a ruling one way or another to him.  You'd think he'd know better than that.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:00 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  So, Sotomayor wants to take away our guns. (6+ / 0-)

    Will this be the big wedgeee at the hearings?

    Cash registers begin to ring in three...two...one...

    A rising tide floats all yachts. But that's about all.

    by Rube Goldberg on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:05:05 AM PDT

  •  I always find it a bit ironic when Republicans (19+ / 0-)

    argue against state rights...Wasn't that like the entire crux of their platform at one point?

  •  Confirmation hearings are no longer (11+ / 0-)

    for any purpose but grandstanding to the base.  Obviously DeMint wants his reactionary voters to know he's looking out for them.

    Really, these are such a waste of time.  There should be a better way to vet candidates for a lifetime appointment to the most influential court in the country.  

    Randall Terry is an accomplice to murder.

    by dotalbon on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:05:36 AM PDT

  •  Sounds like DeMint was trying to set a simple (11+ / 0-)

    trap and failed.  Had she given him a black and white answer (either positive or negative), he would have come out saying she was a bad choice for the SCOTUS because she had already decided future court decisions.

    Silly DeMint...

    Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

    by darthstar on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:06:36 AM PDT

  •  Point of order... (12+ / 0-)

    You'd think he'd know better than that.

    No...no, I honestly don't think that at all...

    Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

    by Aqualad08 on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:08:05 AM PDT

  •  Jim DeMint is an idiot (8+ / 0-)

    and a blot on the good people of South Carolina. That's really all that needed to be said here.

    •  "Right to bear arms"=red flag (0+ / 0-)

       I don't think he's got the intellect to comprehend the Constitutional questions involved, and think it unlikely that anyone on his staff does either.

       He was just grasping for something to use to justify his opposition to Sotomayor.  Finding nothing, he cobbled this up.  It's bullshit, but it will sell well to the folks back home.

       Not that he needed: All the people here in South Carolina need to know is that Obama nominated her.  

      I'm Ben Bernanke and I'm going to spank you.

      by Donald Drennon on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:47:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Interesting (7+ / 0-)

    (not DeMint) but the application of the Second Amendment as to the States.  The Connecticut Constitution has an explicit clause which provides for the right to bear arms in defense of the State and the individual.  Even so, there are plenty of regulations regarding who can obtain and maintain firearms.

    Thanks, Adam.  I will read the two cases on petition for writ.

  •  So they wanted her to go against precedent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, imamish

    in order to strike down a state law against the majority of her own panel and the majority of her own circuit?  Seems like asking for judicial activism AND out of the mainstream.  

    Basically the concept is, "you did it for blacks, now it's our turn to pick which laws to get rid of."

    "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

    by Inland on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:08:35 AM PDT

  •  The First Amendment doesn't apply to States? (4+ / 0-)

    I was unaware that this was the current state of judicial precedent. Holy Hell. Why are we worried about whether we can take guns to the Holocaust Museum when the States can take away our right to free speech? Ofcourse, to the wingnuts, shooting people they don't like is a form of free speech.

    •  Not current... But that was the law (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Adam B, happymisanthropy, imamish

      at some point.

      •  14th Amendment applied Bill of Rights to states (0+ / 0-)

        Prior to that, there was no language in the Constitution applying federal powers over state laws except for the enumerated powers of the federal government- postal service, make roads, military, interstate trade.

        The idea is that states are sovereign and control all laws affecting their people, and the federal government is only in charge of those laws that would affect other states, like if Iowa made a law banning yellow cars on all highways.

        Federal law has been expanded, and feds can control state laws by withholding federal funding, but there are still areas where states are left alone for the most part, such as criminal law.  The constitution affects the trial process, but the wording and enforcement of state criminal laws is still pretty much up to the states.  

        Snarka Snarka Snarka!

        by Hunter Huxley on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:39:22 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, incorporation doctrine (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          did not come about right away.  If memory serves, it came around only in the late 19th, early 20th century (i.e., at least 50 years after the 14tj was adopted).  So at some point in time, SCOTUS issued rulings that 1st Am (and 2d Am) does not apply to the states.

        •  Though there are still some judges... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Adam B, Hunter Huxley

          Justice Thomas for example does not believe that the Establishment Clause incorporates to the states. He's also a guy who has (and I'll be polite) a limited view of stare decisis.

          Freedom hangs like heaven over everyone

          by JohnCos on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:03:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know any other judge (0+ / 0-)

            who wants to take the country back to the 19th century the way Thomas does.  And I don't understand the practice of looking at contemporary laws when amendments are introduced to deduce the intent of the amendment- how can the intent of a new amendment be for everything to remain exactly the same?

            Snarka Snarka Snarka!

            by Hunter Huxley on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:28:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Not that I have read them all (4+ / 0-)

      but my guess is that every State Constitution has a variation of language of the U.S. Bill of Rights incorporated in their list of rights.

    •  Actually, though, most state constitutions have (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gchaucer2, imamish

      addressed this issue from my studies on the matter, anyways, so it is kind of moot

      •  Now that I think about it (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Irixsh

        you are right, the Ohio State Constitution parallels the US bill of rights on free speech. Thanks.

      •  I suggest that you study further. (0+ / 0-)

        You and imamish and gchaucer2 are stunningly ignorant about the law of the land. The First Amendment does extend to the states, as determined by the SCOTUS, not the state constitutions, and Scalia did not say otherwise (and the diarist made it very clear what Scalia was saying).

    •  Where was this suggested? Read again how (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      imamish

      interpretation of the 14th amendment is used to determine this.  And wikipedia says:

      Although the First Amendment only explicitly applies to the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.

    •  It doesn't, not directly. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      imamish, whaddaya

      None of the rights in the Bill of Rights do.  The fourteenth amendment applies to states, and the fourteenth amendment jurisprudence applies some of the same rights in the BOR amendents to states.  THe first's are, the second's are not, the sixth's are not, the eight's are but not in the same way.

      "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:20:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Adam (et. al) (0+ / 0-)

    I generally agree that only Supreme Court should be able to reverse its own precedents.  Otherwise the whole system of subordinate courts falls apart.  Therefore, I do not blame Sotomayor for ruling as she did.  Cruishank is still the law, even if obsolete, and only SCOTUS can change it.

    That said, I wish that my brethren who are not originalists subscribed to that same notion.  Unfortunately, tehy often do not.  In Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court of Missouri concluded that the relatively recent Supreme Court precedent in Stanford v. Kentucky was no longer good law.  That despite the fact that SCOTUS had yet to reverse Stanford.  Yet, those opposed to the death penalty (and those who support "living constitution" generally) cheered that decision.  I am hoping for a more uniform approach in the future,

    •  As Easterbrook points out, (0+ / 0-)

      the holding of "the second amendment does not apply to states" is categorical and not amenable to implicitly being overruled or narrowed by other cases.  While you may or may not like lower courts reading tea leaves, the fact is that there's no leaves to read in these second amendment cases.

      "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:18:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Like I said, I agree (0+ / 0-)

        What I was compalining about is the inconsistency.  Stanford v. kentucky held categorically that the 8th Amendment permits the execution of juveniles.  But mere 15 years later, the Supreme Court of Missouri held that that is no longer good law, even though Supreme Court had not (at that point) overrule Stanford.  Yet, that decision was greeted with applause by the very same people who now applaud Sotomayor's "restraint."  I think that is inconsistent.  

        •  You have a point ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Drgrishka1

          But aren't state supreme courts in a rather different position than the lower federal courts?  I'm not familiar with the case - did the Missouri court perhaps base its ruling on some aspect of Missouri law?

          "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by jrooth on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:44:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it were so, I wouldn't have a problem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jrooth, Pizzapotamus

            In that particular case, Missouri based the ruling strictly on teh 8th Amendment,  (SCOTUS actually took the case and affirmed the Missouri court, ultimately overruling Stanford).  But it should have do it first and not have MO jump the gun.  

            (As a general matter, though, you are right, that sometimes state courts can afford more protection under their state Constitution than the federal Constitution provides for).

        •  Categorical permission? (0+ / 0-)

          Unless the SCOTUS held that the 8th amendment requires the execution of juveniles, you're full of crap as usual.

  •  a teaching moment? (3+ / 0-)

     when one reads most "law"  - it doesn't take long to realize that fidelity to the "rule of law" requires an entirely different perspective than the kind of frivolous pronouncements of a Sen. DeMint.  

     It is a source of endless frustration that anyone takes seriously any Republican when they speak of judicial activism or judge made law - it is, in point of fact, a concept that modern Republicans want more than at any time in our history.

     I am hopeful - though not entirely optimistic - that Judge Sotomayor's confirmation will be a teaching moment on what actual judicial restraint means.  Every decision of hers I have seen is steeped in restraint.

  •  Not exactly right (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickD

    A Court could rule that the Supreme Court's later decisions on incorporation of various amendments to the states through the 14th amendment calls into question older decisions that did not apply the second amendment to the states, go through the analysis, and decide it does now.  

    And Sotomayor could say outside of a case that she thinks an analysis by the Supreme Court now would show that the Second Amendment applies to the states.  Although that might create problems about not talking about decisions outside of an actual case, the same way nominees don't say how they would rule on an abortion case in the future.  

    Frankly, if she really believes that the court should pick and choose which amendments encompassing individual rights (which the court has now held the second amendment does) actually apply to the states, that concerns me.  And I hate guns.

    •  the issue is "Due Process." (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      filby

      The bill of rights was originally a limitation only on the federal government.  The soveriegns under the Articles of Confederation were the states and the federal government had very little power.  The constitution ceded much power to the feds but not all.  The whole document, including the bill of rights was a limitation on federal power.

      the fourteenth amendment included a "due process clause" which said that no state shall deprive a person of life liberty or property without due process of law.  That clause was held to incorporate some but not all of the rights in the Bill of Rights and apply them to the states.  

      The question as to the second amendment is two fold.  First, did it bestow a personal right on the people and second is that right included in a fair reading of "due process."  To me the answer is no on both counts.  A citizen never had an unfettered right to bear arms.  That right could always be limited by states.  (Remember, in the DC case, there was no state action.  It was all federal.)  Is the right to bear arms a due process right, like the fourth or fifth amendment?  No, clearly not.  

      What the SCOTUS said in the DC case was that the federal government, governing the District, could not issue a blanket ruling prohibiting all guns.  It said in effect there was a personal right, but only against the federal government.  States is a completely different issue.

    •  Is there an incorporation case (0+ / 0-)

      later than US v. Miller that you have in mind?

      "I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by jrooth on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:47:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  There is a case, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Adam B, jrooth, happymisanthropy

        I'm not sure of the title, where a lower Court's ruling against Incorporation of some other right was overturned. The lower Court applied Slaughterhouse's logic, but did not consider a Substantive Due Process analysis.

        The Court ruled that such an analysis was required by the Court's later cases, and overruled the lower Court on the grounds that such an analysis was not done.

        The 2nd (in the nunchucks case that Sotomayor ruled on) and the 7th (in McDonald v Chicago) did no such analysis, and ruled that the 2nd Amendment was not Incorporated. The 9th Circuit did perform that analysis, in Nordyke v King, and ruled that it was.

        That's where we are right now. You can make a strong precedential argument that the 2nd and 7th Circuits, by relying solely on the Slaughterhouse logic and ignoring the later Substantive Due Process doctrine, misruled in these cases.

        It's headed for SCOTUS now, as the cert petition in McDonald has been filed. We have a Circuit split, and there's quite a bit in Heller that indicates that the majority would have ruled for Incorporation if that question was properly before the Court... which it by design was not.

        There's also evidence, in the fact that the majority opinion referred favorably to a book called The Day Freedom Died, about Slaughterhouse, that the COurt is interested in overturning that foulest of still-standing 19th Century precedents. My hope is that the liberal minority will be willing to take the hit against their policy preferences regarding gun control to join the Conservatives (who would be giving up some beloved policy preferences of their own to expand gun rights) in restoring the Privileges and Immunities Clause to the Constitution.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:55:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Did you even read the diary? (0+ / 0-)

      Although that might create problems about not talking about decisions outside of an actual case

      Gee, really?

      Frankly, if she really believes that the court should pick and choose which amendments encompassing individual rights (which the court has now held the second amendment does) actually apply to the states, that concerns me.

      And if she really believes that 1+1=3, that's of concern ... but there's no reason to think that she believes that, either.

  •  Know better? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, filby

    You'd think he'd know better than that.

    Of course he knows better. DeMint was just ad libbing a way to say "concerned", "gun rights", and "supreme court" in the same statement because the whole "racist Latina" line of attack went over like a fart in church.

    The goal is not to bring your adversaries to their knees but to their senses. -- Mahatma Gandhi

    by kingubu on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:12:22 AM PDT

  •  DeMint is not a lawyer (4+ / 0-)

    He received a bachelor's degree from the University of Tennessee and an M.B.A. from Clemson University.

    An MBA from Clemson means training yes-men executives.

  •  DeMint wants activist judges. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GoldnI, filby

    Songs up at da web site! Also. . . It's Kostown, Jake. . .

    by Crashing Vor on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:13:07 AM PDT

  •  Concerned about Sotomayor's right wing gun view. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution
    Heck with DeMint's education, that's hopeless, a concern is that Sotomayor thinks the establishment of state militias means right wing domestic terrorists have a right to own guns.

    Second amendment guarantees that states can organize militias and that no citizen can be denied the right to bear arms in the militia.

    We need a more liberal judge.

    •  That's not what it means. (2+ / 0-)

      It's not at all clear that it ever meant that, even during the period from 1937-2008, but it certainly does not mean that now.

      Even the dissenters in Heller signed on to an "individual rights" interpretation. And for the most part, the "collective rights" interpretation has been dying out even in the liberal legal academy.

      --Shannon

      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:26:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  2nd amendment entirely about state militias. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sapper, whaddaya

        "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."

        It is the qualifier concerning people keep and bear arms.  Nothing actually about OWNING arms or BUYING arms but keeping them as part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

        There is no bearing of arms outside a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. That is our State National Guard units.

        •  Nowhere else in the Constitution is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          "the people" used to refer to state government.

          Nor is there anywhere else where it is claimed that a prefatory clause has force of law.

          •  WELL REGULATED militia defines state militia. (0+ / 0-)

            REGULATED and MILITIA are state functions and entities, the right to bear arms (nothing about ownership) is based on connection to the WELL REGULATED (government) MILITIA (STATE).

            That is the National Guard. So no one can be denied serving in the National Guard (you can't exclude people due to their political beliefs thereby making the STATE MILITIA composed of right wing skinheads by decree of Gov. Sanford an impossibility).

            •  You are probably not aware of this, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              but current Federal law, not repealed by the act creating the National Guard, states that all males between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the militia.

              The militia is not now, and never has been, the National Guard. The National Guard is an augmenting force to the standing Army, headed by State Governors in time of peace, but subject at any time to the control of the Commander-in-Chief. That it is not "the Militia" as defined in the Constitution can be clearly seen in the fact that the National Guard can be nationalized by Executive order, but calling the Militia into Federal service requires an act of Congress.

              --SHannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:00:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You are definitely unaware of Whiskey Rebellion. (0+ / 0-)

                By the right wing thinking you repeat, the mob of armed citizens who organized the Whiskey Rebellion were as much the military as the Federalized state militia George Washington organized to crush the Whiskey Rebellion.

                Required to serve in the WELL REGULATED state MILITIA if called upon is requirement for all 18 -45 year olds, also the eligible for the draft age...how about that coincidence?

                The WELL REGULATED state militias the founders had were entirely state run affairs not just mobs of folks with guns. In fact, most people could not afford the expense of guns, most gun owners were wealthy people.

                •  But, (0+ / 0-)

                  by your interpretation, the amendment is self-nullifying.  If congress has the power to abolish the Militia, then protecting the rights of a state militia that Congress can abolish is self-evidently futile.

                  So, by your interpretation, the Second Amendment was irrelevant the day it was written.  It might as well have said "I like cheese."

                  The North will rise again!

                  by happymisanthropy on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:27:28 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  George Washington was clear on who was militia (0+ / 0-)

                    and it wasn't everyone 18-45 with a gun as Washington was in a shooting conflict with a bunch of 18-45 year old's with guns...they were not the militia.

                    "So, by your interpretation, the Second Amendment was irrelevant the day it was written."

                    No by Constitutional definition, no one can be denied and everyone is to serve in the WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIA when called upon by the WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIA.

                    Every citizen, has a right to bear arms when called up to do so.

                    •  I'm sorry, but the law is against you here. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      happymisanthropy

                      As is history.

                      If you've read the Heller decision, as well as the briefs in the case, you will have seen the exhaustive historical analysis, going back to Blackstone, that was conducted in crafting the majority opinion.

                      It's clear that you think that American society would be improved by citizens not having a right to keep and bear arms. If you're right, and I don't think that you are, your course is clear.

                      It's spelled out in Article V.

                      Propose and advocate for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Get the required number of State legislatures to agree with you.

                      But until such time as that happens, what you don't get to do is to pretend that there is no such right, or that the existence of that right does not preclude the government from taking the actions that you want it to. You cannot read a guaranteed right out of the Constitution, simply because you don't think it should exist.

                      The text and the history are clear. And you've lost the argument. The fact that the only Constitutional course remaining to you is unlikely in the extreme to ever go your way is not my problem... it's yours.

                      --Shannon

                      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                      by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:25:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Washington and founders say otherwise. (0+ / 0-)

                        Washington, Hamilton all the founders were alive and made it very clear that the militia were the WELL REGULATED MILITIAS created by the government to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion not the armed rebels.

                        By your definition, the Whiskey tax rebels were the US militia.

                        The founders made a clear statement on 2nd amendment by their actions of the Whiskey Rebellion. The right to bear arms was based on participation in the state militia.

                        •  Your point (0+ / 0-)

                          about the Whiskey Rebellion is complete nonsense.

                          The mere fact that the word "RIGHT" is used in the second amendment should be enough to convince you that your entire line of bullshit is wrong.  Only individuals have rights.  States do not have rights.  Militias do not have rights.  Collectives do not have rights.

                          The North will rise again!

                          by happymisanthropy on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 03:50:35 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  George Washington and founders point, not mine. (0+ / 0-)

                            The only legitimate gun bearers were those authorized militia men of the Pennsylvania and Federal gov't.

                            The rebellious farmers with guns (the epitome of the "Red Dawn" fantasy of the right wingers today) who were the Whiskey Rebellion did not have "militia" status simply by being US citizens and were considered outlaws for bearing arms by the founders of the United States.

                          •  Wrong. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy

                            They were criminals not because they were bearing arms, but because of what they did with those arms.

                            Rebellion against the government is not legal... whether you use a gun or a rock.

                            Having the arms was never the issue, and you damned well know it.

                            --Shannon

                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 06:40:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Then argue with Washingont, Hamilton et al (0+ / 0-)

                            The writers and signers of the Constitution acted on the 2nd amendment in the Whiskey Rebellion clearly demonstrating that the arms bearers outside of the state's well regulated militia were rebels and had no legal standing.

                            The 2nd amendment is about WELL REGULATED MILITIAS with keeping and bearing arms being a citizens right and duty in terms of serving the WELL REGULATED MILITIA.

                          •  Repitition doesn't make you right. (0+ / 0-)

                            Even when you use all caps.

                            Had the Whiskey rebels been walking down the street with their guns, the government would have had no grounds to quash them. It was only when they used force against the State that they became rebels.

                            Revolution is only legal if you win.

                            --Shannon

                            "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                            "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                            by Leftie Gunner on Sat Jun 13, 2009 at 03:46:37 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

        •  I've always read more into the spirit of the (0+ / 0-)

          amendment, that the idea of a well-regulated militia (not necessarily one regulated by a state) should come as a check to the establishment of a federal standing army.

          The second amendment seemed crafted with the intent of giving the people - not the state or any governmental entity - the right to bear arms as a check against a standing army rolling down into a state and establishing some sort of federal martial law.

          When the constitution was crafted in the summer of 1787, the establishment of a federal military arm, under direct executive control and under indirect legislative regulation, was of concern.

          I don't know how far that argument goes, or what it has to do with the nut and the .22 who killed a good man at a museum the other day, but there it is.

          "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for President. One hopes it is the same half." - Gore Vidal

          by sapper on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:09:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  This question was considered, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          whether in preferatory clause "The security of a free State..." limited the operative clause, "The right of the people.."

          The interpretation that was settled on by the Court, and one that most legal scholars not involved with the gun control movement had already settled on, was that it does not.

          It's more like, "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."

          The two remaining Constitutional questions are, 1) does this Right apply, vie the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause, (or even more importantly, the Privileges and Immunities Clause that was eviscerated in the wholly racist Slaughterhouse cases,) to State and local jurisdictions, and 2) what level of scrutiny should be applied in defense of the right?

          My answers, and the ones that I hope the Courts will give, are 1) yes, and 2) strict scrutiny. That will put my gun rights on the same legal plane as my speech rights... which is where they should have been placed all along.

          It's simply not as clear-cut as you'd like it to be. And if you don't like the answers you're getting, and it's clear that you don't, there is a remedy. You will find it spelled out in Article V.

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:41:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Take it all in context... (0+ / 0-)

          If you look at the first 10 amendments the clear intent was to put a final set of checks on the federal government by ensuring that citizens and states could vocally object and by preventing the common paths to dictatorship or monarchy, such as using religious manipulation, jailing dissenters without trial, or using armed military to mentally and/or physically intimidate citizens.  The constitution makes no mention as to what qualifies as a "well regulated militia," so it has been interpreted that the this does not have to be regulated by the state, even though this may have been the framers' intent.  Until there is law defining a well regulated militia (which seems perfectly constitutional to pass, so long as it's not the feds), I think this makes the purpose of the entire clause moot in the sense that my one man militia can be regulated by me (as long as I do it "well").  This makes the "individual rights" interpretation valid.  While it would be interesting to see, I doubt we'll see a state pass laws defining a well regulated militia, and then pass laws banning individuals who are not part of that well regulated militia from having guns (not that I'm promoting this idea).  

          However, I don't see this as being the problem, anyway.  The bigger deal is that really the whole amendment is moot.  Arms in the late 1700s were nothing more powerful than muskets or cannons, weapons that take a considerable time to reload after a single shot.  A one man "militia," be it a bandit, terrorist, etc. wasn't going to have much effect.  I doubt the framers imagined the type of arms we have today.  Arms today include things like fully automatic weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads.  I'm not sure how the court justifies that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to regulating a stockpile mustard gas, but does apply to regulating rifled guns, so long as the bullet they carry is not larger than half an inch in diameter (because then it's a cannon shell, which can apparently be banned).  Clearly the amendment's original intent, if applied to the individual, can no longer be valid in an era of chemical weapons, tanks, fighter jets, long range missiles and drones.  If anything, the amendment appears to secure the 50 states' right to hold their own stockpile of nukes, but doesn't really appear to say anything about an individual's right to hold a nuke.  Under the current interpretation, laws banning individuals from obtaining nuclear warheads or certain chemical weapons are clearly unconstitutional (to take it to the extreme).  Either the second amendment does not apply to the individual or the second amendment is archaic based on today's arms.  

          The application of the second amendment is clearly inconsistent as it stands.  Either it applies to the individual, and laws restricting an individual's "right" to bear arms, including chemicals and explosives are being infringed upon, or it applies to states, and laws passed by states banning knives would be perfectly constitutional.  How the courts can draw a line in the sand and say certain arms are protected by the constitution but other arms aren't is ridiculous, IMHO.  

  •  I never understand this argument (6+ / 0-)

    It would be a massive breach of judicial ethics for her to pre-judge the issues involved or promise a ruling one way or another to him.

    Don't the elected representatives of the republic have some duty to find out what the attitudes of a judicial candidate are to the issues of the day?  If the issue is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states or not, that has little to do with the particulars of any individual case.

    This kind of eggshell dance required by the legislature leads to ludicrous situations, such as when Clarence Thomas pretended he had never considered whether Roe v. Wade was good law or not.  Why is it "ethical" to hide these political considerations in a black box?  

    "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Did anybody help me out? No." - Craig T. Nelson

    by RickD on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:16:14 AM PDT

    •  a self-defeating process (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

       if a sitting judge takes a clear position - then one litigant party would have more than ample grounds to seek and probably obtain recusal - sooooo

       if you get the answer - you don't get the judge.

    •  It's been largely a dodge. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      Like Clarence Thomas pretending he had never even considered the constitutionality of abortion laws, even in law school.

      "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:21:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One reason may be... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DefendOurConstitution

      ...that a nominee could promise to rule a certain way in return for confirmation.  

      But even this, I don't have a problem with.  The Senators and President won elections...their right to be satisfied with who gets to be a Justice should be respected.  They should get to ask whatever they want.

      •  No one said they can't ask. Sheesh. (0+ / 0-)

        The issue is whether Sotomayor should rule on a case that may come before her on the SCOTUS before it does. The simple and obvious answer is that she shouldn't.

    •  There's arguably... (3+ / 0-)

      a difference between asking about a more general issue, like "Is Roe 'good law?'" and asking about a specific and concrete case which the court will be hearing next term, which is what's being done here.  "How will you decide this case which is in front of the court you're seeking appointment to?" is a seriously problematic question.

    •  Justices should decide based on the law, (0+ / 0-)

      not on their "attitudes", and Ms. SotoMayor has not yet done the level of legal analysis required to make a SCOTUS-level decision, and cannot do so until/unless she sits on the bench and subject to the arguments of the other justices.

      such as when Clarence Thomas pretended he had never considered whether Roe v. Wade was good law or not.

      That's not a parallel situation. Clarence Thomas lied about whether he had ever discussed Roe v. Wade; Sotomayor has committed no such lie.

  •  I don't know... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    we are talking about Jim DeMint here...

    I wouldn't expect much in the way of judicial philosophy...

    The quickest way to get the right answer on the Internet -- post the wrong one. -- old adage from USENET

    by Ab2kgj on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:19:00 AM PDT

  •  Given that Heller was wrongly decided, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickMassimo

    it will have no precendential effect, so DeMint's question raised a moot point and therefore didn't need to be answered.

    •  Do you like the way Miller was decided, (0+ / 0-)

      ie not hearing any pro-second-amendment arguments or evidence, and deciding solely on the basis of the prosecution's arguments?

      The North will rise again!

      by happymisanthropy on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Miller was good law for 7 decades (0+ / 0-)

        and clearly stated the parameters of the 2nd Amend.

        As the Court said in Lewis v. U.S. (1980):

        The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

        Heller had nothing to do with a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

        •  Miller was never good law. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          happymisanthropy

          Given that Miller himself was dead by the time that SCOTUS heard the case, and his lawyer didn't even show up, because he wouldn't have been paid.

          And the actual text of the decision, even assuming that the process was OK with you, would invalidate things that you would clearly like such as the 1994 AWB. It's pretty clear from the decision that, if anyone would have shown the Court that Miller's sawed-off shotgun had "any application to a well-regulated militia", which would have been easy to do, considering the use of short-barreled shotguns in the trenches of WWI, then the law making having it a crime would have been struck down.

          Do you really want to argue for a legal regime under which the possession of a single-shot .22 would be illegal, but having an M16 would not be?

          --Shannon

          "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
          "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

          by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 12:35:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's the Real Problem with the 2nd (0+ / 0-)

            Do you really want to argue for a legal regime under which the possession of a single-shot .22 would be illegal, but having an M16 would not be?

            Under a broad reading of the 2nd, which Heller attempted, RPGs, mortars, and any other portable weapons suitable for militia duty would be legal for anyone capable of serving in the militia, i.e., felons, mental cases, etc.

            Is that how you read the 2nd?

            •  How I read it, (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              happymisanthropy

              and understand ahead of time that I consider the preferatory clause to be descriptive and not operative, is this:

              The 2nd Amendment protects (not grants, as that's not how the system works) a fundamental human right to posses the means of force. That right should be, in my view, incorporated against the States and subject to strict scrutiny.

              I place the right on the same plane as I do the right to speak, or to write, or to read, or to vote.

              With respect to personal weapons, what could be considered "small arms", I think the meaning is clear. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

              When you get into area-effect weapons like artillery shells and grenades, things get murkier, as simply storing such ordinance can present a hazard to one's neighbors... which is not true of small arms, regardless of rate of fire. My single-shot 16 gauge shotgun is no more or less likely to endanger my neighbor then would a .50 caliber Browning machinegun, if both were sitting side-by-side on my workbench. That cannot be said of explosives.

              As to felons, the mentally ill, etc, we already, as a matter of law, routinely deny them (after due process) of all sorts of rights, and this logic is not challenged by Heller. I could (and have) make the argument that, if you're not willing to trust them with a gun or a ballot, then what in the fuck are they doing out of prison, but we do have parole, and post-incarceration restrictions of the rights of the convicted, and they're clearly Constitutional... even if they don't work all that well.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 01:34:13 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So do I get to keep my RPG or not? (0+ / 0-)

                I'm going to need it for militia duty someday along with my fully automatic AK-47.

                I won't be needing the .22 pistol that Heller gave me.  I would be laughed out of the militia if I showed up with that.

                •  Comporting my answer to the silliness (0+ / 0-)

                  of your question, then:

                  RPG (with non-explosive practice ammo): yes. Your owning of such an item places nobody around you in danger, assuming that you do not criminally misuse the item... which would be a crime if it were a rock, so the item itself is of no legal significance.

                  Actual explosive grenades, no... at least not with some sort of demonstration that you are skilled enough in the handling, and have the equipment required to safely store, such ordnance. Careless handling and storage of explosives places lots of people in jeopardy, which is clearly not the case with respect to the launcher.

                  That's, of course, assuming that you're intelligent enough to distinguish between a grenade launcher and a grenade.

                  --Shannon

                  "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                  "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                  by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 02:23:12 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Ok, how about my fully auto AK-47? (0+ / 0-)

                    I need to take something respectable to the militia meeting.

                    •  You're starting a militia? (0+ / 0-)

                      can I join?

                      The North will rise again!

                      by happymisanthropy on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 03:42:16 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  No problem. (0+ / 0-)

                      A full-auto weapon is no more dangerous in responsible hands than a semi-auto version of the same firearm would be. In irresponsible hands, both are equally dangerous, although the criminal use of full-auto weapons is vanishingly rare (with legally-owned firearms, non-existent) and criminal use of semi-automatic pistol-gripped rifles ("assault weapons", to use a meaningless term) was never a statistically-significant problem.

                      In other words, there are as dangerous or as safe as the person holding them. While not being handled, both are as dangerous as any other firearm... in other words, not at all.

                      A gun, even a fully loaded full-auto gun, sitting in a box is as safe as a brick. This is not true of explosive devices. That essential difference justifies treating them differently under the law.

                      Appearance, perceived risk (unless backed up by facts), or one's emotional reaction to an object should have no bearing whatsoever on how that object is treated by the law. Bluntly put, the law should not give a fuck how you feel.

                      --Shannon

                      PS: In real-world terms, your full-auto AK is completely legal, provided that A) you have paid the Feds 200 bucks and passed a background check (which requirements are not under challenge in any jurisdiction I'm aware of and B) that the receiver of your AK was made before May 1, 1986 (a completely arbitrary provision of law that benefits only the owners of those guns grandfathered in, who have seen their investment grow at least 10X in value since then). The only crimes ever committed with legally-owned fully automatic firearms were committed by cops with their issued weapons. Not a single person who has jumped through the required hoops to purchase a full-auto firearm has ever used that firearm to commit a crime. Not one. In 75 years. There's no reason at all to prohibit you from owning that AK.

                      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                      by Leftie Gunner on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 06:37:27 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a ridiculous claim. (0+ / 0-)

      Heller is the law of the land, so it has "precendential (sic) effect" whether you think it was wrongly decided or not.

  •  The last sentence... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RickMassimo

    ...I know all the words individually, but together they do not make sense to me.

    I will not speak with disrespect of the Republican Party. I always speak with respect of the past. -Woodrow Wilson

    by Gangster Octopus on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:20:30 AM PDT

  •  Are we finally.... (4+ / 0-)

    ....getting a handle on how dangerously stupid many -- MANY -- members of Congress are?  

    We have a large contingent of idiots who think the Earth was formed 6,000 years ago.  Think about it -- not just a couple of idiots but a large contingent of representatives of the American people believe utter nonsense.  

    I vividly remember Alito and Roberts both smugly sitting in their confirmation hearings, taking no position because 'that matter might come up in the Supreme Court' and therefore could not comment.  Over and over and over again.  Frankly, that's the correct response.  

    But we can no longer expect our elected representatives to the United States Congress to understand basic Civics 101.  

    We're in a frightening place in American history.  Truly terrifying.  

    What's on the news this morning?  Sarah Palin's snit over David Letterman -- it's okay for her to exploit her children; it's okay for family values to apply to everyone but her own family; it's okay for a governor and someone who could have been a heartbeat away from being POTUS to have two dropout children while preaching and judging everyone else.  This is what is consuming cable news this morning.  

    I have a headache.  A bad one.  

    •  Well, she's only got two settings: (0+ / 0-)

      Call People Terrorists and Demand An Apology.

      What else do you expect her to do - not be on the news for a coulpe of days? Pshaw.

      Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

      by RickMassimo on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:24:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  de Mint should "know better" than to come to work (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    60 is SUCH a great number.

    by hcc in VA on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:22:08 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but Adam ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hcc in VA, GoldnI

    ... you're, like, a lawyer. You're getting all technical and shit, when the real issue is WAAAAH I WANT AN APOLOGY!!!!!

    Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

    by RickMassimo on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:22:08 AM PDT

  •  DeMint wants Judicial Activism. - nt - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    "Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove." -- P.G. Wodehouse (via Bertie Wooster)

    by BenGoshi on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:27:00 AM PDT

  •  These embarrassing contradictions for southern (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, whaddaya

    "federalists" keep poppin up, especially when they are persecuting a judicial nominee.  Her ruling is in line with conservative theory and yet he has "concerns".  Pretty sure his concerns have little to do with law, and a lot do with 1)party 2)race 3) gender 4)race 5)party 6)party...

    "when the going gets weird, the weird turn pro..."--HST

    by moondancing on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:27:18 AM PDT

    •  Well, they think it's their turn. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moondancing

      Having pretty much conceded on race, they figure that it's time for them to get their concern constitutionally protected.

      "Newt's all for new ideas. He doesn't HAVE any. He's just FOR them."--Bob Dole.

      by Inland on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:36:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Like Demint cares about ethics (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DefendOurConstitution

    all he wants is a judge who can find a way to enact the policies he desires. how that happens isnt his concern.

  •  sez you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah

    you say

    "You'd think he'd know better than that."

    well, for additional clarity try it this way.

    "you'd think the average senator would know better than that. but then, this is jim duh mint. who would have to improve by several thousand percent to work his way up to average."

    Rename Rethugs the Grand Old White Rich Racist Sexist Christ-gunner Homophobic Anti-science Polluter War-monger Torturer Wiretapper Liar Party

    by slangist on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:35:35 AM PDT

  •  "You'd think he would know better than that." (0+ / 0-)
    1.  No, he probably does not know better than that

                 OR

    1.  He is just playing to, who else, the other right-

       wing crazies like he is.

    Indict, convict, imprison. "Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana

    by incognita on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:39:13 AM PDT

  •  Judge Kent (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    If Judge Kent isn't impeached, he will receive his 2009 salary of $174,000!

  •  There's a reason, Adam, ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    ... we sometimes call the Junior Senator from the Palmetto State Jim DeMinted.

    On another issue, how did the June 2 panel with Dahlia Lithwick et. al. go?

  •  The 2nd amendment frames conservative hypocrisy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    PsychoSavannah, whaddaya

    on "judicial activism" perfectly.  Sen. DeMint and those like him cannot find "privacy" in the Constitution because the word doesn't appear in the 5th or 14th Amendments.  But they can sure see the word "individual" in the 2nd Amendment where it most assuredly doesn't appear.  And, apparently, Judge Sotomayor is unqualified for the Court because she doesn't sign on to Sen. DeMint's frank judicial activism.   For shame.

    Don't tell me about the "new politics" if you're an asshole.

    by Ms Johnson on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:43:44 AM PDT

  •  Adam B - (0+ / 0-)

    You'd think he'd know better than that

    Given his record, what would make you say that?-)

    When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

    by wozzle on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 08:44:27 AM PDT

  •  2nd ammendment rights--WWJD (0+ / 0-)

    Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Tuesday that he was disappointed that the judge refused to say during their visit that the Second Amendment ''protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans.''

    Especially those convicted of a felony. As Jesus said, whatever you do to the least of my critters, you do to Me.  Don't deny guns to Jesus! Don't make the Baby Jesus cry!

  •  DeMint? (0+ / 0-)

    You'd think he'd know better than that.

    DeMint?  Senator James DeMint?  Know better than anything?  C'mon.  He's dumber than a bag of rocks.

  •  My senator (0+ / 0-)

    is an idiot. Notice I don't perk up when people tell me to contact my congressmen about any particular bill/initiative/cause/concern. I have DeMint, Lindsey Graham and Joe Wilson.

    The three stoooges don't care a God-Damn what my idea of effective government is.

    "Half of the American people never read a newspaper. Half never vote for President. One hopes it is the same half." - Gore Vidal

    by sapper on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:01:11 AM PDT

  •  "You'd think he'd know better than that" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya

    But you'd be wrong!  I live in the South, down here you do not have to be particularly smart to get elected to public office (although I don't think that's a distinctly Southern thing, if living in upstate New York taught me anything).

    It's entirely possible he does know better and is just being obtuse to score political points.  But with DeMint, I think that gives him far too much credit.

  •  "ALL Americans" (0+ / 0-)

    Really? Convicted felons?  Violent criminals?

    Seriously?

    You are entitled to express your opinion. But you are NOT entitled to agreement.

    by DawnG on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:30:03 AM PDT

  •  "You think he'd know better than that" (0+ / 0-)

    Is that snark?  It's freakin' Jim Demint.  I wouldn't expect him, or most of his Republican colleagues, to know better than that on any issue that has a degree of complexity.

    If looks could kill it would have been us instead of him.

    by jhannon on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 09:52:30 AM PDT

  •  Creme DuhMint know better? (0+ / 0-)

    You kid!

    Why, the whole POINT of confirmation hearings is to get a nominee to pre-judge any number of issues.

    •  Don't forget, Senator Demented is one of (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JC from IA

      the Senators who wanted a federal law that would deny Gays employment in any position (such as teaching school or being a policeman ) that was paid by public funds (tax money).  He and Graham Cracker are not exactly bright lights in the pantheon of senators.

      When all else fails, try thinking!

      by edtheengineer on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:58:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He was trying to trick her! (0+ / 0-)

    He had a microphone attached to his shaved chest. Of course, the whole incident was just an excuse for him to go hairless cuz he likes to be baby bottom smooth. Plus, he was hoping she would be as stupid as his colleagues and commit her opinion to recording then he could have somebody secretly upload it to the internet to claim she wasn't fit to serve if she couldn't control her fiery Latina tongue.

    Krusty the Klown Brand Irate Emoticons (tm) So You Can Express the Hate You Didn't Know You Had!

    by brentbent on Fri Jun 12, 2009 at 10:30:26 AM PDT

  •  New Footage Of Sotomayor Validates Affirm. Action (0+ / 0-)

    Check out this post from another progressive blog, where Hannity and the GOP think they finally found they missing piece that is going to bury Sotomayor. After reading this article, they are doing the exact opposite.

    http://progressnotcongress.org/...

  •  More Talk, More Evidence (0+ / 0-)

    The more I read statements from Republican Senators, the more I am convinced that they don't have a real clue about almost any subject you can bring up.  And Sen.DeMint is right in the middle of that crowd.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site