Sunday, May 27th, 2012

Republicans Remain Nervous About Sotomayor and Gun Rights

By
Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 11:49 am

Second Amendment rights remain high on the list of issues Republicans are still nervous about when it comes to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. But no matter how they try to over-simplify the still-undecided question of whether the Constitution actually grants individual citizens a fundamental right to bear arms, Sotomayor has, as expected, stood firm in not answering the question.

Since the high court struck down a Washington, D.C., handgun control law and found a fundamental right to bear arms, Republicans have been hopeful that the Court will take the next step and say that right applies to the states as well, and would therefore serve to severely restrict states’ rights to restrict gun possession and ownership. But it’s never answered that question — at least, not yet.

Here’s how Republican Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), an avid believer in his fundamental right to gun possession, tried to get Sotomayor to answer the question, and in the process revealing that much of this questioning is aimed at the senators’ constituents, not at any real fact-finding:

“Do I have a right to personal self defense?” asked Coburn.

Sotomayor struggled to think of whether the Supreme Court has addressed the question in that way in any case. “I can’t think of one. The issue of self defense is usually defined in criminal statutes by the states’ laws.”

“But do I personally have an individual right to self defense?” Coburn persisted, knowing full well that any right of self-defense depends on the circumstances and how you try to exercise that right.

“That’s an abstract question and not a particular legal question,” said Sotomayor, always careful to respond with legalistic precision.

“Well, that ‘s what the American people want to hear,” Coburn said. “Is it okay to defend yourself in your home when you’re under attack. The general theory is, do I have that right? I understand if you don’t want to answer,” he said, letting Sotomayor off the hook, implicitly acknowledging he didn’t really expect her to answer it. “That’s a fine answer with me.  But that’s what people want to know. Do we have that right?”

Sotomayor proceeded to answer that it really does depend on the specific situation. For example, she said, if Coburn were to threaten to kill her right then and there, and she ran home and got a gun and came back and shot him, she probably would not have the right to do that.

Categories & Tags: Civil Rights| Congress| Obama| Politics| U.S.| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

Comments

5 Comments

andrewmoran
Comment posted July 15, 2009 @ 7:05 pm

“LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” – I recall that being buried somewhere in the annals of the required readings for supreme court justice.

johnph
Comment posted July 17, 2009 @ 7:47 pm

The question of whether the 2nd grants the fundamentla right to bear arms is not undecided. Please go read the full text of the DC-v Heller opinion issued by SCOTUS. You can find it here http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/0...

Sen. Coburn's great fault was that he did not ask the direct question, “Do you read the decision the Court made in the DC v Heller case and if you did how could you come to the conclusion that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states, when that decision asks the lower courts to apply the questions of due process and incorporation to any cases they decide?”

Sotomayor' vetting by the Senate is a joke and everyone knows it. The only saving grace of her forgone confirmation is that she is fundamentally no worse than any of the other 4 justices who can't read the constitution.

Snorgy
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 2:51 am

“That’s an abstract question and not a particular legal question,” said Sotomayor, always careful to respond with legalistic precision.

Yes indeed. Everything depends on the specifics. What a revelation…

And European governments, whom our liberal pals wish to emulate as the avante-guarde sophisticates who long ago got rid of such thorny issues and put the rednecks in their collective places (most of them, anyway) found out something that in due time will come around and change the evasive answers about “specific” situations:

It (context and specificts on guns) matters not a damn, and they banned them outright, just to be sure and nip the issue in the bud for things blossom out of control. No civil rights busybody would rest if, say, the 14th Amendment was deemed not to apply to the states, and is turns out that South Carolinians by golly gee wiz could own slaves after all!

If you don't have certain rights at the state level, then for all practical purposes, you don't have them. This tick picking is what is called “a distinction without a difference”, and is akin to having the legal “right” to own a car just so long as it is parked only on Federal park property, has the wheels removed, the engine melted down, and you keep up a yearly registration fee of 10,000 bucks. And you can never take it to your own driveway or use it on any day other than Wednesday.

Why the hell bother?

Let's hear it for those particulars and the devil in the details Texas two step from Sotomayer the wonder judge, who's decided some real wonders!

Snorgy
Comment posted August 5, 2009 @ 2:52 am

specificts should be specifics.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.