[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

One big thing that bothers me is her previous statements on gun control. In one case about a states right to ban weapons she stated the 2nd amendment only applies to what limitations the federal government may place on weapons control.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’"

I can see how a gun advocate might be concerned, but I would note that the stuff you quoted seems to indicate her ruling was directly contradicted by the King case when they were quite different.

As for the racist part, she stated that her experience as a wise Latina woman she would make her a more impartial and fair judge than a typical white male.

Actually, no, that's not what she said at all. She did say that in some circumstances the life experience of a judge might give them a better ability to evaluate some cases, but that judges also had to be careful of this. The "racist" charge is simple talk radio cocaine.

I believe Sam Alito made similar comments about his life experience.

Not to mention the firefighters case. She ruled that it was ok for the city to throw out the exam, as too few minorities would be advanced. If you passed the advancement exam set up by the city to advance, the top scorers should advance. You can't change the rules after the fact to ensure a fair balance of races.

Again, that's not what actually happened. The ruling was based on constraints by Federal law that they felt prohibited them from overturning the case.

Had they overturned the case they would have been, by most conservative principals, behaving in an activist manner.

-spence