With Sotomayor on the verge of being confirmed...

[Guest HexHead]

I was thinking about this while out walking today. She stated over and over during the confirmation hearing that she didn't believe that the 2nd Amendment incorporated to the States. In light of the Heller opinion last year that the 2nd is an individual right, just like the rest of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, how can she take that stance? Can the states or local jurisdictions choose to ignore the 1st Amendment, or the 4th? Or the others? Could you possibly make an argument that the 1st & 4th Amendments don't incorporate to State and local jurisdictions?

She's a judge that likes to cite precedent, but the Heller ruling was specific in not relying too heavily on precedent, as lots of those rulings dating back to the reconstruction period were made specifically to try and keep guns away from the newly freed former slaves.

Yes, I know she's just one liberal replacing another liberal, so the makeup of the court won't change. For now. But I fear going forward, she's going to be troublesome.

[Motasyco]

I fear your fear is justified.

[Guest PapaB]

She will be troublesome because she has a distorted view of the Constitution. She believes we shoudn't defer to the intent of the Founding Fathers. Where there is precedent, if it agrees with her she'll accept it. If it disagrees with her, she'll argue that it's bad and needs changing. Of course she'll be subtle about it, she's very adept at choosing precedent she likes and making it seem to be relevent. She's wrong, but why let the facts interfere with an agenda?