As a closing thought, the idea of Microsoft having a private army equipped with nuclear weapons or a stealth bomber scares the shit out of me. They have enough cash on hand to buy how many space shuttles now? Be careful when you say that wealth should be a/the deciding factor in “who gets the big guns”… most (not all, but a strong majority of) rich folk didn’t get rich by playing well with others.

Well, when I was talking about military weapons, I was referring to fully automatic, and some heavy weapons that if they released all of their bans on would be affordable to most Americans. Right now, to get a pre-1968 machine gun, I am looking at $30k. That is 2x as much as I spent on my 2008 Dodge Charger. I wasn’t referring to the stealth bombers or nuclear weapons, but I see your point.

… and yes, I always want to be convinced otherwise. Constructive opinions and thoughts are always welcome here. I do not delete/edit comments unless there is a damn good reason.

You and I see eye to eye on about 90% of second amendment issues, even if our reasoning is a little different, the paths lead to mostly the same place.

However, I just can’t see you ever supporting someone for any kind of public office who doesnt agree with your views on firearms. I also can’t see you putting up such spirited opposition to someone who shares your views on firearms, but may be otherwise unsuitable, unqualified, or objectionable.

I use the extreeme examples because they illustrate the point. When I discuss economics with people farther left then I, I often make snide reference to them trying to form aggrocommunes – it isnt intended to be taken literally.

As for the judge, you missed something important – “My point is that it’s all or nothing. You either agree with all the freedoms we as American’s have or you don’t.” The job description of federal judges is to interpret the constitution and figure out what exactly those freedoms are. Terms like “the right to assemble” can be taken a few different ways, does it mean needing maximum occupancy permits for buildings is unconstitutional? Does it mean needing to list a permanent residence to get a drivers license is unconstitutional because it discriminates against those who choose to associate-freely and not live in one place? Is needing to register a church (in terms of tax-exemption) unconstitutional because it sets definitions on what types of religious associations and gatherings qualify as a “church”? Freedom of assembly is one of the more clearly worded sections in the bill of rights, and it can still mean a dozen things. It isnt a matter of “agreeing with all the freedoms or not” it’s a matter of how a federal judge feels those rights impact the day-to-day operations of society. Someone who doesnt believe a free press should exist would never get nominated to a federal bench. Your single issue is no different, and to my information no nominee for a federal bench has ever said that -any- part of the bill of rights shouldnt be there. They may differ with you, me, or Charlton Heston, on how we should implement some parts but nobody thinks any of it doesn’t belong.

*shrugs*

As a closing thought, the idea of Microsoft having a private army equipped with nuclear weapons or a stealth bomber scares the shit out of me. They have enough cash on hand to buy how many space shuttles now? Be careful when you say that wealth should be a/the deciding factor in “who gets the big guns”… most (not all, but a strong majority of) rich folk didn’t get rich by playing well with others.

Incredible. You got all, 100%, of the hannitized talking-points in one letter.

Funny because I haven’t watched Hannity in ages.

I’d humbly submit that using the evaluation criteria you seem to be using, that essentially -any- potential nominee is going to be disqualified due to some out-of-context quote…

First off, I started off by saying, “If we can forgive Joe Biden’s gaffs, we can overlook hers”. I can let a lot of stuff go, but you can’t forget about the stuff they’ve said in public because it tells a lot about their personality and how their mind works. In all honestly, choosing someone for a position like this, if it was a minor gaff, I would have just let it go, but those two statements stick out as being a little over the top.

…minor inconsistency in their ruling record…

Minor? The problem is you and I disagree as to the how the constitution should be interpreted and that is where you and I will not see eye to eye.

I also think that her past ruling record and past ruling inconsistency are extremely important here. I mean come on, there are no term limits for the SCOTUS. There is no easy way to remove them from the bench after they are on so you better be damn well sure of the integrity of the person you put on that bench ahead of time.

Her inconsistency is what I would describe is a cafeteria style “taking from the constitution” what she likes and leaving the rest behind. My point is that it’s all or nothing. You either agree with all the freedoms we as American’s have or you don’t.

…or not wanting to issue military hardware to 7 year olds.

Way to take an argument to an extreme and make yourself appear as ludicrous as that statement sounds. Who the hell has advocated that? Where have I ever said that? I do think civilians should have full access to all military hardware if they can afford it.

It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.
– Benjamin Franklin

Can I trust that your opposition to future nominations will be just as empassioned if they arent 100% in-line with your particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and similarly worded letters will be sent?

Notice how I put that objection at the bottom surrounded by numerous other examples of why this woman shouldn’t be on this bench, but yes they can expect a letter if I do not agree with the nominee…

If that doesn’t work, a phone call…

If that doesn’t work, maybe I’ll try something else…

I will tell you this. I will NEVER sit by when something I feel is wrong can be stopped with a voice. I have this site up and go through all the pain and time to do all of this for the opportunity of discussion. Convince me differently if you think otherwise.

I’d humbly submit that using the evaluation criteria you seem to be using, that essentially -any- potential nominee is going to be disqualified due to some out-of-context quote, minor inconsistency in their ruling record, or not wanting to issue military hardware to 7 year olds.

Can I trust that your opposition to future nominations will be just as empassioned if they arent 100% in-line with your particular interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and similarly worded letters will be sent?

Dear Senator Gregg,

I am writing you today to urge you NOT to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as a replacement for Judge Souter on the Supreme Court. I have been reviewing her past rulings and wrote a long review on my website, some of which I will summarize here.

http://www.cmdrfenix.org/2009/06/10/new-scotus-judge/

Putting aside right now some of the statements she’s made in public (if we can forgive Joe Biden, we can forgive anyone), I have serious concerns about her views specifically to how the constitution applies to all Americans.

She has ruled that:

- The first amendment protects everyone’s right to free speech and believe whatever they want.
- The fourth amendment protects everyone’s right against search and seizure.
- But the second amendment doesn’t apply to states and can be overridden at anytime.

You can’t take a piece of the constitution and just throw it away because you don’t like it. I have links to some of her past rulings in that article that show this.

She has also made some statements with Justice Ginsburg that indicated in one case that her gender factors into a ruling. Basically some adolescent girls were strip searched in a juvenile detention center, and she made the statement that as a woman, she would be more sensitive to issues like this. I’m not saying whether these particular searches were valid or not, but with all due respect, her job is to ask the following questions *regardless* of the defendant’s gender:

- Was the search justified?
- Was the search legal?
- Did they have probable cause?
- Were any laws violated?

I would hope she’d be just as sensitive if it was a male defendant, but I don’t think that would be the case here, and I’m sorry, but as a male person I feel that is wrong.

She has made some public statements that I’m sure you’ve heard about already:

- I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
- Court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m – you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – its interpretation, its application.

The first one just inflames me as white citizen because it insinuates that my upbringing was somehow inferior to hers. The second statement aggravates me because it’s something we’ve all seen as a problem in the 20th century. Judges ruling on the bench as a means to shape laws.

I ask you to read the article on my website and consider all of this before you vote. Her seat on the Supreme Court has NO term limit. The vote you case, could mean we’re stuck with a radical judge until she decides to retire.

Kind regards,
Jonathan Bibeau

Personally, I’d like to see term limits on SCOTUS judges, but that is another story too.

Sotomayor is qualified, politics aside. Is it the best Obama could do? Probably not. Is it the best Obama could do within a reasonable time frame? Maybe.