Will our beloved RINOS as Sotomayor the important question?

[BananaRepublic]

She'll do whatever La Raza tells her to do. She's as racist as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, she just conceals it a little better.

[johnwk]

Sotomayor keeps saying a judges job is to “apply the law”, but to this point in time not one of our Republicans who are questioning her have asked her to explain, how does one “apply the law“, particularly our Constitution, when a constitutional issue is raised? Of course, the answer is contained in American Jurisprudence 2d, vol. 16, Constitutional law:

Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.

(countless citations omitted).

And this would lead to the following line of questioning. Sonia, considering that our Constitution’s 14th Amendment was specifically intended to forbid the force of government being used to discriminate based upon race and color, why did you ignore a number of firefighters plea for the rightful protection they sought under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment?

We all know that Juctice Ginsburg ignored the intentions under which the 14th Amendment was adopted when writing the VMI opinion, and she pretended it was intended to apply to women in general, rather than give protection to Black women, and she went on to make law in spite of the fact the America people explicitly rejected the so called Equal Rights Amendment. Tell us Sonia, how would you justify Ginsburg’s opinion in the VMI case when the historical record, during which time the 14th Amendment was being framed and ratified, was never intended to apply to anyone other than on the basis of race, color or previous condition of slavery, which is repeatedly stated during the debates, e.g.

“Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Rep. Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293

Tell us Sonia, are Justices on the S.C. to ignore the clear intentions under which each article, section, clause and amendment of our Constitution was adopted and use their office of public trust to make the Constitution mean whatever they wish it to mean, and do so when the historical record conflicts with their wishes?

JWK

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

[BananaRepublic]

Apparently, they're asking her the tough questions and she's refusing to answer. The 2nd Amendment question was one of these. She gave no opinion on whether the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to own guns. All she said was that she had a relative in the NRA and had friends that hunted.

[Caroline]

I was listening to this. What a weasel.