Coburn vs. Sotomayor

[kdlong]

did anyone notice on the news that coburn said all of our rights are serious danger with her chosen as a judge or anything else

 

[smcgee10]

I was trying to figure out if she was saying:

im⋅mi⋅nent  /ˈɪmənənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [im-uh-nuhnt]
–adjective 1. likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
2. projecting or leaning forward; overhanging

or:

em⋅i⋅nent  /ˈɛmənənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [em-uh-nuhnt]
-adjective 1. high in station, rank, or repute; prominent; distinguished: eminent statesmen.
2. conspicuous, signal, or noteworthy: eminent fairness.
3. lofty; high: eminent peaks.
4. prominent; projecting; protruding: an eminent nose.

I think she meant the i word, but I kept hearing the e word. Two words. Entirely different meaning. A Freudian slip. I think so.

 

[MrBaldy]

"Is there a Constitutional right to self defense?"

Yep.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." - 9th Amendment

"We the people of the United States.......provide for the common defense......"

Among the unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Yes .. I think it would fall under the LIFE part of life, liberty and ....

 

[JamesP82]

Yes .. I think it would fall under the LIFE part of life, liberty and ....

Yes, I like the Declaration of Independence too, but it's not part of the constitution.

 

[walt82]

I'm conservative so i'll go for whoever is convervative. i don't really like soto mayor though. she seems off.

 

[MrBaldy]

Yes, I like the Declaration of Independence too, but it's not part of the constitution.

James .. I understand the the difference, however I was commenting on the post I quoted. What I probably should have said is this. I think the right to self preservation (life) is a natural right so it's one I'll possess until I choose to give it up. And I haven't done that yet.

 

[JamesP82]

I'm conservative so i'll go for whoever is convervative. i don't really like soto mayor though. she seems off.

I'm conservative, but I understand the fallacies that are present in both liberals and conservatives. I would much rather choose a constitutionalist that will follow the philosophies of John Locke and the framers of the constitution.

By that i mean, someone that understands the rights of the people must be preserved.

 

[Dale00]

Letter received from the good Senator:

Dear _____________,

Thank you for writing me about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be a justice on the United States Supreme Court. I welcome your input and the opportunity to respond to your concerns.

Protecting your Constitutional rights and preserving limited government as our Founding Fathers intended is of great importance to me. To that end, as a Senator, my responsibility of providing advice and consent on judicial nominees is one of my most important responsibilities.

In order for a nominee to receive my support in both the Judiciary Committee, of which I am a member, and on the Senate floor, he or she must be a strict constructionist and understand the limited role of the judiciary. I will not support a nominee who has a judicial philosophy that will allow them to legislate from the bench, regardless of whether the candidate is liberal or conservative. It is equally important that judges be of good character, possesses a reverential respect for the rule of law, and are able to set aside their own personal politics, prejudices, and biases and rule based purely on the facts and law.

I believe Judge Sotomayor received a fair hearing and was treated with dignity and respect throughout the confirmation process. After extensive study, however, I am deeply concerned that Judge Sotomayor lacks the requisite judicial philosophy for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

I am concerned Judge Sotomayor was speaking sincerely when she said the "court of appeals is where policy is made." I was equally disturbed by her prior statements indicating that she does not believe judges can be impartial asserting that "personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see" and "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." Judge Sotomayor also questioned whether the obligation of impartiality in judging, including whether "transcending personal sympathies and prejudices" is possible or even desirable in most cases.

These and other statements suggesting that a judge should empathize with one litigant over another are deeply concerning to me because I believe they conflict with the idea of blind justice as embodied in the judicial oath. The oath states "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States." As the oath demonstrates, a judge should not curry favor with one group of litigants over another. Deeply ingrained in the American tradition of justice is the concept of "blind justice," which considers all litigants equal under the law. To deliberately favor some Americans over other Americans is not justice. I believe the real Judge Sotomayor is the person reflected in her writings and speeches stretching across two decades. While I admire Judge Sotomayor's accomplishments, I cannot in good conscience vote to grant a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to a judge who rejects the fundamental limitations placed on judges by our Constitution.

I also was troubled by Judge Sotomayor's contradictory statements on the use of foreign law as well as her inconsistent reasoning regarding the Second Amendment. A Supreme Court justice has no authority to make judgments based on international law, much less world opinion. I could not support any judge who, in the back of her mind, is worried about offending the international community while making a decision about a case in the United States. Regarding the Second Amendment, I was dismayed that Judge Sotomayor refused to acknowledge the fundamental right to self-defense, which predates the Constitution, and stated that she could not recall a case that addressed the right to self-defense despite the fact that the Supreme Court discusses the right to self-defense at length in Heller v. District of Columbia, the case upon which Judge Sotomayor relied in a 2009 opinion holding that the right to bear arms is not fundamental. Finally, I remain concerned that Judge Sotomayor has an expansive view of the government's authority to take private property and that she would find unconstitutional even the most reasonable abortion restrictions.

I hope Judge Sotomayor will prove me wrong on the Supreme Court, but I cannot take that chance by supporting her nomination. Again, thank you for writing me. If you have any additional concerns, please feel free to write again.

Sincerely, A

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

 

[gecko77799]

Coburn voted for TARP. Inhofe didn't.

Coburn voted yes for using taxpayer dollars to back big banks who took incredible risk that would have forced them into bankruptcy. Unexcusable.

I felt the same until I heard Coburn interviewed on KTOK. He voted for it based upon TARP being used for toxic mortgage assests (which many of the banks were forced into because of pressure from ACORN and other groups-not all necessarily because the banks themselves were irresponsible) but then later TARP wasn't used for that purpose. All that voted for it were dumb leaving it up to one man(Geitner) on how to spend it. There should have been restrictions on it's allocation. I still don't think it should have been voted for either but I can understand his position.

Feel free not to excuse Dr. Coburn. Coburn is not perfect and doesn't claim to be. But Oklahoma has not had a better friend in Washington by my observation.

Devon

Agreed. I'm not a one issue voter so as most people understand it going to be near impossible to find any politician that you will agree with 100%. With that said I heavily support 2nd Amendment politicians more than any other issue because I know if we lose our 2nd Amendment rights will never get it back and we'll start losing our other rights right along with it.

 

[smcgee10]

She should have been on Broadway with all that tap dancing.