Sotomayor "doesnt know" if we have a constitutional right to self defense

man this is downright ridiculous.....

of COURSE WE DO


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51222


When Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) asked Wednesday whether citizens have a right to self-defense, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “I don’t know.” Coburn had asked, “As a citizen of this country, do you believe innately in my ability to have self-defense of myself – personal self-defense? Do I have a right to personal self-defense?”
In reply, Sotomayor said that, “I’m trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can’t think of one. I could be wrong, but I can’t think of one.” She then went on to explain that self-defense rights are usually defined by state law.”

.....link?

*edit* thank you

All the questions are bullshit anyway, being lawyers they (The senators) know that unless a specific case and specific situation in full legalese talk it won't be answered, watch any supreme court nominees questioning and it is all the same. The judge to be just has to sit there and play stupid the entire time since they are not supposed to be human and actually have personal viewpoints.

hanimmal said:

All the questions are bullshit anyway, being lawyers they (The senators) know that unless a specific case and specific situation in full legalese talk it won't be answered, watch any supreme court nominees questioning and it is all the same. The judge to be just has to sit there and play stupid the entire time since they are not supposed to be human and actually have personal viewpoints.

Click to expand...

you shouldnt defend such blasphemy



.......defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic

But to deny what is actually going on is stupidity. Especially if you are going to put so much faith in how she answers. I wish they would actually man up and ask her questions that she could answer, or not hold her accountable for her personal beliefs but that is not the world we live in.

I can tell you that even if I use my personal beliefs, I might never know how I would chose to act most the time. Every situation is different. If I am talking with my dad about his religious beliefs with evolution or abortion, sometimes I will just nod and keep quiet, others I may try to take the time to help him understand how it really is.

she never said "i don't know" to the question. great journalism to open an article with a blatant misquote.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124765763843744783.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

The question seemed momentarily to faze Judge Sotomayor, who then said, "I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question....I can't think of one," she said.

Sen. Charles Coburn (R-OK) asked nominee Sonia Sotomayor about abortion and later when, discussing gun rights, the senator made an "I Love Lucy" reference.
Rather than legal theory, "what the American people want to see is inside, and Mr. Coburn all but pleaded with Judge Sotomayor to "give me your opinion, of whether or not in this country I, personally, as an individual citizen, have a right to self-defense."

"That is sort of an abstract question with no particular meaning to me outside -- " she said, her words overlapping the senator's. She then tried to explain the circumstances in which courts would accept self-defense as an excuse for homicide, such as repelling imminent harm.

Click to expand...

PVS said:

she never said "i don't know" to the question. great journalism to open an article with a blatant misquote.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124765763843744783.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart

Click to expand...

All of which has next to nothing to do with the actual question, which she clearly stated that she doesn't know. (Maybe not in those exact words, but nonetheless)

How a Judge can possibly not know the answer to that is beyond me. The right to self-defense is enshrined in the common law of the Republic. There is no need for it to be itemized out in the Constitution (but the 2nd Amendment does come damn close to stating that people do have that right (why else have the right to bear arms?))

The fact that she stumbled so long with such a base question demonstrates a lack of intelligence, or a low level of cunning that only a serpent or a lawyer, would have.

I fail to see why any one would stumble on such a question, and fail to see why she even bothers thinking about the Supreme Court. Clearly if no such case ever made it to the Supreme Court then it was because the appelate courts made a decision (in the favor of self-defense.)

Do I have the right to defend myself?

Of course I do, what else would the second amendment before other than to ensure that I do indeed have the arms with which to defend myself as is my right as an individual regardless of any vulgar attempts by the government to strip me of that right.

no it was an intentionally vague question. defend myself? against what? how?

just because you already have a predetermined scenario, the question was never actually framed.
even if it was there are many factors which go into that question.

she even pointed that out, but of course the reliable right-wing source just happened to leave that part out.

also if you put something in quotes, and its a lie, thats libel. any news source which brazenly opens their article with
an act of libel is just a wee bit dodgey.

PVS said:

no it was an intentionally vague question. defend myself? against what? how?

just because you already have a predetermined scenario, the question was never actually framed.
even if it was there are many factors which go into that question.

she even pointed that out, but of course the reliable right-wing source just happened to leave that part out.

also if you put something in quotes, and its a lie, thats libel. any news source which brazenly opens their article with
an act of libel is just a wee bit dodgey.

Click to expand...

How a Judge can possibly not know the answer to that is beyond me. The right to self-defense is enshrined in the common law of the Republic. There is no need for it to be itemized out in the Constitution (but the 2nd Amendment does come damn close to stating that people do have that right (why else have the right to bear arms?))

TheBrutalTruth said:

How a Judge can possibly not know the answer to that is beyond me. The right to self-defense is enshrined in the common law of the Republic. There is no need for it to be itemized out in the Constitution (but the 2nd Amendment does come damn close to stating that people do have that right (why else have the right to bear arms?))

Click to expand...

"self defense" can simply mean a non-lethal submission/choke hold on some drunk dude taking a swing at you. it can mean shooting someone who is trying to kill you.
however you do not have the constitutional right to shoot some drunk dude trying to take a swing at you. its not a simple question just because you want it to be.

i have the rite to defend i self at all times fuck wat politricktion sotomayer says....if your in sight of i thing and your doing some wrong boy ya betta duck quik,lol,

Every living thing on this planet has the right to defend itself.
If you go cow tipping you run the risk of getting trampled.
You pull a tigers tail you risk being mauled.
Kick over an ant hill you may get stung.
This is common f***ing sense.

Why is man any different?
People are so f***ing stupid we think we need laws to remind us.
If this Judge doesn't know this basic fact / law of nature she has no business in law, IMO

Am I wrong here?

ilkhan said:

Every living thing on this planet has the right to defend itself.
If you go cow tipping you run the risk of getting trampled.
You pull a tigers tail you risk being mauled.
Kick over an ant hill you may get stung.
This is common f***ing sense.

Why is man any different?
People are so f***ing stupid we think we need laws to remind us.
If this Judge doesn't know this basic fact / law of nature she has no business in law, IMO

Am I wrong here?

Click to expand...

Endowed by their creator with certain unalienable (inviolate) rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Obviously, if you can defend your life, and your liberty, then these unalienable rights reveal themselves to not be unalienable. The right to self-defense does not need to be itemized, as it goes with out saying that if every human being is endowed by their creator, by their very breath, with these rights then they undoubtedly have the right to defend themselves when some one, whether it be an individual or the government, attempts to violate these rights.

The answer to the question doesn't require any level of deeper thought, or any examination of cases in the Supreme Court or other courts (though such an examination would reveal that the right of self-defense is a given right.) but through just thinking about the Declaration of Independence, and the principles that this nation was created upon.

If you can not defend your right to life, liberty and property, then you clearly did not have the rights at all, but these rights are not given to individuals by the government. These rights are inherent in the existence of the person has a living entity.

so i guess you're going to ignore the point?

PVS said:

so i guess you're going to ignore the point?

Click to expand...

you seem angry PVS

PVS said:

"self defense" can simply mean a non-lethal submission/choke hold on some drunk dude taking a swing at you. it can mean shooting someone who is trying to kill you.
however you do not have the constitutional right to shoot some drunk dude trying to take a swing at you. its not a simple question just because you want it to be.

Click to expand...

You just answered the question in the positive.

And it is a simple question, there was no discussion of the conditions surrounding the self-defense.

TheBrutalTruth said:

You just answered the question in the positive.

And it is a simple question, there was no discussion of the conditions surrounding the self-defense.

Click to expand...

first their is the question of what constitutes self-defense, an example of which i gave. so no i didn't prove you right.

robert 14617 said:

you seem angry PVS

Click to expand...

exactly how is your assessment of my mood relevant to the discussion?

I fail to see why any one would stumble on such a question, and fail to see why she even bothers thinking about the Supreme Court. Clearly if no such case ever made it to the Supreme Court then it was because the appelate courts made a decision (in the favor of self-defense.)

Do I have the right to defend myself?

Of course I do, what else would the second amendment before other than to ensure that I do indeed have the arms with which to defend myself as is my right as an individual regardless of any vulgar attempts by the government to strip me of that right. __________________

Click to expand...

That is the whole point I made TBT. It is an idiotic question setting her up for failure. First the question wasn't posed as a way to be able to answer it, and 2nd it is a stupid question with a very easy response, that you yourself said, "of course I do"

But if she said that the republican senator that said "Your obviously going to become the newest Supreme court justice, unless you have a meltdown" would have seen the second part of his statement come true.

A meltdown in washington is to stand up to the bullying, idiotic questions, and actually answer them. To answer a question in washington honestly is the one way to not get what you want.

And until we all get smart enough to realize that and demand intelligence, actual honesty, integrity, cooperation, and conviction from the people we elect it won't change.

your response to my post for one

PVS said:

...no it was an intentionally vague question. defend myself? against what? how?...

Click to expand...

Huh? The constitution of course gives a law abiding citizen the right to bear or own arms. It also states that that right shall not be infringed.

Defend against what? Pretty much all states have in their statutes that one can legally defend themselves using the least amount of force required to stop an assault as allowed by law.

LEAST AMOUNT OF FORCE is what a reasonable man/woman would construe as a reasonable amount of force needed for the event...Meaning it is up to a jury or a judge to decide if it isn't obvious at the time.

If someone verbally threatens you, you can not shoot them as that is excessive force in terms of a reasonable man/woman. I would not support shooting someone for that.

If someone pulls a knife, you have a duty to to escape the danger until all avenues have been exhausted. Only then could you be legally able to use deadly force. And that has caveats. If you have mace, a baseball bat, or anything less than lethal, you must deploy all non lethal options before one could be legally allowed to progress to deadly force.
That said, if your in your own home, most states consider that your "castle" (old law English for your primary home or domicile) and you have no duty to flee your castle and may defend it with any means available to you.

Its common sense really. Unless your back is against a wall or you have no other means to flee ( with the castle exception) deadly force would be an excessive reaction for a normal reasonable man/woman.
You must feel that your life is in immediate danger OR are in immediate risk of severe bodily harm, AND that all other non-lethal means of defense have been exhausted or you have no other means at your disposal other than the use of deadly force.

You can't shoot at someone for stealing your car.

You can shoot someone if your getting car jacked as your in immediate danger, but if you are also carrying mace, you better use it first.

If someone threatens you in a park with a baseball bat, and you are not in immediate reach of it, you must attempt to remove yourself from the situation. If trying to escape you become trapped and only if you fear for your personal safety and life could you have the legal option to use deadly force...And if you do, your actions will be weighed against what would reasonable men/woman would do in the same situation.

There are times when you think you are right but are judged wrong by your actions.

Defense from what? If you are in a situation where you fear for your life and can not escape ( other than the home thing) and unless you throw hand grenades, you have the constitutional and state right to defend yourself using the least amount of force needed.

A fist fight does not warrant lethal force (under normal circumstances)
Simply fearing for you life does not give the right to use deadly force unless you can back that up. Just being scared doesn't mean nothing unless you have the facts to prove you had no choice and was right in your decisions.

This is just so common sense to me. Unless you fear your going to die (and you better be able to prove your reasoning on that) you can't use lethal force.

That said, all of us USA law abiding citizens have that right. But if got forbid you are forced to exercise that right, you better be able to back it up in away that others would also come to the same choice of action.

Do we really want to live in a world where if one is being attacked, your only option is to wait for authorities to arrive? I can have a pizza delivered faster than I can get the police to show up.

The right to self defense is given in the constitution and really is a no brainier. Unless your an idiot, and the courts will put you away if you are, you have the right to self protection along with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.