I have stayed away from the Sotomayor confirmation debate. This is a battle that is not going to go the way that I would like it to. There are too many in the Senate that need to play the political game of giving in on somethings and calling in those favors on other issues.
She will be confirmed, and it will be bad for the country. I think Joe Huffman summarized one of the biggest things that has bothered me in the initial hearings.
Bitter and Sebastian has been pointing out just how bad nominee Sotomayor is on the right to keep and bear arms. This is probably the most damning.
She does not want to admit that people have a right to self-defense. She is smart enough to know it is a slippery slope to the acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms if she were to admit that. The British have learned that lesson sliding down the slope in the other direction–if there is no right to keep and bear arms then there is no right to self-defense.
Alan Korwin gives Sotomayor some pointers on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about self-defense. It’s not a question mark at all. The conclusion:
The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate.
In my view, the woman may be very well qualified to be an attorney where she can argue the merits of a case from her particular view point. The flip side of that is that because she brings those views to the bench, and applies them as her “wisdom” to her judgements she is disqualified from being a judge. Much less a Supreme Court Justice.