"I don't believe the court has addressed that issue.... but I could be wronnnnnnng."
Evading the question of whether or not an individual has the right to self defense calls to question her intelligence and her decency BIG TIME.
Charges are dropped based on the presumption of self defense all the time. People have been exonerated forever based on a determination of self defense. But Sotomayor, rather than simply say "Yes," the answer that God fearing human beings have been saying forever, demurred.
Let me observe that I have a right to demand that she promise not to introduce to the United States the kind of horrors visited upon our British cousins. They have been denied this basic right now for over a decade. Thus, I do not believe she was being stupid as some will claim. She is being devious.
This nomination is OVER.
Unless, of course, a majority of senators hate the innocent human beings whose inalienable right to life they have vowed to protect!
******************----------- U P D A T E -------------*************************
As reported by the Washington Post
COBURN: Thank you.I am happy to report, based on the above report, that my memory stood up well to the test.
Let me follow up with one other question. 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?SOTOMAYOR: 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.
I know it's a tradition for supreme court nominees to evade these questions, but it's still pretty lame... don't judges expect straight answers from people on the stand?
ReplyDeleteExcellent observation grasshopper.
ReplyDeleteYou've inspired me. See my follow-up post today.