# Why I oppose Sotomayor's Nomination **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2009, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440 "2009-07-27T16:20:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 27, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/21 "2009-07-27T21:53:15Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Every criminal code in the civilized world allows for the justification of self defense. What do you think would be accomplished by enumerating it in the Constitution and making it a “right”? Indeed. There is a right to self defense. And there is a right to privacy as well. Both have the same constitutional basis. Shame some people only recognize one of them. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/22 "2009-07-28T00:09:44Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Indeed. > > There is a right to self defense. And there is a right to privacy as well. Both have the same constitutional basis. Shame some people only recognize one of them. What do you mean by a “right” to self-defense?? Do you honestly mean that the state cannot legislate in a way that precludes one from engaging in “self-defense?” And what do you mean by a “right to privacy”? Explain please the parameters of this supposed right? ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/23 "2009-07-28T02:17:12Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > What do you mean by a “right” to self-defense?? > > Do you honestly mean that the state cannot legislate in a way that precludes one from engaging in “self-defense?” > > And what do you mean by a “right to privacy”? Explain please the parameters of this supposed right? Without getting too deep (my apologies to GD), I think **Villa** is saying that certain rights are Constitutional in nature in that they stem from certain enumerated rights. The right to privacy being the touchstone, possibly extendable to the right to self defense. As it stands, the Second Amendment affords individual citizens the right to poses some form of firearm. These firearms, I believe, are not limited to purely hunting or target shooting purposes. It has not been the case that the Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that a citizen’s possession of a weapon is so that they will have one at the ready in case of conscription; the weapon is for personal use. Therefore, by extension, the Second Amendment, which provides a fundamental right to possess the ostensibly ultimate tool of self defense, implies that there is a right to use that tool. This doesn’t mean that the state could not limit such a right – even severely. However I think (i.e., just an opinion) that a state that somehow managed to place an \*absolute \*bar on the defense of self defense would face a significant constitutional challenge. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/24 "2009-07-28T04:08:26Z")
Well, constitutionally, there may or may not be a right to “self-defense.” For someone in her position, speaking off the cuff, that’s a good answer. Remember that the 2nd Amendment was written to guarantee collective defense, [del]when the Indians came back for their stolen land[/del]. Just because you’d like there to be one (wouldn’t we all?) doesn’t mean she should be an activist judge & confect one from whole cloth on the spot. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/25 "2009-07-28T04:16:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > **Ravenman** , where did that transcript come from, and why did the transcriptionist keep misspelling _imminent_? 😃 It wasn’t _immanent_? English & its homophones! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/26 "2009-07-28T04:18:29Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > The right to self-defense is an inalienable right. It’s one of those rights the Founders spoke of that go hand and hand with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 😕 Cite? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/27 "2009-07-28T04:20:02Z")
> [@Rhythmdvl](#): > > Without getting too deep (my apologies to GD), I think **Villa** is saying that certain rights are Constitutional in nature in that they stem from certain enumerated rights. The right to privacy being the touchstone, possibly extendable to the right to self defense. > > As it stands, the Second Amendment affords individual citizens the right to poses some form of firearm. These firearms, I believe, are not limited to purely hunting or target shooting purposes. It has not been the case that the Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that a citizen’s possession of a weapon is so that they will have one at the ready in case of conscription; the weapon is for personal use. > > Therefore, by extension, the Second Amendment, which provides a fundamental right to possess the ostensibly ultimate tool of self defense, implies that there is a right to use that tool. > > This doesn’t mean that the state could not limit such a right – even severely. However I think (i.e., just an opinion) that a state that somehow managed to place an \*absolute \*bar on the defense of self defense would face a significant constitutional challenge. Yes. Eugene Volokh has written a lot on this. My bottom line view is that the Bill of Rights lists certain specific rights, providing a list of things it was feared the State would be likely to do. And those are based on broader rights, unenumberated, hence the Ninth Amendment. The Second prevents the State from removing one particular means to self defense, a vital one at the time. Other amendments, such as the First, protect specific elements of privacy. The broader, unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth obviously are not absolute in the same way. They are, for want of a better word, more amorphous. It was recognized that there are certain areas of ones private life the individual had a right to live free from State interference. In particular, the Framers recognized that a particular danger existed of the State interfering with an individuals privacy to the extent of compelling them to undertake a particular form of religious worship, or limiting particular forms of expression. Hence the clear prohibition on such actions. Similarly the right to the privacy of the home - the clear and present danger to that was in the forcible stationing of troops within the home, or the random search by authorities. Hence those protections were made specific. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/28 "2009-07-28T04:24:36Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > Senator Coburn did not ask about a constitutional right, Judge Sotomayor added the qualifier of “constitutional” to her response to avoid having to admit that citizens do have the right to self-defense. **WAITAMINNIT, NOW.** The judiciary’s job is to interpret the laws and the Constitution (which have definite texts). If you want them to take account of some “natural rights” or “higher law” **above** the Constitution . . . are you sure you want to go there?! Every justice would have a different take on the content of that “higher law.” And you’re worried about “judicial activism” **now!** ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/29 "2009-07-28T13:09:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The thing is, if there is no explicit right to self-defense US Constitution, and she still feels there SHOULD be, what is she supposed to do, ignore the Constitution and replace it with her personl opinion? Isn’t there a word for that kind of judge? Does it rhyme with “cracktivist”? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/30 "2009-07-28T14:33:03Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree that the question was a “gotcha,” though. I might have asked her: > > OK, let’s assume that the Pacifist Buddhist Party sweeps the state legislature in the upcoming election, and they pass a law eliminating the affirmative defense of ‘self-defense.’ The following month, someone threatened with imminent deadly harm responds to the threat by fatally wounding his assailant, and is convicted of manslaughter. The facts are uncontroverted that the accused was in reasonable fear of his own life before acting. May the accused challenge his conviction on Constitutional grounds? To that question I’d answer: “Were such a thing to come to pass I would certainly vote to grant cert to a case on this issue brought to the Supreme Court. I’d be very interested in hearing the legal arguments on such a case.” Do I get your vote? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/31 "2009-07-28T20:11:53Z")
> [@villa](#): > > There is a right to self defense. And there is a right to privacy as well. Both have the same constitutional basis. Not exactly. The right to self defense is something Scalia et al. “discovered” in the Second Amendment, lack of textual evidence notwithstanding, in the recent Becker ruling. The right to privacy is based on the 14th Amendment and many years of rulings establishing substantive due process. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/32 "2009-07-28T20:46:53Z")
Hmm, **Subterfuge** , has not come back to respond in his own thread. Pity. And it is all moot, even though she is vastly underqualified, incredibly racist, obnoxiously Latina, extrememly not male, somehow or other she will be a Supreme Court Justice. I keed, I keed. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2009, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/33 "2009-07-28T20:59:58Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Not exactly. The right to self defense is something Scalia et al. “discovered” in the Second Amendment, lack of textual evidence notwithstanding, in the recent Becker ruling. The right to privacy is based on the 14th Amendment and many years of rulings establishing substantive due process. I’d base it on the Ninth. And allege, as many others have, that a right to self defense was recognized before the constitution. I don’t think it comes from the Second Amendment, I think the Second Amendment reflects the existance of a right to self defense (and such a right is pretty closely linked into the concept of a right to privacy). All part of viewing the Bill of Rights as a whole, for me. ---
**Author:** ![Subterfuge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Subterfuge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterfuge)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/34 "2009-08-09T12:59:57Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Hmm, **Subterfuge** , has not come back to respond in his own thread. Pity. I had come back, but one realizes that it’s a tedious exercise in futility when you have to wade through exchanges like this: > [@Subterfuge](#): > > The right to self-defense is an inalienable right. It’s one of those rights the Founders spoke of that go hand and hand with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > > > [@BrainGlutton](#): > > > > 😕 Cite? Why is it that people often ask for cites, when a cite is not required? Is it a tactic used to get another poster to jump through a hoop? Or is it actual ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/35 "2009-08-09T13:14:40Z")
Surely a right of self defense is “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”, no? It has been recognized by the English common law for centuries and was surely considered fundamental at the founding of our nation. I can’t imagine anyone on this board feeling that someone should go to prison when they acted in a truly life or death situation. We may quibble about whether or not a particular situation rose to a level that was grave enough to require an action of self-defense, but surely we all agree on the concept? For that reason I can’t imagine that self-defense wouldn’t be considered a fundamental right described in the ninth amendment and alluded to the Declaration of Indepedence. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/36 "2009-08-09T14:37:48Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > I had come back, but one realizes that it’s a tedious exercise in futility when you have to wade through exchanges like this: > Why is it that people often ask for cites, when a cite is not required? Is it a tactic used to get another poster to jump through a hoop? Or is it actual ignorance? It may be ignorance, but actual it is. I’ve never heard of “self defense” being mentioned by the founders alongside life, liberty and all that. A quick google search turns up nothing. So I also ask for a cite. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/37 "2009-08-09T15:11:38Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > Is it a tactic used to get another poster to jump through a hoop? If one wants to consider asking someone to provide at least some shred of evidence to support their claim, then yes it could be considered as a “a tactic used to get another poster to jump through a hoop.” Although I suspect the request for a cite was unneeded, as **Voyager** and **Diogenes the Cynic** pointed out, the **proclamation** of our allegedly inalienable rights are nothing more than fightin’ words directed at England; as articulated in the **Declaration of Independence** which is [not the law of the land](http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/presidents/jefferson/declar_2) … Essentially you are advocating that Supreme Court judges should disregard the basic tenets of our [common law](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis) legal system. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/38 "2009-08-09T15:37:55Z")
I would think that the right to self-defense complements the right to life. You can’t possibly have a right to life if you are required to voluntarily give it up should an aggressor approach you. It would be like saying you have a freedom of speech, but you have to shut your damn mouth if anyone at all tells you to. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/39 "2009-08-09T15:53:10Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I would think that the right to self-defense complements the right to life. You can’t possibly have a right to life if you are required to voluntarily give it up should an aggressor approach you. Well Sotomeyer doesn’t seem to believe in right to life for fetuses. Perhaps these two viewpoints are related? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/40 "2009-08-09T15:55:26Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > I would think that the right to self-defense complements the right to life. You can’t possibly have a right to life if you are required to voluntarily give it up should an aggressor approach you. Good argument (not snarking). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440.md?page=3)