# 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:** 19\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 9, 2009, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/41 "2009-08-09T19:01:13Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > 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. Well, there’s pretty clearly a right of self defense (and a right to keep arms) in common law. As Blackstone put it, in his commentaries on English law [From Book 1, Chapter 1](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp): > [@](#): > > THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression. Blackstone also points out in the same chapter: > [@](#): > > BOTH the life and limbs of a man are of such high value, in the estimation of the law of England, that it pardons even homicide if committed . defendendo, or in order to preserve them. For whatever is done by a man, to save either life or member, is looked upon as done upon the highest necessity and compulsion. Therefore if a man through fear of death or mayhem is prevailed upon to execute a deed, or do any other legal act ; these, though accompanied with all other the requisite solemnities, are totally void in law, if forced upon him by a well-grounded apprehension of losing his life, or even his limbs, in case of his non-compliance. ---
**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, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/42 "2009-08-09T22:11:11Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, there’s pretty clearly a right of self defense (and a right to keep arms) in common law. Immaterial; every US state has adopted statutory language regarding self defense, which overrules (or at least supersedes) the common law interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/43 "2009-08-10T00:27:00Z")
> [@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? When I say “Cite?” I mean “Cite?” Nothing in the DoI or the Constitution speaks of a “right to self-defense.” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/44 "2009-08-10T00:35:16Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Immaterial; every US state has adopted statutory language regarding self defense, which overrules (or at least supersedes) the common law interpretation. Right. I’m responding to the claim that “you are advocating that Supreme Court judges should disregard the basic tenets of our common law legal system.” ---
**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 10, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/45 "2009-08-10T01:31:30Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Right. I’m responding to the claim that “you are advocating that Supreme Court judges should disregard the basic tenets of our common law legal system.” Oh, well carry on then. ---
**Author:** ![IAmNotSpartacus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/cc9497/32.png) [@IAmNotSpartacus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IAmNotSpartacus)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2009, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/46 "2009-08-10T03:16:47Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Right. I’m responding to the claim that “you are advocating that Supreme Court judges should disregard the basic tenets of our common law legal system.” My original point being that using the DoI as some sort of precedent has no basis in common law. I can see how that was unclear. ---
**Author:** ![Subterfuge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Subterfuge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterfuge)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/47 "2009-08-29T12:31:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > When I say “Cite?” I mean “Cite?” Nothing in the DoI or the Constitution speaks of a “right to self-defense.” The DoI states that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them **(meaning that there are others)** are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Now, for anyone with a degree of understanding, there is no need for a “cite” to realize that the right of self-defense goes hand in hand with the inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nothing in the Constitution speaks of a right to privacy, but having a degree of understanding, I can see that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Subterfuge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Subterfuge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterfuge)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/48 "2009-08-29T12:40:41Z")
And “privacy” is another of those inalienable rights that go hand in hand with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Need a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Subterfuge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e8c25b/32.png) [@Subterfuge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subterfuge)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/49 "2009-08-29T12:46:28Z")
> [@IAmNotSpartacus](#): > > 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. Is that what they did when they found the right to privacy? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/50 "2009-08-29T16:31:21Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > The DoI states that "we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them **(meaning that there are others)** are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It just struck me that if the right to life is “inalienable”, then capital punishment is never a proper undertaking. This suggests that all executions ever carried out by the federal and state governments were unlawfully imposed and administered. Or, perhaps it suggests that in the interpretation of the law, it’s not really valid to expect the phrases in the Declaration of Independence to drive the outcome of the cases. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/51 "2009-08-29T17:10:19Z")
The DOI is of no legal relevance, and SCOTUS has never established that there is an explicit right to self-defense. It HAS established that there is a right to privacy. That’s all Sotomayor was talking about – what has and what has not been established on paper, not personal opinions. It would be inappropriate for her to state a personal opinion about whether a given right SHOULD exist. She’s not an activist. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/52 "2009-08-29T17:11:38Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > Is that what they did when they found the right to privacy? Nope. They found it in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights. ---
**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 29, 2009, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/53 "2009-08-29T17:38:41Z")
> [@Subterfuge](#): > > Is that what they did when they found the right to privacy? With all due respect to Dio, yes, that’s exactly what they did. Roe v. Wade is bad law, for all that it serves a necessary end. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/54 "2009-08-29T17:47:37Z")
_Roe_ is not the decision that found the right to privacy. That was [Griswold](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html). _Roe_ based it’s decision on the rights previously found in _Griswold_. Liking or not liking these decisions is besdie the point, though. The fact is that a right to privacy exists because the Supreme Court says so. Neither the Court nor the Constitution ha said that a right to self defense exists. ---
**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 29, 2009, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/55 "2009-08-29T17:49:42Z")
Sorry, Griswold. Point remains. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/56 "2009-08-29T17:53:33Z")
I should add that SCOTUS probably would find a right to self defense if asked, it just hasn’t been asked yet. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/57 "2009-08-29T17:58:05Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sorry, Griswold. Point remains. In the context of this discussion, the point really does not remain. SCOTUS is the arbiter of what rights exist or don’t exist. The Supreme Court is the last word. It doesn’t matter if anyone disagrees with it, just like it didn’t matter if Justice Sotomayor thought there should be a right to self defense. All she was saying was that no such right has been explicitly established as a matter of Constitutional law. The right to privacy HAS been. Anyone else liking it or not liking it is neither here nor there. ---
**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 29, 2009, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/58 "2009-08-29T18:04:22Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > _Roe_ is not the decision that found the right to privacy. That was [Griswold](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html). _Roe_ based it’s decision on the rights previously found in _Griswold_. > > Liking or not liking these decisions is besdie the point, though. The fact is that a right to privacy exists because the Supreme Court says so. Neither the Court nor the Constitution ha said that a right to self defense exists. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Sorry, Griswold. Point remains. Just for the record, **Dio** added the mention of Griswold to his post after I responded to it. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2009, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440/59 "2009-08-29T19:58:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > From the perspctive of a judge, the word has no other relevant meaning. Her personal opinion about what rights people SHOULD have is irrelevant because she can’t make rulings based on personal opinions. These hearings always involve lot of dancing with Senators trying to get nominees to reveal personal opinions, and the nominee trying to stick to the dryest, technical answers possible. > > You personal opinion that self-defense is an “inalienable” right has no explicit weight of Constitutional law behind it, and her views of _Constitutional_ rights are what matters, not her personal opinions. > > 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? Coming from you, that word would be _ **irony.** _ 😃 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-i-oppose-sotomayors-nomination/504440.md?page=2)