July 14, 2009

JOHN HINDERAKER on the “wise Latina” explanation.

UPDATE: Sotomayor on the Second Amendment. More here. She’s not that into it.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Still more on Sotomayor and Heller. “Fundamentally, we have to realize that she’s replacing Souter. He wouldn’t be with us anyway. Not to mention, she’s hardly an intellectual leader. Listening to her answer other questions made that plenty clear.” Be careful. She might just be lulling you into a false sense of security. . . .

STILL MORE here.

MORE STILL: Randy Barnett: “One of the things we hope to learn during confirmation hearings is a nominee’s approach to the constitutional protection of liberty. But in her exchange with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) about the second amendment and its potential application to the states, Sonia Sotomayor revealed remarkably little about her understanding of how the Supreme Court protects liberty under the fourteenth amendment. For example, more than once she said a right was ‘fundamental’ if it was ‘incorporated’ into the fourteenth amendment. But this gets it backwards. The Supreme Court incorporates a right BECAUSE it finds it to be fundamental. When asked how she understands the criteria by which the court concludes that a right is fundamental, she did not give a substantive response. Then, when Hatch asked her about the difference between nineteenth century precedent involving the privileges or immunities clause and the twentieth century cases involving the due process clause, she said she did not recall the cases well enough to address the difference.”

If her politics were different, this would be clear evidence that she is unfit.

Plus, Ilya Somin: Sotomayor’s Misstatement of Kelo. Like I said . . . .