The interchange between Senator Tom Coburn (an OB/GYN) and Sonia was priceless. I'll post the YouTube once it's up.
He combines the opposite precedents of how Gun Rights are clearly defined in the Constitution, but the courts muddy the waters and try to remove rights, whereas abortion "right" is based on "privacy" which is NOT clearly defined in the Constitution. He ties the two together brilliantly.
He asked her basic questions that she refused to answer, like why do we define death in all 50 states but we won't define life. Ultrasounds show a baby's heart beat at 14 weeks gestation and brain waves at 29 weeks and that proves life. She wouldn't answer his question.
Then he talks about gun rights and "do you believe that I have the right to self defense in my own home against an intruder" or something similar. He asked THREE times and she would NOT answer. So that'd be a NO.
Her avoidance and dancing spoke volumes. Coburn kept at her in a direct and respectful and patient way. The man is brilliant.
The reason he asked her these two questions is because she had schizophrenic rulings, one saying something like that states DO have the right to control guns, but with abortion the states do NOT have a right to limit abortion.
=====================================
Edit: Found a transcript of the long interchange. Posted parts here:
COBURN: As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post- conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those.
And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate or -- inaccurate is an improper term -- inconsistent in terms of our application of the logic.
[Sonia goes on with a circular blah blah not answering the question]
COBURN: OK. Let me continue with that. So I sit in Oklahoma in my home, and what we have today as law in the land as you see it is I do not have a fundamental incorporated right to bear arms, as you see the law today?
SOTOMAYOR: It's not how I see the law.
COBURN: Well, as you see the interpretation of the law today? In your opinion of what the law is today, is my statement a correct statement?
SOTOMAYOR: No, that's not my interpretation. I was applying both Supreme Court precedent deciding that question and Second Circuit precedent that had directly answered that question and said it's not incorporated. The issue of whether or not it should be is different question, and that is the question that the Supreme Court may take up.
In fact, in his -- in his opinion, Justice Scalia suggested it should. But it's not what I believe. It's what the law has said about it.
COBURN: So what does the law say today about the statement? Where do we stand today about my statement that I have -- I claim to have a fundamental, guaranteed, spelled-out right under the Constitution that is individual and applies to me the right to own and bear arms. Am I right or am I wrong?
SOTOMAYOR: I can't answer the question of incorporation other than to refer to precedent.
COBURN: OK.
SOTOMAYOR: Precedent says, as the Second Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court's precedent, that it's not -- it's not incorporated. It's also important to understand that the individual issue of a person bearing arms is raised before the court in a particular setting. And by that I mean, what the Court with look at is a state regulation of your right.
COBURN: Yes.
SOTOMAYOR: And then determine can the state do that or not. So even once you recognize a right, you're always considering what the state is doing to limit or expand that right and then decide is that OK constitutionally.
COBURN: You know, it's very interesting to me. I went back and read the history of debate on the 14th Amendment. For many of you who don't know, what generated much of the 14th Amendment was in reconstruction. Southern states were taken away the right to bear arms by freedmen -- recently freed slaves. And much of the discussion in the Congress was to restore that right of the Second Amendment through the 14th Amendment to restore an individual right that was guaranteed under the Constitution.
So one of the purposes for the 14th Amendment, the reason -- one of the reasons it came about is because those rights were being abridged in the Southern states post-Civil War.
COBURN: Let me move on.
In the Constitution, we have the right to bear arms. Whether it's incorporated or not, it's stated there. I'm having trouble understanding how we got to a point where a right to privacy [the justification that abortion is OK], which is not explicitly spelled out but is spelled out to some degree in the Fourth Amendment, which has settled law and is fixed, and something such as the Second Amendment, which is spelled out in the Constitution, is not settled law and settled fixed.
I don't want you to answer that specifically. What I would like to hear you say is, how did we get there? How did we get to the point where something that's spelled out in our Constitution and guaranteed to us [certain gun rights that are taken from us or attempted to], but something that isn't spelled out specifically in our Constitution is? Would you give me your philosophical answer?
I don't want to tie you down on any future decisions, but how'd we get there when we can read this book, and it says certain things, and those aren't guaranteed, but the things that it doesn't say are?
SOTOMAYOR: One of the frustrations with judges and their decisions by citizens is that -- and this was an earlier response to Senator Cornyn -- what we do is different than the conversation that the public has about what it wants the law to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071501414.html#
He combines the opposite precedents of how Gun Rights are clearly defined in the Constitution, but the courts muddy the waters and try to remove rights, whereas abortion "right" is based on "privacy" which is NOT clearly defined in the Constitution. He ties the two together brilliantly.
He asked her basic questions that she refused to answer, like why do we define death in all 50 states but we won't define life. Ultrasounds show a baby's heart beat at 14 weeks gestation and brain waves at 29 weeks and that proves life. She wouldn't answer his question.
Then he talks about gun rights and "do you believe that I have the right to self defense in my own home against an intruder" or something similar. He asked THREE times and she would NOT answer. So that'd be a NO.
Her avoidance and dancing spoke volumes. Coburn kept at her in a direct and respectful and patient way. The man is brilliant.
The reason he asked her these two questions is because she had schizophrenic rulings, one saying something like that states DO have the right to control guns, but with abortion the states do NOT have a right to limit abortion.
=====================================
Edit: Found a transcript of the long interchange. Posted parts here:
COBURN: As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post- conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those.
And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate or -- inaccurate is an improper term -- inconsistent in terms of our application of the logic.
[Sonia goes on with a circular blah blah not answering the question]
COBURN: OK. Let me continue with that. So I sit in Oklahoma in my home, and what we have today as law in the land as you see it is I do not have a fundamental incorporated right to bear arms, as you see the law today?
SOTOMAYOR: It's not how I see the law.
COBURN: Well, as you see the interpretation of the law today? In your opinion of what the law is today, is my statement a correct statement?
SOTOMAYOR: No, that's not my interpretation. I was applying both Supreme Court precedent deciding that question and Second Circuit precedent that had directly answered that question and said it's not incorporated. The issue of whether or not it should be is different question, and that is the question that the Supreme Court may take up.
In fact, in his -- in his opinion, Justice Scalia suggested it should. But it's not what I believe. It's what the law has said about it.
COBURN: So what does the law say today about the statement? Where do we stand today about my statement that I have -- I claim to have a fundamental, guaranteed, spelled-out right under the Constitution that is individual and applies to me the right to own and bear arms. Am I right or am I wrong?
SOTOMAYOR: I can't answer the question of incorporation other than to refer to precedent.
COBURN: OK.
SOTOMAYOR: Precedent says, as the Second Circuit interpreted the Supreme Court's precedent, that it's not -- it's not incorporated. It's also important to understand that the individual issue of a person bearing arms is raised before the court in a particular setting. And by that I mean, what the Court with look at is a state regulation of your right.
COBURN: Yes.
SOTOMAYOR: And then determine can the state do that or not. So even once you recognize a right, you're always considering what the state is doing to limit or expand that right and then decide is that OK constitutionally.
COBURN: You know, it's very interesting to me. I went back and read the history of debate on the 14th Amendment. For many of you who don't know, what generated much of the 14th Amendment was in reconstruction. Southern states were taken away the right to bear arms by freedmen -- recently freed slaves. And much of the discussion in the Congress was to restore that right of the Second Amendment through the 14th Amendment to restore an individual right that was guaranteed under the Constitution.
So one of the purposes for the 14th Amendment, the reason -- one of the reasons it came about is because those rights were being abridged in the Southern states post-Civil War.
COBURN: Let me move on.
In the Constitution, we have the right to bear arms. Whether it's incorporated or not, it's stated there. I'm having trouble understanding how we got to a point where a right to privacy [the justification that abortion is OK], which is not explicitly spelled out but is spelled out to some degree in the Fourth Amendment, which has settled law and is fixed, and something such as the Second Amendment, which is spelled out in the Constitution, is not settled law and settled fixed.
I don't want you to answer that specifically. What I would like to hear you say is, how did we get there? How did we get to the point where something that's spelled out in our Constitution and guaranteed to us [certain gun rights that are taken from us or attempted to], but something that isn't spelled out specifically in our Constitution is? Would you give me your philosophical answer?
I don't want to tie you down on any future decisions, but how'd we get there when we can read this book, and it says certain things, and those aren't guaranteed, but the things that it doesn't say are?
SOTOMAYOR: One of the frustrations with judges and their decisions by citizens is that -- and this was an earlier response to Senator Cornyn -- what we do is different than the conversation that the public has about what it wants the law to do.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/15/AR2009071501414.html#
Last edited:
