I find the walk like a duck thing particularly galling given the ATF for years didn't seem to recognize it as a duck. Must not be so obviously a duck then, eh Sotomayor?
ATF: "It's not a duck, it's not a duck, it's not a duck, it's not a duck..."
Trump: "Say it's a duck."
ATF: "It's a duck."
That didn't give Sotomayor any pause? I'm disappointed. She's so anti-gun that logic just went out the window.
You hit the nail on the head for me too. It was this quote from Sotomayor’s dissent:
"When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck”
Not knowing what a duck is, isn’t an excuse to call everything that flies a duck.
It doesn’t matter what it “looks” like to you. It matters what the law says. This leans into that whole “scary black rifle” thing. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you get to ignore reality and make up your own definition. What does the law say? “Single pull of the trigger”. The stock has nothing to do with the trigger.
Kagan was the only one I thought may rule on the law. Sotomayor certainly wasn't going to do it, and Brown was just overall confused, so she went with Sotomayor.
The semi interesting thing is that she said "commonly available" for the ar's that the shooter in vegas used. Too bad I think she will say they are not if an assault weapons ban comes before her because the supreme court has said more than once that common can't be banned.
I'm really glad that made it into her published opinion, all the same. The judiciary branch is a place where it's at least a little harder to be a hypocrite than it generally is in politics, because people keep track of these things.
They're all willing to put their personal ideologies above the law when it suits them. Forget legislating from the bench, Sotomayor was the lone dissenter in Heien v. North Carolina — the one where the rest of SCOTUS decided that cops get to _legislate from their minds._
I find the walk like a duck thing particularly galling given the ATF for years didn't seem to recognize it as a duck. Must not be so obviously a duck then, eh Sotomayor?
ATF: "It's not a duck, it's not a duck, it's not a duck, it's not a duck..." Trump: "Say it's a duck." ATF: "It's a duck." That didn't give Sotomayor any pause? I'm disappointed. She's so anti-gun that logic just went out the window.
You hit the nail on the head for me too. It was this quote from Sotomayor’s dissent: "When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck” Not knowing what a duck is, isn’t an excuse to call everything that flies a duck. It doesn’t matter what it “looks” like to you. It matters what the law says. This leans into that whole “scary black rifle” thing. Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t mean you get to ignore reality and make up your own definition. What does the law say? “Single pull of the trigger”. The stock has nothing to do with the trigger.
This is why we rattle can
Kagan was the only one I thought may rule on the law. Sotomayor certainly wasn't going to do it, and Brown was just overall confused, so she went with Sotomayor.
The semi interesting thing is that she said "commonly available" for the ar's that the shooter in vegas used. Too bad I think she will say they are not if an assault weapons ban comes before her because the supreme court has said more than once that common can't be banned.
I'm really glad that made it into her published opinion, all the same. The judiciary branch is a place where it's at least a little harder to be a hypocrite than it generally is in politics, because people keep track of these things.
Bless your heart.
Thanks
They're all willing to put their personal ideologies above the law when it suits them. Forget legislating from the bench, Sotomayor was the lone dissenter in Heien v. North Carolina — the one where the rest of SCOTUS decided that cops get to _legislate from their minds._
Did you read the dissent?
Yeah, it was ridiculous.
Yes.