According to Fox News:



Conservatives find these opinions troubling and may make them the center of their attack on Sonia Sotomayor.

Given the spinelessness of the Democrats, as evidenced by their willingness to permit guns in National Parks, if confirmation comes down to guns, I think Sotomayor's candidacy will fail.

I will give anyone 3-1 odds that she'll be confirmed. (barring anything untoward discovered before the nomination)

All the Fox News speculation is so much wind.

A serious question for you, Joe...Why do you consider the Dems spineless for allowing guns in the national parks? It appears to me that you think individual gun ownership should be prohibited. How do you square that with the 2nd Amendment and the recent Heller decision that specificied the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right? Even if we bought Sotomayer's legal fiction that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States, how does that impact a decision by the Federal government to recognize the right of individual citizens to carry firearms in our NATIONAL parks?

For the record, I think the 2nd Amendment does indeed apply to the States and, despite Sotomayer's opinion, it does indeed protect a fundamental right...indeed it is the fundamental right that serves to secure the rest of our rights. I think Judge Sotomayer in making such a ruling ignores a clause in Article IV, Section 2 of the text of the COnstitution. Specifically, The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. If one reads the clause, as has been the case throughout our history, so that "the several States" refers to the United States then the clause means that no State deprive a citizen of the State of any rights he or she has by virtue of being a citizen of the United States. This would appear to render moot any discussion of whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies specifically to the States since, in accordance with Heller, the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of US citizens. The States would thus be powerless to infringe upon that right. This also allows us to side step the issue of whether or not the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights upon the States. Section I of the 14th Amendment is little more than a restating of section 2 of Article IV. The applicable clause from the 14th Amendment is: No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; It beggars the imagination as to how a supposedly intellignet judge could read that clause to apply to the 1st, the 3rd, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 7th, and the 8th Amendments but magically NOT apply to the 2nd Amendment. Indeed, the only way a judge could read the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment to somehow exclude the 2nd Amendment is if he or she did so to serve a political agenda.

Dax, you are right in that she will likely be confirmed given the Dems overwhelming control over the Senate. Sad really because I think her written decisions as a judge demonstrate a disregard for the Constitution and her public statements off the bench demonstrate a disregard for the role of judges as unbiased triers of fact and interpreters of law.

Of course she'll be confirmed. She's a white-hating, gun grabbing, most likely voodoo religion adherent that a Democratic president appointed. If you can't rally support for your presidential candidate around those issues what's left?