Though it doesn't appear any of these concerns expressed mattered, they are worth pointing out:
WASHINGTON — America’s third largest party reiterated its opposition Wednesday to the Supreme Court nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor after the nominee refused to give a firm answer on whether individuals have the right of self-defense.
“Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?” Sotomayor asked when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed him the right of self-defense. “ I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”
“Whether you agree with her position or not, Judge Sotomayor has had no problem stating that things not directly found in the Constitution are ‘settled law.’ That’s why it’s troubling that when confronted with a constitutionally-enshrined principle she disagrees with, the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one’s rights, things are suddenly muddled and up for debate,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.
“The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That’s why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor’s answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution,” said Ferguson.