Does Sonia Sotomayor Respect the Second Amendment? Her Record Says No

On Monday Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared on Comedy Central’s Colbert Report to promote her new memoir My Beloved World. It was a typical interview for the show, with host Stephen Colbert mostly staying in character as a right-wing blowhard while simultaneously lobbing softball questions at a friendly guest.

But things threatened to get genuinely interesting when Colbert brought up the Second Amendment, asking Sotomayor, “Do you believe we have the right to have any weapon we want?” Without missing a beat, Sotomayor replied, “Well, you’ll find out soon enough when a case comes up.”

Cue audience laughter. And it was a funny exchange, though it was also a somewhat disingenuous one. Unless Sotomayor has changed her views recently, she has already endorsed a sweeping gun control agenda and voiced her opposition to viewing the Second Amendment as a protector of individual rights.

In 2010, Sotomayor joined the dissenting opinion filed by Justice Stephen Breyer in the landmark gun rights case McDonald v. Chicago. At issue was whether the Second Amendment should join the First Amendment and other rights-protecting provisions from the Bill of Rights and become binding on state and local governments via the 14th Amendment. The majority held that the amendment should indeed apply against the states, and Chicago’s handgun ban was therefore nullified for violating the individual right to keep and bear arms. In his dissent, Breyer argued that not only was Chicago permitted to ban handguns, but the Second Amendment did not protect any sort of individual right to self-defense. According to Breyer's dissent, the private ownership of guns is open to almost unlimited control by “democratically elected legislatures.”

Sotomayor is right that the Supreme Court is likely to take up another big gun rights case in the near future, but I don’t think we need to wait until then to discover her views on the proper scope of the Second Amendment.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John Galt||

    Colbert..blah blah. Sotomayor..ugh.

  • XTSee||

    Yes, yes, but still...look at those hands!

    Hands like those might tear down the bulwarks of prejudice, build bridges of understanding to the future, pump your rigid member to ejaculations of sticky togetherness...

    Brother Galt, I say to thee...!

    [ringtone]

    Sorry, gotta take this.

  • deified||

    WTF did I just read. Mind=blown.

  • Tim||

    Question: does the second ammendment gives the right to shoot government tyoes who try to deny us our rights?

  • Juice||

    Yes, because tyoes are vicious beasts that cannot be reasoned with.

  • Almanian.||

    word

  • SugarFree||

    I lost two uncles to a vicious pack of tyoes.

  • Tim||

    STOP MOCKING ME!

  • SugarFree||

    Why can't you just let me mourn my poor ravaged uncles?

  • JeremyR||

    It's not just her being a liberal, either. It's cultural. Latin Americans aren't big on gun ownership. See Mexico as an example - only the bad guys have guns there.

    It's not their fault, the Spanish (and the Church) wanted a disarmed peasantry. But it is an example why culture matters.

  • R C Dean||

    Jeremy, gun ownership is pretty endemic in rural Mexico.

  • iggy||

    RC: I don't know how true that is. I've seen numbers saying that Mexico only has 15 guns per 100 people, which isn't really very high.

    Jeremy: Chile has some of the most lax gun control laws on the planet. I don't know that you can paint all of Latin America with such a broad brush.

  • Jordan||

    I've heard the illegal gun ownership is pretty widespread in Mexico.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Mexican peasants with guns? Why that's crazy talk, I tell you! Who has ever heard of such a thing?

  • Juice||

    I still don't understand why the 14th amendment is required to incorporate the Bill of Rights or any other general provision of the Constitution onto the states. The Supremacy Clause says that the Constitution is the highest law in the land and there are no exceptions for the states in the wording of any of the amendments, except for the first. When it says that you can't be forced to testify against yourself, there's nothing in that supreme law of the land to suggest that a state can do it.

  • tarran||

    When the Constitution was ratified, Massachusetts and Virginia had state religions. Those religions were not the same ones.

    The bill of rights only pertained to what laws Congress could pass. The only strictures placed on states was that they couldn't do foreign policy, couldn't tax external commerce (and a bunch of things like that) and that they had to have a republican form of government. That's it.

    The 13th amendment was to force states to respect the rights of the citizenry to the degree that the Feds had to.

  • robc||

    Those religions were not the same ones.

    Congregationalists and Anglicans are the same religion in the same way that Shiites and Sunnis are of the the same religion.

    Denominations differ, but the first two are both Christian and the latter two are both Moslem.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    You tell that to a Shi'a adherent and a Sunna adherent. I'll be over there, behind the Jersey barriers.

  • Tonio||

    LOL, robc, lol.

  • Juice||

    When the Constitution was ratified, Massachusetts and Virginia had state religions.

    There is an exception to the states in the First Amendment.

    There is no such exception to any other amendment in the Bill of Rights.

  • Juice||

    The bill of rights only pertained to what laws Congress could pass.

    It doesn't say that anywhere in the constitution, but it does say that the constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    The 13th amendment was to force states to respect the rights of the citizenry to the degree that the Feds had to.

    When it came to slaves, the federal government didn't respect their rights at all. There was even a fugitive slave provision in the constitution. Congress passed an even more draconian fugitive slave law on top of that right before the civil war.

  • Tonio||

    Not quite, Tarran. Virginia passed its Declaration of Rights on June 12, 1776. Article XVI enumerates freedom of religion. Prior to that the state religion of Virginia, being a Crown Colony, was the same as that of England (ie, Church of England, aka Episcopalian).

    George Mason and James Madison, bitches.

  • crashland||

    But the 1st specifically says Congress shall make no law, the 2nd says simply the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed.

    So I don't get it either. Was it ok for states to bust down doors without warrants before the 14th?

  • Torontonian||

    States do not derive their authority from the United States or its constitution.

    They pre-existed as sovereign states before joining the uniion, and the United States federal government was only granted limited powers by the states and people, with all remaining powers reserved to the state or to the people.

    The Constitution only defined the role, structure and powers of the federal government. That was... until the 14th amendment was ratified.

  • Juice||

    States do not derive their authority from the United States or its constitution.

    They have delegated certain authority to the provisions in the constitution, IMO including the Bill of Rights (except for the First Amendment).

    They pre-existed as sovereign states before joining the uniion

    Very few actually did, the first 13, Vermont, Texas, and California. I may be missing another one, but all the rest were either conquered territory of the US or sold to the US by the previous conquerors.

    the United States federal government was only granted limited powers by the states and people, with all remaining powers reserved to the state or to the people.

    Right. And they all ratified the Bill of Rights knowing that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

    The Constitution only defined the role, structure and powers of the federal government. That was... until the 14th amendment was ratified.

    This is false. Even before the BOR, there were prohibitions to the states in Article 1 Section 10. Article 4 consisted entirely of prohibitions and mandates on the states.

  • R C Dean||

    So the Wise Latina doesn't think she is wise enough to be trusted with a gun, eh?

    On a (racist?) tangent, very interesting WSJ article on the rise of local militias vigilantes in Mexico in response to drug gangs and the failed state. Note the ubiquity of firearms.

    Crime is way down—for the moment, at least. Residents say kidnapping ceased when the militias took charge, as did the extortions that had become the scourge of businessmen and farmers alike. The leader of one militia group, who uses the code name G-1 but was identified by his compatriots as Gonzalo Torres, puts it this way: "We brought order back to a place where there had been chaos. We were able to do in 15 days what the government was not able to do in years."

    No pay wall.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....16560.html

  • Juice||

    Big fat paywall for me.

  • R C Dean||

    I'll be damned.

    No paywall if you go through Google. Search "WSJ Mexican vigilantes" and its the first hit.

  • ||

    Google foils paywalls, at least ones from the NYT. Try to go there directly, paywall. Go through Google, no paywall.

  • Juice||

    There's no paywall for the video.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/.....Tabs=video

  • Almanian.||

    Good on 'em! Goooooo rural Mexicans!

  • AlmightyJB||

    That is one ugly pug. Damn. The gross application of make up just draws attention to it.

  • T o n y||

    Technically she is incapable of not respecting the 2nd Amendment. That's what follows when you are one of 9 people allowed to say definitively what the 2nd Amendment means.

  • iggy||

    Tony has a point. Regardless of what something says, the words mean nothing. The statement: The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is open to interpretation.

  • T o n y||

    It clearly is, especially when you pair it with the rest of the text of the Amendment, and when you observe that there have been centuries of debate on the matter.

  • SugarFree||

    Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • iggy||

    I'm a bit confused as to why centuries of debate are in any way important. If I claimed the first amendment is vague, when it clearly isn't, we could debate forever. That doesn't change the fact that my position is wrong. Debate in no way shows that the second amendment is vague, it shows that some people who don't like guns are intent on claiming it's vague.

    As for the militia clause, it's irrelevant. The second clause flat out says the right shall not be infringed. If the intent had been to only allow militias to own guns, it would have said that the right of state militias to bear arms shall not be infringed. It notably doesn't say that.

  • BarryD||

    Debate can be disingenuous. In the case of most 2nd Amendment debate, particularly in the case of the invented "collective right" idea, the sole object of "debate" is to create an aura of confusion where none actually exists.

  • Zeb||

    There have been centuries of debate about the first amendment and it has only gotten stronger in protecting rights.

  • Virginian||

    The left likes the 1st Amendment though. The 2nd is icky and redneck and has to be suppressed. The 4th depends on who is in office, along with all the other ones. But they always hate the 2nd. It's icky and redneck and declasse.

  • T o n y||

    It's just almost completely pointless in a modern context. If it forbids public debate on the regulation of deadly weapons, then it is also dangerous.

    It's entirely reasonable to debate how much of a gun death problem (accidental and homicidal) we are willing to tolerate in exchange for the liberty of owning guns for self-defense. But you guys want to shut the debate down and say you win by default.

    And if you want to claim some hypothetical right to defend yourself against a potentially tyrannical government--I have news for you. If you make war against the US, the US can kill you from the sky with a robot. Even if that were a legitimate purpose of the 2nd Amendment (and it's not), it's no longer a remotely practical one.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    We had that debate in 1783. Your side lost.

    If you think times have changed so significantly that we should reconsider, that's fine: the Constitution provides a mechanism for modifying it. Knock yourself out.

    Otherwise, STFU.

  • Contrarian P||

    No, it's not. Commentary on the amendment by its authors is readily available to demonstrate what the thing means. That people choose to ignore the meaning of the thing as understood by those who wrote it does not change what is clear from the historical record. The fact that there has been centuries of debate on the existence of God does not change whether or not God exists. The bottom line is that the bill of rights was written to secure the rights of the individual from the government, and the assertion that for some reason the second amendment is an exception is fantasy. If you don't like it, the constitution includes a process to change it.

  • Tonio||

    Commentary on the amendment by its authors is readily available to demonstrate what the thing means.

    Commentary which you do not quote or cite. See "aura of confusion" above.

  • Contrarian P||

    See the phrase "readily available". It's rather easy to go look it up. There are quite a few in the Federalist Papers, to start with, but I suppose it's asking you, the king of the unsupported statement, to look up something. But here's a few quotes to get you started:

    "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." James Madison (author of the second amendment) Federalist Papers

    "The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" Samuel Adams

  • Contrarian P||

    "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry


    "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" - George Washington

  • T o n y||

    Those last two quotes are almost certainly bogus. Also, those men owned people who nobody at the time thought deserved the right to protect themselves with firepower. So... not so clear cut is it?

  • ||

    You're right, the last word by the SCOTUS on Dred Scott was TOTALLY constitutional, because they said so. Ditto with forced sterlization and imprisonment of draft protesters. Defend that rigorous govt action! It means whatever you we want it to mean, regardless of what it actually says!

  • Virginian||

    It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

    That's from Dred Scott. The Court explicity recognized that one of the rights of the free American citizen was "keep and carry arms wherever they went". That's one of the rights denied to Dred Scott, and millions of other slaves. One of the rights that are still denied to millions of descendants of former slaves living in places like Chicago and New York City.

  • wheelock||

    Wait, the framers of the constitution owned slaves? You totally blew my mind just now. Wow, that changes everything!

  • Contrarian P||

    Really? Almost certainly bogus? According to whom? Jefferson had several quotes in a similar vein. Why would this one be inaccurate?

    As for the slavery point, what does that have to do with anything? The constitution is the supreme law of the land. It says what it says. If you don't like it, amend it through the proper process. Until then, stop trying to obfuscate the issue with slavery strawmen. And yes, it is quite clear cut.

  • ||

    And now you and your ilk are trying to keep them from owning guns to protect themselves, you know like in Chicago and DC.

    Fuck you really are a piece of shit.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Centuries of debate? There wasn't any debate until the Progressive Era, when statists like yourself decided people needed to be disarmed.

    The reason there wasn't much commentary on the hidden meaning of the 2nd amendment in the 19th century was because the meaning was considered as obvious as a sledgehammer to the head.

  • T o n y||

    At any rate the amendment doesn't say *which* arms the people are entitled to keep and bear (a phrase with a definite martial connotation).

    The relevant point is how do we decide which prudent regulations on weapons are allowable in the year 2013, given that the men who ratified the 2nd Amendment couldn't possibly have an opinion on the matter.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Just like the 1st amendment doesn't say which mediums of communication qualify as speech and press, and what the difference between ideology and religion is, and the 4th amendment doesn't specify what kinds of searches and seizures are reasonable, etc.

    Yet, assuming you haven't morphed into a complete statist, you have a strong supposition about the minimum of what those amendments protect. I'm absolutely sure you have a strong supposition about what kind of sex the 9th amendment protects, even though it's highly unlikely the FFs would have approved of its being protected.

    (a phrase with a definite martial connotation)

    Scalia dealt with this bit of sophistry from Justice Stevens in his opinion. There is an idiom "bear arms" that has a martial connotation by itself, but the addition of "keep and" means this is not intended to be the idiomatic sense, but the literal one; otherwise it would be a grammatic mess.

  • wheelock||

    Yes, the framers could not possibly have imagined the horrors associated with telescoping stocks and foregrips.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yeah, that is pretty ridiculous. Rifles and pistols had existed in Europe and North America for 100 years when the 2nd amendment was ratified, and it's hard to believe the Founders thought weapons technology would suddenly stagnate in 1789 after the huge advancements made in the previous century.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    If anything, the Founders probably would be more surprised by radio and the Internet than by an AR-15.

  • wheelock||

    Anyone who sees this latest "assault weapon" ban as anything other than a total fraud is a drooling fool.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    No. The relevant point is that the Second Amendment unqualifiedly guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    It does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless it would be prudent, in which case, regulate until Tony's vagina stops bleeding."

  • Chris Mallory||

    What centuries of debate? Citizens were left alone and could own what ever they could afford,even cannon or machine guns. Miller in 1939 was the first time the court tried to limit the 2nd.

  • Virginian||

    To be fair, the Miller case was a travesty because the government's attorney lied through his teeth and the broke ass moonshiner Frank Miller didn't even have enough money to file a brief, let alone send an advocate to Washington to address the Court. I could have won the Miller case, because the law was and still is blatantly unconstitutional.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    "Debate" over the meaning of the Second Amendment is less than a hundred years old. For most of the history of the country, two things were entirely uncontroversial:

    (1) People had a basic right to own whatever arms they wanted, up to and including crew-served weapons; and,

    (2) Government could legitimately set conditions on when, where, and how guns could be borne in public.

    It was only when Progressives started trying to upend the applecart, beginning in the 1930s, that anyone tried to advance a straight-face argument that the Second Amendment was somehow ambiguous. The fact that they've successfully sold generations of lawyers on their bullshit does not make it less bullshit.

    TL;DR: Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • crashland||

    Centuries of debate over a simple English sentence that any 2nd grader can easily understand.

    Clear language is not an obstacle for a committed statist.

  • oncogenesis||

    especially when you pair it with the rest of the text of the Amendment

    "A well-read Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

  • Tim||

    Point of order, 5 people get to say definitively what the 2nd Amendment means.

  • Tonio||

    As few as five, if you're going to get picky. There's no guarantee of a 5/4 split.

  • R C Dean||

    So, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, right there on the page, it only matters what SCOTUS says?

    SCOTUS could say that it is perfectly OK to jail journalists for writing anything critical of government officials, and welp, whaddayagonnado? Its perfectly cromulent if SCOTUS says so?

  • Contrarian P||

    Exactly! Separate but equal, forcibly removing Japanese Americans to interment camps, taking people's property to give to developers, returning escaped slaves to bondage...all A-OK as far as the Supreme Court is concerned.

  • SugarFree||

    It just says stupid things until someone responds to it. Then it starts playing with itself.

  • R C Dean||

    Are we still talking about SCOTUS?

  • crashland||

    No, we've moved on to SCROTUS and mine itches.

  • Tonio||

    In practical terms, yes.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    SCOTUS is the silver bullet of striking down unconstitutional stuff, but the people, and the other two branches have a responsibility to enforce the Constitution also.

  • Tonio||

    Tulpster, the executive branch enforces the law and can veto legislation. Congress passes legislation but don't enforce shit. The courts interpret the law, but don't enforce or create laws. You're welcome.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Thanks for the 5th grade social studies-level analysis. Reality is a bit more complicated. I don't recall the blatantly unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts being struck down by the courts, but it was struck down.

    Every branch takes an oath to the Constitution. Whenever they pass, sign, or enforce an unconstitutional law they violate that oath.

  • Virginian||

    I'm actually with Tulpa on this. They swear an oath to the Constitution. If, for example, the POTUS thinks a law is unconstitutional he is honor bound to veto it. If it comes back with a supermajority and he still thinks it is, he is honor bound to either resign in protest or refuse to enforce it and wait for Congress to impeach him.

    We're at the point now that if a President were to govern according to the Constitution, he'd be flying in the face of the majority of extant precedent.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Not only that, plebes like you aren't even allowed to "say definitively" what the constitution means.

  • Jordan||

    So, jailing you for writing such a mind-numbingly stupid comment is respecting the 1st Amendment.

  • iggy||

    No. It's respecting the first amendment so long as the Supreme Court says it's okay. Don't misinterpret Tony Logic, the man has spent years building up a highly intellectual moral standard that the rest of us cannot hope to understand.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Horse shit.

    The judiciary is a coequal branch of government, not a priesthood. And ultimately it is WE THE PEOPLE who enforce all the amendments.

  • Tonio||

    True, Tulpy-poo, but unfortunately a large percentage of WTP have don't care.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Quite so.

    It's our job to make them care (noncoercively of course).

  • Tonio||

    Good luck with that.

  • Zeb||

    So those justices who said segregation was OK were fully respecting the 14th amendment? And those upholding bans on obscenity fully respect the first?

  • Adam330||

    McDonald was coming off of Heller, which had already established the individual right. So she was dispecting the Second Amendment as established in the Court's precedent.

  • Almanian.||

    The only Justice for whom I have any respect any more is Thomas. If the entire curt consisted of people who basically decide caes the way he does, I'd be one happy fuckin camper.

    Was nice losing the brain-dead Stephens, and I was no fan of Souter, but picking up that useless hack Kagan and the Wise Latina....it actually got worse, I believe. Ugh indeed.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Sotomayor is better than Stevens. Which isn't saying much, as the so-called "lion of civil liberties" wrote disgusting opinions in support of the authoritarian position on both sides of the spectrum (Raich, Kelo).

  • iggy||

    The entire left wing of the court is atrocious and has been for years. I frequently disagree with some of the conservatives on the court too, but they at least bother making arguments from a constitutional basis and will respect the rights of the people much more frequently.

    The left wing basically says 'Whatever our liberal puppet masters want, they shall have! I shall dance on my master's strings!'

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Yep. The dissenters on both Raich and Kelo were all either conservative or conservative-leaning moderate, especially funny since drug warriorism is supposed to be a conservative position.

  • iggy||

    The Kelo decision is my favorite to rub in the faces of my left wing friends. The entire left wing decided it's okay for the government to take citizen's property and sell it to corporate interests. The dissenters were all conservatives.

    But conservatives and libertarians are the ones who only care about corporate interests? Okay.

  • Rich||

    Without missing a beat, Sotomayor replied, “Well, you’ll find out soon enough when a case comes up.”

    Madam Justice, you've been *confirmed*. You don't have to avoid giving a straight answer anymore.

  • AZ||

    She has to be evasive enough that she wouldn't be forced to recuse herself.

  • R C Dean||

    Kagan can actually help with the defense of ObamaCare before she takes the bench, and she doesn't have to recuse herself, so I doubt Sotomayor had anything to worry about.

  • BarryD||

    So she's made up her mind before hearing a case, is that what she's saying?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    She had it made up long ago. This is mere confirmation.

  • Tim||

    She's saying:" we're one Obama appointment from yanking all your guns, hillbilly cracker assholes. And when that day comes this is one Justice who will do a dance in the endzone."

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Has she changed her mind since she joint the dissent in Heller, that basically said the 2nd amendment only matters when the government wants it to?

  • ||

    It was a typical interview for the show, with host Stephen Colbert mostly staying in character as a right-wing blowhard while simultaneously lobbing softball questions at a friendly guest.

    And that's why I can't stand Colbert.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    What the heck purpose does he serve at this point?

    I mean, when he first came on, it made sense because O'Reilly/Hannity/etc who he's mimicking were actually fairly powerful opinion leaders and the people in power basically shared their viewpoints.

    Now he's basically just doing a Step'n Fetchit act for the people in power to point and laugh at.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    That's my question. What purpose does he serve? I never really liked him all that much. (I actually find his lack of pretense of objectivity to be a better format than Stewart's self-righteous show.) But his character hasn't been relevant since Obama got into office and MSNBC took over as the new FoxNews.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    IMHO he's worse than Stewart. Mockery is the lowest form of humor; it's OK in small doses, particularly when good-natured and spread around, but he's been mocking essentially the same person for 8 years now in a quite mean-spirited fashion.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    The period when Colbert was at least relevant (2005-2007), the part of the show he would alway lose me was in the interview portion. Stewart always condescend towards conservative/non-liberal guests, but he would at least let them speak their point. Colbert, instead, would always intrude on what the conservative/non-liberal guest was actually saying and insert an agreement by his character's point-of-view, as if to mock the guest by association.

  • Zeb||

    I've seen the show about twice, while Bush was still president. I thought it was very funny and clever, but it shouldn't have gone more than 1 or 2 seasons. But it really is played out. They need a fake Rachel Maddow or something.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    They cancelled Tough Crowd in 2004 to make room for Colbert. Comedy Central's reasoning was that South Park was their show that catered to non-liberal audience. That makes little sense to me as Tough Crowd would usually feature at least two liberal contributors each show.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Hmmm. The whole "fake partisan hack from the other side" thing seems played out, regardless of which side you're talking about. Can't we just go back to comedians making fun of every politician regardless of the letter after the name? It's not like they'll ever have to work hard to find material.

  • Zeb||

    "What the heck purpose does he serve at this point?"

    Selling ads for Comedy Central?

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    My dream Colbert interview would include him congratulating Madeline Albright on killing so many Iraqis with sanctions even though she was a Democrat. Throw in a "we thank you for your service".

    But that would require him to be a true satirist and not just a Team Blue Shill.

  • Mike M.||

    How appropriate it is for a joke like Sotomayor to be "interviewed" by a comedian.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Dude, it's the strategy for the left these days. How many times did BO get interviewed in Rolling Stone and People and Vanity Fair, when he wouldn't go near 60 Minutes or the Sunday morning shows during the campaign.

    And guess what? It worked. Behold our new American electorate.

  • T o n y||

    Especially compared to all that hard news media access Romney gave.

    Anyone whining about "the left" sounds like an idiot, no matter the context.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Excuse me? Romney went on all the Sunday morning shows and 60 Minutes.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    http://www.colbertnation.com/t.....ifer-burns

    As much as I hate Colbert, he remains the only liberal television personality to give a fair on Ayn Rand.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    *fair take.

  • pmains||

    So, he didn't just purposefully misconstrue a statement or two taken out of context and probably portrayed as meaning the precise opposite of what Rand intended?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    At any rate the amendment doesn't say *which* arms the people are entitled to keep and bear (a phrase with a definite martial connotation).


    Which means they can bear all arms, Tony.

  • Contrarian P||

    Yeah no kidding. I doubt he'd type something so stupid as "the amendment doesn't say what kind of free religion one can practice" or "the kind of freedom of speech one can utter". I'm still amazed that his ilk don't see that their argument is ridiculous if applied in another context, which is usually what happens to intellectual laziness.

  • T o n y||

    So nukes?

  • Josua||

    The Socialist-appointed token Latina opposes the 2nd amendment?

    Surely you jest.

    Excuse me while I emulate an expression of shock.

  • waaminn||

    This does indeed seem to juve, I like it.

    www.ur-anon.tk

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement