« Judge Sotomayor and Five Million Criminal Votes for Obama | Main | Visiting Our Troops Through Images »
May 27, 2009
Sotomayor Ruled Against Gun Rights!
Sotomayor believes 2nd Amendment not for Individuals
By Mathew D. Staver
Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed, Sotomayor would become the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the High Court.
Sotomayor is a graduate of Princeton and obtained her law degree from Yale. She served in private practice and as Assistant District Attorney in New York County and was nominated to the Second Circuit federal Court of Appeals by President George H. W. Bush in 1991.
Despite 17 years on the bench, Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion is constitutional. In Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, she wrote an opinion that upheld the Mexico City Policy prohibiting federal funding of overseas abortions.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals. While on a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she argued that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Judge Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed. She has carried 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. In Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Chief Justice Roberts stated that her method of reading the statute in question “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
She has written in support of Affirmative Action, upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and in Amandola v. Town of Babylon, she wrote that denying use of a town hall annex for their worship services violated the First Amendment. She has written a book called “The International Judge,” which suggests that international law and policy should be considered in some court decisions.
Some have described her temperament on the bench as a “bully” and “abusive” to lawyers.
.
Sotomayor Nomination an Obama Slap at Second Amendment
and The Liberty Sphere via Atlas Shrugs
BELLEVUE, WA
The nomination of Second Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court is a slap at gun rights and the Second Amendment, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.
Judge Sotomayor, a New York native, ruled on a Second Circuit Appeals Court panel that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states in the case of Maloney v. Cuomo. This ruling is in direct conflict with a Ninth Circuit Court ruling in the Nordyke v. King case in California that the Second Amendment is incorporated through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
“While Democrats in Congress have been making great strides in the gun rights arena, refusing to consider a renewal of the Clinton gun ban, and offering overwhelming bipartisan support for legislation allowing citizens to carry firearms in national parks, President Obama just demonstrated that he prefers judges who oppose Second Amendment rights,” said SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb.
Incorporation may be taken up by the high court during its next session beginning in October, because attorneys in the Maloney case plan to appeal in late June.
“If the Maloney appeal is accepted by the Supreme Court,” Gottlieb wondered, “would Justice Sotomayor – provided she is confirmed – recuse herself from deliberations?”
Judge Sotomayor has written an opinion that declined to order the release of certain information under the Freedom of Information Act. In one case, according to SCOTUSblog, she wrote that the “unwarranted invasion of privacy” for individuals whose names would be release under an FOIA request outweighed the public interest.
“Would a Justice Sotomayor be just as protective of the privacy rights of concealed carry permit holders if a newspaper wanted to publish that information,” Gottlieb asked. “We hope that during Senate confirmation hearings, someone asks about her positions on incorporation and the privacy rights of gun owners. The Second Amendment needs to be expanded, not eviscerated.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nations oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers and an amicus brief and fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Wild Thing's comment........
Obama and Sotomayer can 'rule' that the second doesn't apply all day long.,but it doesn't mean many of us would not fight back.
Here are some words from the past.........
“Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters.
“This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” ~~Frederick Douglass August 4, 1857
Douglass was, of course, speaking of the slavery then extant here.
So, too, are we.
.
....Thank you Mark for sending this to me.
Mark
3rd Mar.Div. 1st Battalion 9th Marine Regiment
1/9 Marines aka The Walking Dead
VN 66-67
Posted by Wild Thing at May 27, 2009 06:48 AM
Comments
Of course she's against the Constitutional right to own firearms. If she wasn't, Obama would have never picked her.
Posted by: BobF at May 27, 2009 07:32 AM
Of course she ruled against guns. Guns hurt and kill people you know. But did anyone else hear how she told white firefighters that they couldn't have their promotions because not enough black firefighters passed the promotion tests? She thought it would be racist to give those promotions to all white people. Maybe the blacks should have tried harder, hmmm? So she gave the promotions to the hispanics who passed the test. Now tell me again how that isn't racist itself? I do not agree with this pick one bit. Rumor has it, Obama might get to pick up to 3 more during his Presidency. If he gets that, our country is doomed forever!
Posted by: Lynn at May 27, 2009 08:17 AM
What a teriffic quote by Mr. Douglass. The writings of the folks in the mid 19th century never cease to amaze me. The eloquence and penmanship are becoming a thing of the past.
We all knew he would pick a leftist judge. You have to give him points for cunning in also picking a candidate that carries the shield of race and gender to get her through the confirmation process.
Posted by: jim warren at May 27, 2009 09:18 AM
This is why Sovereignty is so important to States. Each State has a Constitution and each Constitution guarantees the The Second Amendment in that state.
Secondly, I don't think we can stop her confirmation unless some democrats cross over. The only saving grace in this is she's replacing a Liberal already on the court. Bad news she's not the brightest bulb in the box and will be there for along time.
Posted by: Mark at May 27, 2009 09:21 AM
The only difference between Sotomayor and Obama is she's able to coherently speak without the puppet strings.
The presidential oath is only 35 words, and honestly it is very easy to remember.
Obama flubbed the lines at the inaugural, then took it again in secret behind that transparent door of his transparent office, no matter, he has no intention of upholding that oath in the first place, now that he has another chance to rectify ignoring his sworn duty, he is about to add another 'constitutional lawyer' to the SCOTUS that values the sworn oath in the same way.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
SCOTUS Oath:
Every traitor in both houses of Congress should be up in arms about this, but since when have they upheld their oaths?
Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2009 11:02 AM
Treasonous bitch!
Posted by: Glenn Cassel AMH1(AW) USN RET at May 27, 2009 05:16 PM
Thank you everyone for your input and links.
This is all overwhelming sometimes. So
manuy America hating, Constitutional haters
and no real way to fight back.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 27, 2009 11:53 PM
This is what I was worried about. The House and Senate change party majorities, but Justices hold their position for life. Considering that some judges are past the age of retirement, and I don't doubt that one or two will, this concerns me.
You know, there was a time I actually considered voting for Obama. What the hell I was thinking, I have no idea. Course, I'm a college student, so you know what I'm surrounded by. He's actually worse than I feared. I knew he'd raise taxes, I knew he's drag us deeper into debt, but I never expected this. Never thought he'd go on a tour saying how horrible America is. I never believed he would bow to a Saudi King. (though what really pissed me off is that he LIED about it)
Kind of strange since I'm a cynical person. If I underestimated this, what kind of trouble are we in?
And can we survive?
Posted by: Trevor at May 29, 2009 10:09 PM
