Tuesday, May 26, 2009

REVEALED! I Am A Wise Latino Woman...

...hummmmm, maybe not

Here David Kopel's analysis: 
Judge Sotomayor's record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
And from Damon Root at Reason Online
Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well. 

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

This split between the two circuits means that the Supreme Court is almost certain to take up the question in the near future. What role might soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor play? As gun rights scholar and Independence Institute Research Director Dave Kopel told me via email, Sotomayor's opinions "demonstrate a profound hostility to Second Amendment rights. If we follow Senator Obama's principle that Senators should vote against judges whose views on legal issues are harmful, then it is hard to see how someone who supports Second Amendment rights could vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor."
And so we continue on the hell-bound train. If Maximum Barry had his heart set on a female Hispanic Justice with an "empathetic" resume and "varied life experience," America would be far better served by Daisy Fuentes. 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Elections matter.

The mcSame, mcAmnesty, and no different from BHO crowd should reflect long and hard on this antigun nomination to the court. We'll just have to hope the 5 progun justices don't get sick or retire.

Anonymous said...

Daisy Fuentes works for me!

Timothy

Anonymous said...

We need the NRA to count her confirmation vote against the NRA grade of the Senators that vote for her.

Anonymous said...

Daisy Fuentes - cute, nice rack, but is she pro-2A?

When you're a single-issue person, it means you are a single-issue person!

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:26 A. M.: Most of us here, are not "single-issue people". This may be close to single-issue blog, because it focuses on "2A" issues, but we do go off into other subjects. Nearly all of us here are in fact multiple issue people. The Second Amendment is very high on our lists however, because it sets the stage for the freedom necessary to focus on all of the other issues. The First Amendment is right up there too, otherwise no blog!
We're real!
Life Member

Tom said...

Funny, the 14th Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Since the fed law is supreme, and guarantees an individual right, STATE law cannot contradict that. Black and white, in the text. Can anyone please explain what drugs or mental limitations one has to be on or have to not be able to understand the text?

Does the 2nd, like the 1st, mention congress? Does it have the wording of the 3rd "but in a manner to be prescribed by law."? Do the 4th-8th also not apply to the states?

What a crock!


To that wise "latino" woman, FU you racist, activist, illiterate, bigot!

Chas said...

"We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right."

Obviously, her "rich experiences" do not include paying attention to the activities of dead, white, European males. If Sonia gets on the Supreme Court, prepare to be Sotomized.