Posted on 05/26/2009 7:58:58 AM PDT by xzins
I doubt it, since that position would put her to the right of Scalia.
You are not the problem at all. You had the foresight to see that this is what happens. Those who worked to undermine the campaign are now getting this - and they have no right to complain because they got what they asked for.
That she is replacing one of similar bent on the court does not make me any less hostile to the notion of her being a judge at any level, let alone in the highest court in our nation.
That line is a quote from an earlier case (US v. Toner) and is found in a footnote of Sanchez-Villar.
According to Sotomayor, “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”.....
So Scotusminor wants to be the fuse that starts the next civil war?.....So be it!....Bring it on Urkel!
Which is negated by Heller.
Neither option, 0 or McCain was acceptable, but one of those candidates was inevitable and I viewed McCain as the lesser of two evils. I maintained that position throughout the campaign/election with particular emphasis placed on the selection of SC judges by the next president.
So, how's you righteous adherence to true conservative principles holding up in 0's world.
Whoa: this is an awful citation. The case involved charges of possession of 1.2kg of crack cocaine and an illegal alien in possession of a gun. Not a good example of a 2nd Amendment case.
http://vlex.com/vid/america-jose-sanchez-villar-defendant-18536849
“Defendant-appellant Jose Sanchez -v.- llar was convicted, following a jury trial, in the Southern District of New York (Schwartz, J.) of one count of distribution and possession with intent to distribute approximately 1.2 kilograms of cocaine base (”crack” cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A), and of one count of possession of a firearm by an illegal alien, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(A). Sanchez -v.- llar was sentenced principally to 235 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, Sanchez -v.- llar, proceeding pro se, argues that his conviction should be reversed because he received ineffective assistance from trial counsel. Specifically, he claims that his counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the warrantless seizure of the firearm and the police officers’ subsequent warrentless arrest of him.”
” “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” (U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, 2004).”
The above gives an indication of the way she leans. As I understand it, she was citing another case via that statement, and that it was support for another point she was making.
It’s also not a case wherein you’d want to argue that a drug dealer shouldn’t have his gunrights violated.
The point, though, is that she went there, and apparently, she didn’t have to. Plenty of laws about committing a crime with a gun that I have no problem with.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
No, she was referring to the Federal government interfering with a "right" of the states.
Was the point being made that, because it's not a fundamental right, it's not "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment?
Bad cases may make bad law, but they still make law.
One of the most important 2nd amendment cases, US vs Miller, involved a couple of moonshiners, at least one of whom had earlier been a bank robbert.
Here's the footnote, in it's entirety:
[1]-. We reject Sanchez -v.- llar's argument that New York's statutory scheme offends the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. amend. II, ; United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) (stating that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right").
Toner was a case involving an FBI sting of a pair of guys, one of them an illegal Irish immigrant, trying to buy M-16s for the IRA. In that case, the context of the quote is:
Murphy was convicted under Count Four of violating 18 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1202(a)(5) (1976), which makes it a felony for an illegal alien to receive, possess or transport "in commerce or affecting commerce ... any firearm." Because receiving, possessing or transporting firearms in interstate commerce is not in and of itself a crime, United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. at 339 n. 4, 92 S.Ct. at 518 n. 4, and because being an illegal alien is not in and of itself a crime, Murphy argues that his Fifth Amendment right to equal protection of the law is violated by section 1202(a)(5). He concedes, however, that the statute passes constitutional muster if it rests on a rational basis, a concession which is clearly correct since the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right, cf. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (in the absence of evidence showing that firearm has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," Second Amendment does not guarantee right to keep and bear such a weapon), and since illegal aliens are not a suspect class.So ultimately the quote rests on US v. Miller, and even Scalia, in Heller, says "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."
Another case of a simple cite that cannot really be trusted. Miller said nothing about it being or not being a fundamental right. As Scalia pointed out, no right is unlimited, certainly rights can be removed via due process, even the rights to life and liberty. But that does not mean they are not fundamental.
There are lots of those shakey (at best) citations running around in Second Amendmetn Jurisprudence. See:
Thanks.
There is also no mention of her marital status. At 54, is she still single? Or has a domestic partner?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.