Posted on 05/26/2009 10:11:13 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
When Claude Raines declared in the film Casablanca that he was “Shocked” that gambling was going on at Humphrey Bogart’s nightclub, it became one of the most oft-repeated sarcasms in the American lexicon.
Well, the whole world must be “shocked” that Barack Obama has nominated a (gasp!) liberal to replace retiring liberal Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Second District Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 54, born in the Bronx and a self-proclaimed “Newyorkrican,” according to the Associated Press, probably will not be a good news justice for gun owners, should the Senate confirm her nomination. She was part of the Second District panel that ruled in the Maloney v. Cuomo case that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. However, thanks to the Nordyke ruling in the Ninth Circuit earlier this year, incorporation may wind up before the high court.
Will Sotomayor recuse herself from deliberations in an incorporation case? During the confirmation hearings, we can all hope that some courageous Republican, or even a pro-gun Democrat, will ask her about that.
I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it. - Judge Sonia Sotomayor
If the Supremes take an incorporation case and rule that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, it could render many existing gun laws moot. Growing up under New York’s racist gun laws (the Sullivan Law was adopted largely to prevent “Lower Europeans” and poor immigrants from arming themselves) does not give one a rational perspective on firearm civil rights. However, during confirmation hearings for her appeals court position, Sotomayor remarked, “I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”
If she is confirmed, Sotomayor may get an opportunity to prove that she believes what she says.
The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If one believes that the Second Amendment right to arms is absolute, as was discussed in my previous column, then the Sullivan Law, the Brady Law, the Gun Control Act of 1968 and thousands of other gun control laws are unconstitutional because they invariably infringe upon the absolute right.
Nominating an apparent anti-gunner to the Supreme Court should come as no surprise for Obama watchers. The other day, when he reluctantly signed into law an amendment to the credit card bill that opens national parks to the carrying of loaded guns for personal protection, Obama was not displaying some new-found affection toward gun rights. He was over a barrel, he needed the credit card bill, and he – in figurative terms – bit the bullet.
Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. - Jeffrey Rosen, writing in The New Republic, May 4, 2009
True, Democrats have been acting as if the National Rifle Association and other gun rights organizations have nothing to fear from this Congress. Sixty-five Democrat House members warned Attorney General Eric Holder to button his lip about renewal of the ban on semiautomatic rifles. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi essentially warned that new gun laws are unwelcome on Capitol Hill these days.
Since the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment last June, Democrats have rushed to embrace the individual rights philosophy, even if they had spent their entire careers supporting restrictive gun laws.
Former NRA President Sandra Froman, a savvy Tucson, AZ attorney, spent much of her tenure as an NRA officer warning people that the wrong person in the White House would shape the appointed-for-life federal judiciary. Still, many gun owners turned their backs on Republican John McCain and actually voted for Obama.
The new president and his Democrat-controlled Congress are frustrating the gun prohibition fanatics. Six months ago, they were crowing at Obama’s election, and blustering about the likelihood of new gun laws, a revived and expanded ban on so-called “assault weapons,” and more restrictions.
Today, we have a cool reception on Capitol Hill for new gun laws and the renewed ban, and overwhelming bipartisan support for national parks carry, which is now law and takes effect in nine months.
Will Sotomayor’s confirmation to the high court change things dramatically? Probably it will change nothing at all. She replaces a liberal; the balance of philosophy is maintained. But there is already some momentum building against her nomination.
But what happens if a conservative justice dies or swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy steps down? Who would Obama then appoint? Considering some of the other potential nominees who lost out to Sotomayor, thinking about that might be enough to keep gun owners awake at night.
The confirmation hearings will be interesting. Of course now that windbag Biden is not on the judiciary committee anymore, they’ll be a lot shorter.
LOL, Agreed.
Of course now that windbag Biden is not on the judiciary committee anymore, they’ll be a lot shorter.
He’s now Vice Windbag!.....
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.