Posted on 06/11/2009 1:53:18 PM PDT by anniegetyourgun
When the lefties are replacing a lefty on the Supreme Court with another lefty, the balance is preserved and the downside to the country is somewhat minimized. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. If Obama were filling Scalia's seat for example, this would be a Battle Royale. I figured that the Republicans can't stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.
Though she says she supports Heller's holding that the 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Government from banning guns, still undecided is the issue of whether that holding also applies to state bans. The Supreme Court has, over the years, decided that each Amendment in the Bill of Rights does indeed also apply to the states. It is crucial that Heller be read the same way. In a rare moment of candor from a SCOTUS nominee, Sotomayor seems to have tipped her hand: No dice.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
Right: Sotanomore
Plus, I live in TX so I have no fears about gun restraints... at least yet.
It’s noteworthy that our legal class seems not to believe in the law.
My two Texas Senators will gladly vote for her so as to avoid the racism charge of not voting for her.
Let me answer that for her:
No dice
Logic isn’t part of a leftist mentality.
Why not? Our Treasury Secretary doesn't believe in paying taxes either.
She also said that judges should make policy.
Molon labe, Judge Latina.
That was proved with the MOPAR deal.
This is why "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" should be cornerstones for our inalienable and God-given freedoms. And Life includes protection of life at the beginning -- and pro-life should, therefore, not be a state prerogative, but a federally protected right.
Yuri Brezmenov (Tomas ScHuman), 1983, explains in detail what we are seeing today. First you will face-palm, then you will cry. I suggest watching all of it before it’s pulled from YouTube, again.
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals examined in Maloney v. Cuomo a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law prohibiting possession of “nunchucks,” a martial arts weapon, violated his 2nd Amendment rights. Sotomayor and the 2nd Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision that the 2nd Amendment applies only to federal laws and not to states or municipalities.
Sotomayor flunks legal logic 101: If the States can pass laws which nullify the Constitution (including the Amendments) then we would have anarchy. The States could pass laws, for example, which prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press. The entire Constitution would be a joke, if it isn’t already. A book to read is “The Dirty Dozen” about 12 Supreme Court cases by Levy and Mellor.
Sotomayor is not qualified to be a Supreme Court judge.
Then neither does the first amendment.
If the States could pass laws which nullify the 2nd Amendment, then they could pass laws which prohibit freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the press, thereby gutting the 1st Amendment. In fact, the entire Constitution would be vulnerable to a multitude of State laws, and the existence of the United States as one nation would be in jeopardy.
Sotomayor is a threat to our Constitution.
Thanks for this (provocative) link!
“I figured that the Republicans can’t stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.”
Or perhaps this, if our Republicans on the Senate Judiciary have the gonads to represent us Republicans, it appears they have the power to thwart the nomination:
“Law professor Michael Dorf wrote that the Senate Judiciary Committee has a rule that one member of the minority party must agree for a matter to be brought to a vote. Otherwise the matter will not be voted on. Dorf is a law professor at Cornell University and a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.”
“We confirmed the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rule that the blog cited. Rule IV states, “The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.”
However, if on the committee, before I refused to vote for Sotomayor, I would ask her, “If, as you say it is undecided, what legal theory is required to apply the 2d to the states, and was such a theory required to apply the lst Ad. to the states; i.e., what is the difference between the two amendments?
“Government exists by the consent of the governed; however, if the governed are denied the right of self defense, those in power may exist in whatever form they choose.”
I could swear you wrote “Sotomanure.”
Silly me.
Obambi has picked a real winner here...
I could see saying that the 1st Ammendment doesn’t apply to the states, since the phrasing is “Congress shall make no law...” but it is nonsensical to believe that an Amendement that reads “the right of the people to *insert anything here* shall not be infringed” places a limit on who is prohibited from doing the restricting.
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.