Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

KOPEL: Sotomayor targets guns now
Washington Times ^ | 06/29/2010 | Dave Kopel

Posted on 06/29/2010 5:43:51 PM PDT by OldDeckHand

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters' assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

Regarding the key issue in McDonald - whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments - Justice Sotomayor resolutely refused to tell the senators how she might vote. So in voting against incorporating the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor was not inconsistent with what she had told the Senate. But regarding Heller, her actions as a justice broke her promises from last summer.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; 2taketherepublicaway; 4thecommongood; banglist; elenakagan; guns; hearings; kagan; nra; rtkba; scotus; supremecourt; testimony; ussc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Kopel lays out a pretty stinging indictment of Sotomayer. It's pretty clear she lied during her confirmation hearings, although that probably doesn't come to a surprise to anyone.
1 posted on 06/29/2010 5:43:53 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
...contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

Say it ain't so - the wise latina LIED?

2 posted on 06/29/2010 5:45:32 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; Jet Jaguar; NorwegianViking; ExTexasRedhead; HollyB; FromLori; ...
The list, ping

Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list

3 posted on 06/29/2010 5:46:34 PM PDT by Nachum (The complete Obama list at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Perhaps the liberal idiots that are playing lovey-dovey with “empty suit” Kagan will notice this and get a clue. But I doubt it. The mental disease of liberalism is pretty much chronic and incurable.


4 posted on 06/29/2010 5:48:28 PM PDT by upchuck (Don't let freedom slip away. After America, there is no place to go ~ Kitty Werthmann - Google her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

It seems they are going to keep on until they create a lot of undocumented guns.


5 posted on 06/29/2010 5:50:47 PM PDT by lonestar (Barry is furious the big spill wasn't caused by EXXON...would have nationalized it by now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent - contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

You mean an obama flunkie lied? Who would have ever guessed? < /sarcasm>

6 posted on 06/29/2010 5:51:46 PM PDT by abortionisalwaysmurder (Before you kill your baby, ask yourself, What did the baby do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

are the nominees under oath?


7 posted on 06/29/2010 5:53:03 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

are the nominees under oath?


8 posted on 06/29/2010 5:53:12 PM PDT by Charlespg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
What is clear is that Liberals must be removed from any ability to affect our freedoms. The leftist must be removed from the Executive, Justice and Education (including at the state & local level) it is becoming more clear everyday that a major electoral purge needs to occur with subsequent clean out of all government departments.
9 posted on 06/29/2010 5:54:58 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

There is no reason to hold hearings. No democrat will ever tell the truth under oath, and no Democrat will ever follow up on one who lies.

Kagan would swear on her Momma’s grave that she kisses a 44 Magnum revolver every night, if in return she can get on the Court and make up law for the next 40 years.

ANY Republican who doesn’t oppose her by every mean possible is unacceptable. Sadly, Kagan will get on the court and will try to ban guns for as long as she lives. And Christians. And babies. And freedom.


10 posted on 06/29/2010 5:56:57 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (When the ass brays, don't reply...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Wait until the GOP girlymen in the Senate send Barry’s latest pig up to the U.S. Pig Farm. The whole Bill of Rights is going to be toast.


11 posted on 06/29/2010 5:57:28 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Hey America! Had enough "history" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Why does it matter that she lied. Sen Alexander of Tn knew she had 2nd Admendment issues. He endorsed and voted for her.RINO


12 posted on 06/29/2010 5:57:56 PM PDT by Sir Beowolf (We The People!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
I believe they are.

Does the GOP have the nerve to challange them when they lie? I'm pretty sure they don't.

13 posted on 06/29/2010 6:02:33 PM PDT by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Now more than ever it should be apparent to everyone that liberals have very fluid, ever-morphing ethics. O’Reilly was just commenting on how the Rolling Stone reporter, Hastings, supposedly promised McChrystal that all comments would be “off the record” and then published every last word.

Liberals find it perfectly acceptable to flat out lie if they think the end justifies that mean. They have that in common with a certain religion that has a teaching that makes it A-OK to lie to infidels if it serves Allah (I won’t mention them for fear of Oh-Fending anyone, don’t want that, no sir-—you’ll just have to guess).


14 posted on 06/29/2010 6:03:26 PM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
"are the nominees under oath?"

Yes, but unfortunately perjury (18 USC § 1001, Making a false statement, in this case) isn't a "forward-looking" offense. IOW, you're affirming under oath that the answers you're giving then are correct and truthful. She always has the "I changed my mind" defense.

Someone would need to find some evidence that she was being deceitful at the time of her testimony, and that's not likely.

Congress, OTOH, could still impeach her ass, although no one would dare, unfortunately.

15 posted on 06/29/2010 6:04:35 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer. “

Was it Marx who said the end justifies the means? Or was it Engels? Lenin? Stalin? Khrushchev? Alinsky? Clinton? Dohrn? Obama?


16 posted on 06/29/2010 6:06:46 PM PDT by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Beowolf
-- Sen Alexander of Tn knew she had 2nd Admendment issues. --

IIRC, he's not a staunch second amendment fellow, himself. Talks a good game, and talks, and talks and talks.

17 posted on 06/29/2010 6:11:59 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

They can do whatever ,But how are the Rats going to enforce it??


18 posted on 06/29/2010 6:13:03 PM PDT by Cheetahcat (Zero the Wright kind of Racist! We are in a state of War with Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What I find most surprising about this is the number of people who seem to be surprised...
She’s a libtard. She will push the progressive agenda to the limits of her notion of the law. And, if she can’t see the logic, she’ll make it up.

It’s time to take back the country.


19 posted on 06/29/2010 6:23:05 PM PDT by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

He! It will take guns to do that. You know that, right?


20 posted on 06/29/2010 6:23:41 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DBrow

All of them. I’m re-reading Hayek’s `The Road to Serfdom.’
He covers socialist realpolitik and “the end justifies the means” in Chapter 6, “Planning and the Rule of Law.” (Keeping in mind their definition of “planning”: centralized control which does not contemplate an armed proletariat.)


21 posted on 06/29/2010 6:24:55 PM PDT by tumblindice ("We are guardians of the taxpayers' money." Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa, (presumably w/ a straight face)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg
are the nominees under oath?

They sure are. But, there's nothing we can do if they lie, short of impeachment. We already know how that's going to end.

There is no controlling authority. It may be illegal as all get-out, but there is no way to enforce it.

22 posted on 06/29/2010 6:25:18 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Build a man a fire; he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire; he'll be warm the rest of his life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The wide Latina strikes again.


23 posted on 06/29/2010 6:31:35 PM PDT by beethovenfan (If Islam is the solution, the "problem" must be freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Leftists cannot lie as they are Marxists. Marxists deal with contradiction by using the technique of thesis, antithesis resulting in synthesis. (From Memory)


24 posted on 06/29/2010 6:33:23 PM PDT by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Say it ain't so - the wise latina LIED?

When you're smarter than everyone else, it's OK to lie to them for their own good.

25 posted on 06/29/2010 6:38:56 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport
Liberals find it perfectly acceptable to flat out lie if they think the end justifies that means. They have that in common with a certain religion that has a teaching that makes it A-OK to lie to infidels if it serves Allah...

*******************************************

It also applies to all levels of law enforcement in America from the beat cop to the prosecutors/lawyers and the president himself. So why not the members of the Supreme Court?

26 posted on 06/29/2010 6:44:18 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; DBrow

Deck Hand’s point is a good one. She can say virtually anything during hearings, and then “change her mind” later. It’s not perjury. And in any case, people being interviewed cannot guarantee how they will rule on later cases. The operative guideline is “the ends justifies the means.” Say anything, anything at all, just get the position, and then the rubber stamping can begin. The Constitution can then be changed at will to mean anything that the liberals find convenient at the time.


27 posted on 06/29/2010 6:44:35 PM PDT by Enterprise (As a disaster unfolds, a putz putts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MileHi
"He! It will take guns to do that. You know that, right?

And your point would be what? I said electoral didn't I? That's a good place to start anyway.

28 posted on 06/29/2010 6:48:55 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

29 posted on 06/29/2010 6:50:20 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
And your point would be what? I said electoral didn't I? That's a good place to start anyway.

Well, this November will be your last first chance to see how well that works out for you. Godspeed...

30 posted on 06/29/2010 6:56:30 PM PDT by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: lonestar

What will happen, is that these idiots will create a civil
war with the American citizens...they are so ignorant and have no clue of what they are doing....I say bring it on if they can handle it.......


31 posted on 06/29/2010 7:15:27 PM PDT by Bullfrogg (American by birth, Irish by heritage, and hellraiser by choice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Lying to Congress? That is so ghetto!

;-/

32 posted on 06/29/2010 7:24:02 PM PDT by Gargantua (DON'T TREAD ON US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I agree with you that impeachment would be appropriate and also agree that it is not going to happen.

We seem to have forgotten that members of the judiciary are not granted life tenure, but instead are to serve only during a period of good behavior.

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior...

Unlike the president, the standard for removal is not high crimes and misdemeanors, but is simply bad behavior. While occasional bad judgment or misinterpretation of a law or constitutional provision may not constitute bad behavior, the flagrant disregard or holding irrelevant of a constitutional provision or amendment clearly does.

Just as we voters need to impose discipline on congress, that body needs to step up and impose discipline on the courts. The founders provided for elections to enable us to control the behavior of congress and gave them the impeachment power to keep the courts from getting out of control. There is not a lack of tools, just a lack of will.


33 posted on 06/29/2010 7:25:23 PM PDT by etcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Charlespg

That doesn’t mean anything anymore. The entire process is pointless theater as the Democrat party is interested only in the raw exercise of naked power — and the destruction of America.


34 posted on 06/29/2010 7:37:37 PM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.


35 posted on 06/29/2010 8:14:44 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.


36 posted on 06/29/2010 8:14:49 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

What’s Spanish for “Taqiyya”?


37 posted on 06/29/2010 8:28:39 PM PDT by Mortrey (Impeach President Soros)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

“What is clear is that Liberals must be removed from any ability to affect our freedoms. The leftist must be removed from the Executive, Justice and Education (including at the state & local level) it is becoming more clear everyday that a major electoral purge needs to occur with subsequent clean out of all government departments.”

I’ll pose this as a very serious question:

What happens when “major electoral purges” don’t work?


38 posted on 06/29/2010 8:45:04 PM PDT by Grumplestiltskin (I may look new, but it's only deja vu!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

‘...contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.’

Hey, this is 2010 - just because you’re a judge, doesn’t mean you can’t lie like a criminal.


39 posted on 06/29/2010 9:09:49 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“Everything about socialism is sham and affectation.” 23.11 Ch23 Evil; Economic Harmonies; Frederic Bastiat 1801-1850.


40 posted on 06/29/2010 9:20:20 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

The outrage is that 4 of America’s robed totalitarian mullah’s haven’t resigned yet.


41 posted on 06/29/2010 9:22:19 PM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments

On the plain language of it the 14th Amendment does NOT make the 2nf Amendment enforceable ăinst states and localities. It is ALREADY enforceable against the states and localities. The wording of the 2nd is absolute. It does not reference the Congress. It says "shall not be infringed" and does not say who shall not infringe. It allows no exceptions. The 1st Amendment is a stricture on Congress. It says so. It did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment "incorporated" it. The 2nd Amendment needed no such incorporation in order to apply to the states and localitiesand to employers and your neighbors and everyone else! It does not even allow of banning possession by felons. It is ABSOLUTE. Why are supposedly Constitutionalist Justices inventing the incorporation fantasy for the 2nd unless that makes it easier to strike it down later?

42 posted on 06/30/2010 4:40:46 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson" to have your econ arguments at hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bullfrogg

“What will happen, is that these idiots will create a civil
war with the American citizens..”

It’s been my opinion that the idiots on the SC precipitated the first Civil War with its Fugitive Slave Act ruling in 1851. The idiots on the court think they’re blessed with divine protection. If the court starts a second civil war, we’ll see.


43 posted on 06/30/2010 6:50:09 AM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
lied during her confirmation

wouldn't this be considered perjury and grounds for removal.

44 posted on 06/30/2010 6:54:58 AM PDT by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grumplestiltskin
"I’ll pose this as a very serious question: What happens when “major electoral purges” don’t work?

Really? We keep purging until it does work, because if things don't change what do you think will happen on the streets? We can't afford for things not to change can we? We have been here before.

45 posted on 06/30/2010 2:41:26 PM PDT by WHBates
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand; wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; ...
Sotomayor is water under the bridge. I doubt her vote in McDonald surprised many. But with it being only a 5-4 decision, we don't need any more gun grabbers on that bench. We need a third female moonbat from NY like a hole in the head.

This is one of my rare ping everyone pings. Kagan must be stopped!

Kagan notes label KKK and NRA as 'bad guy' organizations

NRA holding its fire on Kagan, puzzling others on right

"Ms. Sotomayor comfortably won confirmation, with nine Senate Republicans voting for her."

Confirmation Sonia Sotomayor, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, Roll Call Vote

Alexander (R-TN), Bond (R-MO), Collins (R-ME), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R-NH), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), Snowe (R-ME) and Voinovich (R-OH) voted YEA for Sotomayor.

If you want to call the National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action the number is 800-392-8683. When you start to get number options, click on 4. I had to wait a few minutes. I was told that they would probably score the Kagan vote.

46 posted on 06/30/2010 2:51:15 PM PDT by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

INDEED TO THE MAX.


47 posted on 06/30/2010 2:56:10 PM PDT by Quix (THE PLAN of the Bosses: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2519352/posts?page=2#2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
whether the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments

I don't like the 14th amendment argument. Unlike the 1st amendment which says "Congress shall make no law..." the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (emphasis added) When the document says a right of the people shall not be infringed, rather than "congress shall make no law" then clearly you don't need a 14th amendment incorporation to extend the protection of the people.

48 posted on 06/30/2010 2:59:51 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WHBates
Well if it doesn’t we’ll have to cross that bridge when we get there.

Or drive off of it as Teddy would say.

49 posted on 06/30/2010 3:02:39 PM PDT by VRWCmember
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
"When the document says a right of the people shall not be infringed, rather than "congress shall make no law" then clearly you don't need a 14th amendment incorporation to extend the protection of the people. "

Right, but remember, for a period of time in our nation's history, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. This is why states like MA and VA actually had official state religions. But, over time, and especially with Slaughter-House cases coming out of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, more and more of the BORs became incorporated.

50 posted on 06/30/2010 3:04:57 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson