Posted on 06/03/2009 5:35:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment.
Most nominees come before the Senate Judiciary Committee and refuse to answer questions about hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, gun rights and the death penalty. The nominee usually says something about not wanting to prejudge future decisions that may come before the High Court.
But Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. If Sotomayor’s view becomes the view of the Supreme Court, your right to own the weapon of your choice in your home may be taken away.
Because of this decision, Sotomayor may have a problem getting confirmed by the Senate. If the Sotomayor nomination becomes a referendum on the Second Amendment, it’s unlikely she’ll be confirmed.
After all, during the past few months the Senate has voted three times on pro-gun legislation. Each of these legislative amendments passed with overwhelming bipartisan margins. Clearly, the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own and carry a weapon is held by more Senators than the view that the Second Amendment is an empty phrase.
Back in January, the 2nd Circuit issued a decision in Maloney v. Cuomo that upheld New York’s complete ban on the possession of a chuka stick (or nunchukas). James Maloney had been arrested at his home in 2000 for possessing the weapon. He argued that his Second Amendment rights were violated by the state of New York, because he had arms in his home (the nunchukas) for the protection of his family.
The decision, coauthored by Sotomayor, was dismissive of Maloney’s 2nd Amendment claims. Sotomayor and two other justices held that the “statute neither interferes with a fundamental right or singles out a suspect classification.” They held that a state legislature has the right to pass a complete ban on weapons in the home, because the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
David Kopel of the Cato Institute, a Second Amendment scholar, argues that the position supported by Sotomayor was “oddly evasive” and gave “short shrift to Maloney’s argument.” Kopel told Human Events, “The Sotomayor opinion does not even acknowledge the legally serious argument that was relevant to this case: that under modern Supreme Court doctrine, the Due Process clause of 14th Amendment has made most provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, and the Supreme Court’s standards for which portions of the Bill of Rights are ‘incorporated’ by the 14th Amendment strongly indicate that the Second Amendment is incorporated.” In short, Sotomayor doesn’t seem to have given any meaningful constitutional weight to the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, nor the natural right of people to protect themselves.
This nominee’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is of particular importance in the confirmation battle because of the Senate’s track record on gun issues. In February the Senate voted 62-36 for an Amendment offered by Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) to restore the Second Amendment rights to District of Columbia residents. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s striking down the District of Columbia’s oppressive gun-control laws, D.C. v. Heller, and holding that the Second Amendment is an individual right, the Senate passed an Amendment to restore the gun rights of the residents of D.C.
The D.C. gun rights vote was a preview of two other Senate votes. The Senate voted on guns again in April by a 63-35 margin for an Amendment by Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) to ensure that law-abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage. This Amendment was necessary to remove an Amtrak ban on guns in checked luggage.
The third Senate vote on gun rights was May 12th when the Senate voted 67-29 for an Amendment by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK). This Amendment, known as the “Guns in Parks” language, restored the gun rights of law abiding Americans -- subject to state law restrictions -- in our nation’s national parks.
Sixteen Democrats voted for all three gun amendments, including Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, Michael Bennet and Mark Udall of Colorado, Robert Casey and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanch Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Jim Webb of Virginia. All of these Democrats will be on the hot seat if the Sotomayor nomination becomes a referendum on whether the Second Amendment is a fundamental right of all Americans.
If Sonia Sotomayor refuses to explain her rationale for holding that Maloney’s fundamental right to own a weapon for the protection of his family was not infringed by the state of New York, many Democrats who would usually give deference to the President’s choice of a Supreme Court nominee may instead be overcome by concerns about confirming a justice who seems prone to ignore a freedom that Americans hold dear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.
-- betting that it won't--
Now if he’d been a member of a Carribean street gang in NYC she’d found an exception. As a wise old Latina woman she knew that HER experience and that of the street gang member was superior to that of any of the funky old dead white guys who wrote the laws she was supposed to be following.
Sotomayor is NOT a Natural-born American, and she has been appointed by a “President” who is not Natural-born either. HOW did it come to THIS? America ruled by FOREIGNERS, with alien value systems?
By the way, there is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment “Incorporation”! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!
—while I agree with you wholeheartedly, I am not foolish enough to try proving us right in , for example, Chicago, New York or most of California-—
Whatever else you want to say about Sotomayor,and believe me,I have no use for her,she is a natural born american.She was born in NY City.Her parents were Purto Rican.Puerto Rican became US Nationals when Puerto Rico was ceded to the US in 1898 and citizens in 1917 by Act of Congress.In any event,Sotomayor wasn’t born in Puerto Rico.
Obama?now that’s a good question.
Correct. Sonia is a Nuyorican, Bronx born and raised. Probably knows how to curse like a sailor and crack her gum, but at least she doesn’t wear a tube top six sizes too small on the D train.
Brian Darling:Sheesh. Has laziness and ignorance now spread to the Conservative side as well. Sotomayor's view of the Second Amendment is crystal clear and she owes no explanation, she's already given it.
President Obama’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, 2nd Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, owes the American people an explanation on her view of the Second Amendment.
Going back to college she wrote that per the Second Amendment only 'the Military', not even 'The Militia', has the Right to Bear Arms. And since then her court opinions have backed up her cock-eyed college 'beliefs'.Brian - Google is your friend.
Militias are ONE of the reasons for owning guns - but hardly the only one. Look at this: “A well-educated population, being necessary...etc, etc...the right to own and read books shall not be infringed”. Does that mean that only educators could own and read books? NO.
Perhasps it is only her mind-set that seems so foreign to me, then. But, if PR’s are really true citizens - why can’t they vote?
Thanks. I stand corrected.
Puerto Ricans can indeed vote if they are a resident of one of the 50 states (I assume you were referring to federal elections). This is part of the constitution that the president and congress will be chosen by the people ‘of the several states’. The restriction is not on the people, but the territory (it’s not a state). If a US citizen, born in one of the 50 states, resides in Puerto Rico, they also cannot vote unless they are an absentee resident of the one of the 50 states (so I guess you’d still have to have a residence in one of the 50 states even if you don’t live there). They also pay taxes and can (and have been) drafted into the military.
So when Sotomayer comes up for confirmation by the Senate, it will be time to target those that vote for her, especially if none of these questions have been answered fully.
Yes. But apparently not for the purpose you think.
I don't seem to be seeing many militias in existence lately, and if they are, are they going to be disbanded by force of arms?
"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free State ...." is not the description of a body that people need to know how to use arms for in order to become members of it. It's the description of a body that is a necessary evil that the people need to know how to use arms for in order to be able to resist it and keep it from being an effective tool for the imposition of tyranny by the State government.
And yes, there are militias these days. According to Federal law, the militia is composed of two parts. The "organized militia" is the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" is all males between the ages of 18 to 45 who are not members of the organized militia.
She’ll defer the question and the answer will basically state that she will review the merit of the evidence and testimony at the time the case crosses her desk...
Somehow, I feel it is already pre-ordained...
But thats ok, she is a liberal fart replacing a liberal fart...Technically speaking of course...
Not much we can do to stop this jugernaut of a nomination...
When Ginsburg and Stevens retire or die, that will be another case of liberal farts being replaced by liberal farts...
Let us hope we do not have any other retirements than those...
“By the way, there is no NEED for the Supremes to consider 2nd Amendment “Incorporation”! FACT: The 2nd Amendment is SELF-incorporated to all government entities at every level. It is MORE ABSOLUTE than the 1st Amendment, or any of the others, because the wording forbids not only CONGRESS, but ANYONE from infringing on it. The 1st says “Congress shall make no law...”. The 2nd say “shall NOT be infringed!” Period! End of debate!”
If you think that’s true, then check out SB2099 if you want to be sick. This one is scary.
-- betting that it won't--
That's just a partial list of Senate rats who don't want to vote for a gun grabber. They don't really want to give the Second Amendment to their GOP opponent in the next election. IMHO, they are really behind the eight ball.
Do you think she'll withdraw from the nomination? I think it's a strong possibilty, but the Second Amendment won't be the stated reason. They'll say something else. IIRC, these are usually roll call votes.
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.