Skip to comments.Sotomayor to Senators: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
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 ...
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:
Logic isnt 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 courts 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 isnt 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 Committees 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.”
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.
Right. That's why the Republicans went for a "battle royale" when Bill Clinton decided to change the "delicate balance of the court" by replacing the center-right Byron White with rabid leftist ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
And she had no idea that abortion stops a beating heart.
PS SS, you don't get to pick and chose your rights. It's a package deal.
Sotomayor is not qualified. Apparently she’s either never heard of the Supremacy Clause or chooses to ignore it.
Article VI, Clause 2:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
Wasn't something comparable to this tried during the Heinous' husbands term?
If I recall, it didn't work out so well for them, however these lifetime appointments IMO are the most crucial because of the term of office given.
Yeah, another "fart in church".
Thanks pleikumud, good info and helpful background, and very much agree with your conclusion!
The War Between The States (U.S. Civil War) was over states rights as opposed to federally mandated Constitutional rights. You know, that “all men are created equal’ stuff...
Owning another human being was a violation of the U.S. Constitution right from the ‘get go’. I’ve always been amazed that slavery, as economic necessity and as an institution in the South, lasted as long as it did.
Oh great, another moronic advocate for flushing the Constitution down the toilet....
come on. didn’t you know. there is no law stating we must pay federal “income” taxes.
i never understood the whole hupla over the “tax cheats”.
(referring to http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173 of course)
Until the “Incorporation Doctrine” ruling and subsequent rulings based upon it were made, states enjoyed the freedom to dictate prayer in public schools, indeed, declare a state religion, plus place limitations in behavior the federal government could not.
I doubt there's even the slightest chance of the court hearing a case that would overturn the “Indoctrination Doctrine”, be it a Democrat or Republican court.
Yes, I already regret sending my little $25 to Cornyn.
Does the GOP/and some southern/western democrats have a spine to vote her down?
Time to become activists; write your Senator!
That's Judge Sodom Mywhore to you!
So this means that states can also choose to outlaw abortion.
The amendments stand or fall together. They all apply or they don’t.
This gal must have miised that day in ConLaw when they talked about the 14th Amendment Incorporation Doctrine. It made the Bill of Rights specifically applicable to the states. She is a dolt and will get this seat only because of affirmative action, not because she is qualified.
Technically the states are not allowed to ursurp the Con. The fact that SotovoteforObo figures that states have the right to violate the US Constitution is indicative of the decline of the US Constitution when liberal activist judges are allowed to rule against things they have no jurisdiction over, aka the US Constitution.
Sotostuckonstupid, in her former position, is already a proven disaster before she even gets to the SCOTUS, for she herself has already proven that she will deminish the authority of the office she now seeks, the highest of the Third Branch, to advance her liberal agenda.
I can only hope that either the full truth be told and Sotodelolaraza will be exposed for the radical racist she is.
But as I’ve said, she’ll get the nod, and in the end I either must accept that since I’m a white male - that there must be something wrong with me. I’ts either that or be labled by libtarded standards as being racist.
I can’t win. I guess that’s the point.
AMAZING the repercussions THIS sort of decision would have. Chaos being first and foremost as the states fall all over themselves seceding from the Union.
The RKBA exists independently from the 2nd amendment. SCOTUS said so in Presser v Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), a case about whether or not the 2nd amendment reiterates or embodies a right to conduct a parade without a parade permit. Presser said that if a parade was conducted with guns, then the 2nd amendment provides a right to parade without a permit.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ...
But check out what Sotomayor (and literally - LITERALLY) all of the federal court judges say the Presser (parade permit) case stands for. 2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki:
Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states.cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006).
Kind of like how Scalia, in Heller, said the Miller case supports the constitutionality of the 1934 NFA (for want of a factual finding (short barrel shotgun is useful for defense) the Miller case would have found the 1934 NFA to be unconstitutional), but that's a whole 'nother story.
Using her logic, the states could also pass laws or amendments allowing slavery. How do you think that would go over with this White House? And, why isn't a reporter smart enough to ask Mr. Obama about his nominee's ludicrous decision?
She obviously cannot read plain English, to wit, “shall not be infringed.” With so many millions of citizens having a clear understanding of the term, there has to be a disconnect. ESL, eh? Ain’t diversity great?
Can this be true? Haven’t Hutchison and Cornyn already endorsed her?
Now that’s an interesting post.