• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Sotomayor's 2nd Amendment Problem

Mike

Well-known member
Judge Sotomayor’s 2nd Amendment Problem
Heritage ^ | 6/2/09 | Brian Darling


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. 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. … 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.

But what about that recent Seventh Circuit opinion holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states? Heritage fellow Robert Alt distinguishes the two cases:

In light of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in NRA v. City of Chicago, holding that Supreme Court precedent binds the court to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it is useful to note a key distinction between that case and Sotomayor’s in Maloney v. Cuomo. Notably, in Maloney, Sotomayor joined an opinion finding that New York’s weapons law did not “interfere[] with a fundamental right.” (She had expressed similar views pre-Heller, when she joined an unpublished opinion stating that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”) As such, Sotomayor has the distinction of having voted with the only court of appeals decision to so denigrate Second Amendment rights after Heller. The Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v. King found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, and the Seventh Circuit in NRA, applying what Eugene Volokh ably dissects as undue judicial restraint, did not speak to the question.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Too bad he didn't nominate a white man, after all he could have made better choices than a latino woman can.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Too bad he didn't nominate a white man, after all he could have made better choices than a latino woman can.

I agree, Larry. I also think a white man could make better decisions than a typical black person.
 

VanC

Well-known member
You want empathy? How's this:

Our Constitution was written by white men, therefore only white men are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nothing against women and minorities, but they can't possibly feel the required empathy towards the Founding Fathers it takes to interpret what they wrote. :lol:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Judge Sotomayor’s 2nd Amendment Problem
Heritage ^ | 6/2/09 | Brian Darling


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. 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. … 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.

But what about that recent Seventh Circuit opinion holding that the Second Amendment is not incorporated against the states? Heritage fellow Robert Alt distinguishes the two cases:

In light of the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in NRA v. City of Chicago, holding that Supreme Court precedent binds the court to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states, it is useful to note a key distinction between that case and Sotomayor’s in Maloney v. Cuomo. Notably, in Maloney, Sotomayor joined an opinion finding that New York’s weapons law did not “interfere[] with a fundamental right.” (She had expressed similar views pre-Heller, when she joined an unpublished opinion stating that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”) As such, Sotomayor has the distinction of having voted with the only court of appeals decision to so denigrate Second Amendment rights after Heller. The Ninth Circuit in Nordyke v. King found that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition, and the Seventh Circuit in NRA, applying what Eugene Volokh ably dissects as undue judicial restraint, did not speak to the question.
 

Mike

Well-known member
VanC said:
You want empathy? How's this:

Our Constitution was written by white men, therefore only white men are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nothing against women and minorities, but they can't possibly feel the required empathy towards the Founding Fathers it takes to interpret what they wrote. :lol:

Very good, Van.

Of course, the Moonbats will take your comments as racist, yet your insinuation should hit them directly where it hurts............
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
She's under the Obama admins watchful eye now. She's not allowed to answer questions. I feel sorry for her.

Here's a short 30 sec. video of her being told by an aide not to answer questions.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/06/03/aide_to_sotomayor_dont_answer_any_questions.html
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Mike said:
VanC said:
You want empathy? How's this:

Our Constitution was written by white men, therefore only white men are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nothing against women and minorities, but they can't possibly feel the required empathy towards the Founding Fathers it takes to interpret what they wrote. :lol:

Very good, Van.

Of course, the Moonbats will take your comments as racist, yet your insinuation should hit them directly where it hurts............
In the beginning, only white male landowners were qualified to be in government. I got my piece of land...does that make me empathic?
 
Top