TexasCHLforum.com

Fresh off the press from Fox News this morning...

Fox is reporting that Sotomayor's position on 2A rights is very disturbing. In June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of 2A rights in the DC vs. Heller case, saying that the 2nd Ammendment protects the individuals right to possess a firearm for private use. In January of 2009, Sotomayor ruled against the Supreme Court's ruling in another case (details to come). She made the statement during that ruling, that the Constitution's 2nd Ammendment only applies to military, and that it should be up to the individual states to regulate their own gun laws.

Whoa! This confirmation needs to go down in flames. Fox hasn't posted the story on their web site yet. I'll post a link when it's available.

Fox still hasn't posted their story yet, but here's a report from CBS and others that are along the same lines.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/05/27 ... 4428.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor- ... amendment/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090526/p ... _amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing on to a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

Not being a lawyer, I read the above statement to say that the ruling agreed with "stupid" people, and went against what the "smart" people need and want to do.

Obama appoints another socialist left-wing nutcase to replace one who is retiring. So then the net loss is what...?

bdickens wrote:Obama appoints another socialist left-wing nutcase to replace one who is retiring. So then the net loss is what...?

Another lifetime appointments worth of inanity.

bdickens wrote:Obama appoints another socialist left-wing nutcase to replace one who is retiring. So then the net loss is what...?

For her to say that the 2nd Amendment only applies to military is a direct threat to our 2A right to possess a gun. She wants to knullify the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment for individuals to possess a firearm for private use. Further, she "feels" that states and municipalities should be able to decide their own gun ownership rights. This is a blatent attack on the 2nd Amendment and a glaring example of legislating from the bench...far beyond Souter.

Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Republic is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, except the lamb has a gun.

LaUser wrote: Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Republic is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, except the lamb has a gun.

Love this quote. Is it yours?

austinrealtor wrote:

LaUser wrote: Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. A Republic is two lions and a lamb voting on what's for dinner, except the lamb has a gun.

Love this quote. Is it yours?

Normally attributed to Ben Franklin.
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Freedom is an armed sheep contesting the vote" is how I normally see it quoted.

A short piece by Damon Root for Reason: http://reason.com/news/show/133722.html. In part:

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history.

Her position that the 2nd only limits what the federal government may do to gun rights ignores both the 10th Amendment (but does not limit what the states may do), and the words "shall not be infringed contained in the 2nd. Would she then agree that states have the right to limit free speech, dictate one's religious choices, limit the freedom of assembly, limit the freedom of the press (1st Amendment)? Would she further agree that states then have the right to quarter their state NG troops in private homes during peace time (3rd Amendment)? Would she agree that states have the right to perform unreasonable searches and seizures (4th Amendment). Does she believe that you can't plead the 5th in a state court and avoid being forced into self-incrimination (5th Amendment)? Does she believe that states have no obligation to provide an accused with a speedy and fair trial (6th Amendment) by a jury of his/her peers (7th Amendment)? Does she believe that states have a right to inflict cruel and unusual punishments (8th Amendment). Does she believe that the 9th is null and void? And the 10th as well?

Sotomayor is obviously an imbecile and her opinions are a steaming pile (which are over-ruled by higher courts at a rate of 60%, BTW). The problem is that liberals love her, and their enablers in the media will never ask her these very relevant questions - questions which are relevant specifically because she denies that an amendment included in the Bill of Rights has relevance beyond the beltway.

Of course, since I disagree with her, I must be a white male sexist/racist lacking in her rich latina wisdom, and therefore my opinion is of little or no value.

Other than that, I have no opinion. . . . .

.. Hard to follow that perfectly phrased post with anything else... soooo

Well said......

Now if we can just get someone on the Confirmation Committee to put forth direct questions to her on her past record and get the confirmation canceled/denied. Oh, and bust her down from the Appellate Court to a local DA in NYC while we're at it......

Obama will just nominate another socialist if Sotomayor is not appointed. She may be the better candidate since she often makes ignorant comments that may even frustrate other liberal justices. She's much better than a liberal nominee that has half a brain and is very persuasive. She will only count for one vote, since I doubt she can get anybody else to follow her train of thought.

Well, you do have a good point there Charlie! \

I just can't figure out how they dig up all these morons!