Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick

Status
Not open for further replies.
you can make a fair argument that Sotomayor shouldn't be suggesting or ruling on arguments that the other side can't think up on its own - and if Sotomayor had adhered to that in her other decisions, then I would grudgingly concede the point; but she seems more willing to stray from that line when plaintiffs she agrees with come before the court
Click to expand...

This is one of my biggest concerns with any Supreme Court Justice. Judges should interpret the law to decide questions posed to the court and not create solutions to help the side with which they agree.

I am still reading Sotomayor's decisions, but links to source documents evidencing judicial activism would be greatly appreciated.
 
CNN posted an interesting article reporting that a factor in Sotomayor's selection was the potential for her to sway Kennedy's vote.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Obama was not looking for someone to balance the more flamboyant conservative firepower of Justice Antonin Scalia, according to one senior administration official involved in the process of picking, vetting and promoting the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

He was looking for someone with the ability to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote.
Click to expand...
 
I am still reading Sotomayor's decisions, but links to source documents evidencing judicial activism would be greatly appreciated.
Click to expand...

Didn't Sotomayor pretty much say as much herself in the controversial statements now making the rounds?

He was looking for someone with the ability to win over Justice Anthony Kennedy, the crucial swing vote.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, well if Jeffrey Rosen at The New Republic is reporting correctly, then Sotomayor is probably not that person.

Considering that TNR is a prominent liberal magazine and that both of those were made pre-nomination when Sotomayor was just on the short-list, I guess that means that either they really think she isn't qualified or that they preferred a more liberal judge than Sotomayor for the position. Either way, Rosen got roasted pretty well by his compatriots even before Sotomayor's nomination was announced.
 
Didn't Sotomayor pretty much say as much herself in the controversial statements now making the rounds?
Click to expand...

I don't discout what someone says if I can see the full context in which it was said (often hard to find), but actions (written court decisions) still speak louder than words.
 
The more I hear about incorporation, the stranger it sounds. Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one? If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?
 
If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?
Click to expand...

Because it was in DC and DC is not a state. Reading the cases that have come forth on incorporation makes it clear to me that the Supreme Court will have to make that call. Even if every appeals courts rules on it we need it done by the supremes.
 
Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one?
Click to expand...

That is an excellent point, and not one I have heard before. D.C. is sort of legal limbo-land. It's not a State, but neither is the city government the federal government.
However, congress seems to have jurisdiction, because at one point they threatened to eradicate the district's gun laws unless they were brought into line with the ruling on Heller.

Hmmmm, confusing.

D.C. is like a high-stakes laboratory for modeling US gun laws, as they will apply against the states, should incorporation win the day. It's a convenient little cocoon in which Gura, SAF, Halbrooke (NRA), etc. can maneuver, in anticipation of incorporation.
 
Last edited:
Didn't Heller strike down a D.C. law rather than a Federal one? If so, how then can it be argued that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government when the Supreme Court as already struck down a local ordinance for violation of it?
Click to expand...

Congress has delegated legislative authority over local matters to the D.C. government. Therefore, D.C. laws are federal in origin.

From the District of Columbia Home Rule Act:

SEC. 102. [D.C. Code 1-201] (a) Subject to the retention by Congress of the ultimate legislative authority over the nation's capital granted by article I, 8, of the Constitution, the intent of Congress is to delegate certain legislative powers to the government of the District of Columbia; authorize the election of certain local officials by the registered qualified electors in the District of Columbia; grant to the inhabitants of the District of Columbia powers of local self-government; modernize, reorganize, and otherwise improve the governmental structure of the District of Columbia; and, to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the constitutional mandate, relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, Sotomayor is a dedicated anti who was appointed to the federal bench by Bush I. Where were the gun rights activists at that time? I mention this because we need to oppose any nominee to the federal bench who is anti-gun. It does not matter which party the president who appoints the anti-gunner belongs to.
 
Sotomayor was appointed by Bush as part of a deal brokered with the Democrats to keep them from blocking Republican appointees. She was actually recommended by Sen. Patrick Moniyhan for the federal judge bench.

On a related note, Sotomayor was recommended for SCOTUS by Schumer and Kristen Gillibrandt - neither of whom are known for their love of the Second Amendment.
 
Anyone that person in the White House appoints will have already sworn their loyalty and devotion to the new messiah and will keep pushing our country down Barry's shining path.
 
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.
Click to expand...

Maybe we should all think about starting to stockpile ammunition?

I've only got 120,000 rounds sprinkled around the house, so I'm nervous.
 
Wow, this thread title is not the least bit melodramatic or reactionary.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The title of the OP's article might be a little over the top, but members here are discussing her record, her judicial history, her alarming statements on the record, her judicial temperament, and her past decisions. The discussion couldn't be more relevant, and tempered.

Calling the thread reactionary or melodramatic seems more knee-jerk to me than the posts you are attempting to characterize.
 
No, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Agreed. We need to discuss Sotomayor's views on gun control. Knowing what someones opinion (good or bad) about a thread is of no real value...at least to me (mod's excluded.....their opinion counts:)).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top