Posted on 05/28/2009 2:29:51 PM PDT by Zakeet
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."
Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."
Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.
But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.
Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."
"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."
The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That MUST cause a backalash.
We can’t have this.
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Conservatives are focusing on a speech Ms. Sotomayor delivered at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
...
“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’
Wouldn’t they have to withdraw?” asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on his Web site. “New racism is no better than old racism.”
...
“We’re all extremely pleased at how the first 24 hours went,” said Sen. Charles Schumer (D., N.Y.), who has been assigned to chaperone the Bronx-born judge through her confirmation.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/battle-sotomayor-heats/
Chilling. Absolutely chilling.
All those years in law school and on the Federal bench and she's never taken the time to read the US Bill of Rights.
I'm no lawyer, but I am 100% confident that she is absolutely wrong on this issue. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right. Given the broad disparity in physical prowess it is unconcsionable to deny someone the right to self defense by denying them the tools to do it.
This is the only leverage we have.
If the GOP wanted to prevent a firestorm regarding the Sotomayer nomination this is the worst piece of news: even some of the Senators who favor an expedited process will now have to sit up and take notice especially after being lobbied by the NRA on what their position they tshould take. What are the GOP Senators going to do? Tell the NRA and gun owners to f**k themselves! I don’t think so.
I can't understand why we should possibly be concerned with having a another gun
grabber on the SCOTUS. Don't guns automatically lead to violence? Aren't we all
better off without them? Won't our police always be there to protect us when we
need them? Can't we always trust the government? Is anything more important to
have a female Latino poster girl for La Raza on the bench?
I don’t care if she’s wrong or not. Should the day come when an ObamaZero stacked court rules against them, I won’t turn in anything I have for damn sure. They can have parts and pieces of it one at a time.
She doesn't even attempt to nuance her statement or to cloud her true beliefs. She just comes right out and says it. It's really amazing.
What if she had said...
Attending school isn't a fundamental right.
Free speech isn't a fundamental right.
Voting isn't a fundamental right.
Assembly isn't a fundamental right.
The left would be going bananas, and it would be led by the MSM.
I ponied up for my lifetime NRA membership last spring. I hope they start a campaign and put that money to some good use.
She believes Spanish-speaking women are more likely to arrive at correct legal decisions than white men, and she's put it in writing. She is unqualified to hold any office and must not be confirmed.
‘Could’ is a conditional verb. I can say with certainty that the appropriate verb is ‘will.’
And we ‘will’ be darned ticked off.
Any senatecritter that votes for this idiotess is officially my enemy.
More evidence that Sotomayor is not qualified for the Federal bench, in any capacity, and certainly not for the Supreme Court.
The pubbies have to fight this nomination with the same energy and vigor the left used in opposing W for eight years. That is the only way they can begin to rebuild ANY credibility.
Can, Will, Should, Must....
Cower in the corner like the dogs they are, and then vote for her, of course.
This is not a matter of “could” be a problem ... it now IS CLEARLY A PROBLEM and worth going to the wall for.
Since then I have learned much more about Ms Sotomayor, and I now think we should fight her like hell. She may be a done deal in the end, but she is someone we have to fight. This is not about women or Hispanics, it is about someone who will try to legislate against us from the bench. I don't care how much beans, rice and pork she has eaten. So have I.
Rush brought up this point on his show today. Good for Fox News in getting the word out. The Constitution must be preserved, not destroyed.
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.