Posted on 05/29/2009 1:56:11 PM PDT by neverdem
Federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has over the years developed what some experts are calling a ‘troubling’ record on Second Amendment issues.
In January, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court joined an opinion, Maloney v. Cuomo, that ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments, according to Reason magazine.
The case dealt with 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 that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.
“We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition," the Ninth Circuit ruling said. “Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the ‘true palladium of liberty.’ Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are....”
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Obama's not going to take your gun!
/s
“that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”
...that’s NOT what was intended! The verbage “Right to Bear Arms” does not include anything about the fed getting involved! The “living, breathing” BS is coming into view.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
...I guess the “shall not be infringed” part is confusing to her.
Until the 14th Amendment all of the Bill of Rights were held to only apply to the federal government. The second is one that still hasn’t been expressly incorporated as applying to the states. It is hopefully coming soon though.
I would take a hard look at her; if she is perhaps comprising the Court.
You make the assumption that she's read it in the first place. I'm not so convinced.
Sotomayor, the Dictator with Empathy
I mean; how many of them could possibly reach the Supreme Court for a decision? We don’t need a judge on the court that will have to recuse themselves all of the time.
Is there any question about what they want?
I wonder when this will hit the flash point.
Oh, no, no, no. You have it wrong. Obama’s not going to take your guns. Obama’s SCOTUS Appointments are going to take your guns.
They, and all of their minions can TRY.
I'm ready to rock.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government
She might get less hostile when she moves to DC and is chauffered and escorted everywhere by gun-toting body guards.
I wasn't aware that SC justices ever have to recuse themselves.
They have. I believe one of them did in the not so distant past.
If an honest (non-leftist) judge recuses himself because of some minor potential conflict of interest, the enemedia will claim that the fact that he had to recuse himself proves he's a crook. If a leftist judge refuses to recuse himself even in the face of a blatant conflict of interest, the enemedia will claim that there's nothing wrong, as evidenced by the fact that the judge didn't have to recuse himself.
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.