On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Sotomayor to Senators: 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply to States
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2009-06-11 15:22:00
Viewed 520 times. 9 Comments.
When the lefties are replacing a lefty on the Supreme Court with another lefty, the balance is preserved and the downside to the country is somewhat minimized. Sometimes you need to pick your battles. If Obama were filling Scalia's seat for example, this would be a Battle Royale. I figured that the Republicans can't stop this nominee anyway, unless something big and nasty was unearthed. Methinks this is it.
Though she says she supports Heller's holding that the 2nd Amendment prevents the Federal Government from banning guns, still undecided is the issue of whether that holding also applies to state bans. The Supreme Court has, over the years, decided that each Amendment in the Bill of Rights does indeed also apply to the states. It is crucial that Heller be read the same way. In a rare moment of candor from a SCOTUS nominee, Sotomayor seems to have tipped her hand: No dice.
Other senators have come away from their meetings with Sotomayor concerned about her position on gun rights.
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said Tuesday that he was disappointed that the judge refused to say during their visit that the Second Amendment “protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans.”
DeMint said Sotomayor’s statement on Heller “doesn’t tell us much” about her view of the issue, noting that she stands by her ruling that held that the Second Amendment only protects against federal government curbs on the right to bear arms _ not state or local limits.
“(H)er opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms. She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her,” DeMint said Thursday.
Okay, the gloves are off. We need to pick this fight. She must be kept off the Court.
Tags: SCOTUS,
Related Articles
- Patriot Room Radio #53: Agnostic Barry bail. Again.
- Emergency Filing: Chrysler Creditors Take Obama to Supreme Court
- When an apology isn’t necessary
- Limbaugh: Sotomayor is a Racist
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/sotomayor-to-senators-2nd-amendment-does-not-apply-to-states/trackback
Comments 9
It can be shown from historical writings concerning James Madison, Chief Justice Marshall and John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., that the privileges and immunities protected by the federal Bill of Rights was not originally intended to apply to the states.
However, products of affirmative action like constitutional flunky Judge Sotomayor are wrong about the scope of the 2nd A. for the following reason. John Bingham, mentioned above, had included the 2nd A. when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutional statutes containing privileges and immunities which the post-Civil War 14th A. applied to the states. See the 2nd A. for yourself in the middle column of the following page from the Congressional Globe, a precursor to the Congressional Record. The page is from Bingham's post-14th A. ratification discussion of the 14th Amendment.
She is a bigot and a former member of LaRaza, why do we need any more evidence?
By Sotomayer's logic, neither do any of the others.
If a state can ignore the 2nd Amendment, it can ignore the 1st, 4th and 5th. What's the difference?
She'll be a marvelous addition to the Court.
She wouldn't be a "marvelous" addition to anything. The woman (I use the term very loosely) is a pathetic excuse for a judge & has no business even being a nominee. But, what should we expect from a foreign born, criminal punk who ascended to power out of the murky, Chicago political machine with the aid of the Kool Aid drinking masses & millions in foreign funds assisted by the corrupt actions of ACORN who is now being very well reimbursed for their efforts.
Maybe you should switch to good old southern sweet iced tea. It's much better for the brain cells.
God bless America!
I do not think the judge is fit for the Supreme Court but to correct she was born in the Bronx of Puerto Rican heritage parents. From her background bio on Wikipedia, she's been involved with the New York judicial system and not Chicago. I realize that Wikipedia is an open source forum and anyone can be an editor but other informational sites state she was born in New York.
Now, I'm as a much a confirmed conservative as the majority of readers are here but aside from a couple of poor choices of comments she's made, her record seems pretty conservative and/or moderate to me.
"...but to correct she was born in the Bronx of Puerto Rican heritage parents."
Thank you, Dale. My sentence structure was obviously lacking. I was not referring to Sotomayor when I said, "But, what should we expect from a foreign born, criminal punk who ascended to power out of the murky, Chicago political machine with the aid of the Kool Aid drinking masses & millions in foreign funds assisted by the corrupt actions of ACORN who is now being very well reimbursed for their efforts." This is a reference to the pseudo-president as to his nominee.
Sorry for the confusion.
Some of those poor choices of comments were made repeatedly. Far more than a couple of times. After something is repeated multiple times it would seem to me that it is no longer a poor choice, but a deliberate one. She's not to be trusted, if for no other reason than she was nominated by a foreign born, criminal punk who ascended to power out of the murky, Chicago political machine....
God bless America!
You are all a bunch of redneck klan members on this site. You all make me lauph. You are so stupid as to belive whatever fox news tells you is true. Wake up and get your own opion but that would mean pulling yourselves away from fox and accually doing some thinking which you all cant do for yourselves.
Yo, bub, I never watch FOX News. And "lauph" is not a word.
Have a nice day! Thanks for the pageview - money in the bank!
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the My...
Direct hit: "It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion." "Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."Views: 80 Comments: 0
-
One last trick up Boehner's sleeve?
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said House leaders are specifically concerned about a Republican motion to recommit that would contain only language on abortion that Stupak originally had wanted to include in the Senate bill. The concern is based on the fear of GOP attack ads painting Democrats who vote against a motion to recommit that includes Stupak’s favored language on abortion as “flip-floppers” on the issue…Views: 270 Comments: 0
-
Crocodile tears: Pro-abortion House livid that ...
Members of the pro-choice caucus are livid after the White House released the Executive Order on abortion to the media without showing it to them. According to members who spoke on the condition of anonymity, at the end of the Stupak press conference today they were still waiting to see the language of the Executive Order. The first they saw of it was after the White House released it with a statement to the media.Views: 77 Comments: 1
-
The Hill factors in Stupak: Defeat still within...
They count 37 dem "no" votes. Makes Kanjorski (PA-11) dang important.Views: 183 Comments: 0
-
New issue? Senate cannot take up expedited reco...
From Drudge - FLASH: Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian.... Developing....Views: 156 Comments: 0
-
Stupak News Conference at 4PM
From FDL: 3:28 pm – CNN is reporting that a Stupak press conference will take place at 4 pm. If Stupak’s bloc decides to vote in mass for the bill it will pass baring a large revolt from pro-choice Democrats.Views: 89 Comments: 1
-
If Barack Forces Passage of Health Care “Reform...
Great Analysis. Begins here: Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.Views: 114 Comments: 8
-
Conference of Bishops: It is the unanimous view...
Do we really need to state the obvious? Laws are made and changed in the Legislative Branch, not the Executive. Only in dictatorships are laws made by the Executive Branch.According to these rulings, such health legislation creates a statutory requirement for abortion funding, unless Congress clearly forbids such funding. That is why the Hyde amendment was needed in 1976, to stop Medicaid from funding 300,000 abortions a year. The statutory mandate construed by the courts would override any executive order or regulation. This is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and of the experts we have consulted on abortion jurisprudence. Only a change in the law enacted by Congress, not an executive order, can begin to address this very serious problem in the legislation."
Views: 83 Comments: 0
-
Breaking: Hoyer - We don't have the votes yet
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) predicted Sunday that Democrats will have the votes to pass the massive health care bill later in the day, but he suggested a number of crucial Members were still undecided. “There are still Members looking at it and trying to make up their minds, but we think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll,” Hoyer said on NBC’s "Meet the Press.” He added, "We’re going to pass this bill.” Hoyer said the remaining votes the Democrats need are “in the low single digits, certainly.”Views: 97 Comments: 0
-
Senate bill requires 67 vote supermajority to k...
So the Dems now want to decide who lives and who dies so badly, they have rigged the rules to require 67 votes to kill the death panels. Keep in mind this is the same number of votes needed to pass a Constitutional Amendment.[Democrats] have inserted . . . a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." . . . The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported.
Views: 89 Comments: 1
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Bill Dupray
- One last trick up Boehner's sleeve?
on 2010-03-21 with 270 views - WaPo: Hey, that individual mandate kinda looks unconstitutional
on 2010-03-21 with 225 views - After the vote: Head-spinning blowback
on 2010-03-21 with 255 views - Conference of Bishops: It is the unanimous view of our legal advisors and experts that an Executive Order on abortion is of no legal effect
on 2010-03-21 with 83 views - Breaking: Hoyer - We don't have the votes yet
on 2010-03-21 with 97 views - Senate bill requires 67 vote supermajority to kill death panels
on 2010-03-21 with 89 views - Dems trash Tricare, start losing votes: Nye is a 'No'
on 2010-03-21 with 88 views - Stupak this morning: Until we have a deal on abortion, they don't have the votes
on 2010-03-21 with 59 views - How Obamacare dies: NOT buying health insurance is NOT Interstate Commerce
on 2010-03-20 with 539 views - Waxman: No 'Deem and Pass' - We pass the Senate bill or we don't
on 2010-03-20 with 109 views
The US Constitution is the "Law of the Land". The last I heard was that the component states of the United States were part of said "Land". For Sonia to opine that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states is just silly. Affirmative action nominee indeed.