Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment

[Roadie]

Just got this email update..

Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment
Won't answer whether she believes there's a right to self-defense

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
Gun Owners of America

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

The U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor!

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.

Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.

But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.

But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.

Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue.

Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!

Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago. Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls.

And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee.

Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless.

Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.

We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights.

GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.

She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live.

-- Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America

ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message

 

[printcraft]

I'm shocked.

 

[phil]

In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment --

Does that mean a state can make a decision of NO GUN CONTROL?

 

[SigSense]

If that's the CASE, then the states can basically ENACT any form of control they wished...including FIRST Amendment speech controls. Why even have a Constitution? Why have a United States? Let each state run itself.....as it sees fit.

 

[antsi]

As bad as Sotomayor is, she is replacing someone just like her. Even if somehow she was not confirmed (not going to happen), Barry would just nominate another Commie.

It's a given - with Barry prez and a Dem Congress, Souter's replacement is guaranteed to be another lefty statist tool. I'm sure that is the main reason Souter is retiring now.

So far, this does not change the balance of the court.

What we really have to worry about would be if one of the conservative justices had a health problem and a forced retirement. If Barry is elected for another term, I'd say the odds of that happening get pretty strong.

 

[Calvin]

I watched the hearing. Her answers were about as evasive as it gets. Citations of legal precedent and judicial norms were the smoke behind which one can simply ignore the question. Most people just get bored listening to answers phrased in such a way and don't even put together the fact of obfuscation. The reality is we would all be better served if they could somehow be forced to speak their mind in plain English. Sadly, their ability to not do so is what got them there in the first place.

-Calvin

 

[ocsdor]

If that's the CASE, then the states can basically ENACT any form of control they wished...including FIRST Amendment speech controls. Why even have a Constitution? Why have a United States? Let each state run itself.....as it sees fit.

Hell, let's take it a step farther and bring back slavery. Someone should ask her if that same way of thinking applies to the 13th Amendment.

Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[edsinger]

Its a done deal, as spooky as that is...

 

[AFA1CY]

If that's the CASE, then the states can basically ENACT any form of control they wished...including FIRST Amendment speech controls. Why even have a Constitution? Why have a United States? Let each state run itself.....as it sees fit.

That's, that's called Chicago....

 

[SavageEagle]

I'm shocked.

We all knew this was coming. At least she's not replacing a Constitutionalist. Just pray none of them retire for another 4-8 years...

 

[indyac]

We all knew this was coming. At least she's not replacing a Constitutionalist. Just pray none of them retire for another 4-8 years...

Exactly...