Author Topic: Sotomayor - SCOTUS nominee: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"  (Read 18631 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anti_Illuminati

  • Guest
May 27, 2009 5:40 PM
Gun Rights Groups Are Wary Of Sotomayor
Posted by Declan McCullagh



Second Amendment advocates are responding warily to President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that "Judge Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama's claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service."

Dave Kopel of the free-market Independence Institute predicts that "Judge Sotomayor's record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms." And Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to "a declaration of war against America's gun owners."

The difficulty in evaluating Sotomayor's views on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the lack of definitive statements. No old law review articles advocating a Scalia-esque originalist approach have been unearthed; no speeches to the Brady Campaign calling for nationwide gun confiscation have surfaced.

A handful of Sotomayor's Second Circuit decisions, however, have.

In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Another case involved a fellow named James Maloney who was arrested in Port Washington, N.Y. for possessing a nunchaku -- typically sticks connected by rope or chain -- in his home. Maloney claimed that the Second Amendment rendered the state law banning nunchakus unconstitutional.

A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

The trouble with that line of reasoning is that it relies on a 1886 case called Presser v. Illinois, which did in fact say the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." But that was before a long line of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court rulings that applied the Bill of Rights to state governments; the concept is known as the "incorporation doctrine."

(And, besides, even in Presser, the Supreme Court went out of its way to note "the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms.")

That has left gun rights advocates feeling a bit like the decision from Sotomayor's panel this year cherry-picked cases to reach a desired result -- instead of trying to interpret the law fairly. "The Sotomayor per curiam opinion ignores Due Process incorporation, even though any serious analysis of whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment enforceable against the states would have to address the issue," Kopel says.

By contrast, the Ninth Circuit, by some counts the most liberal in the nation, ruled in April that the Second Amendment does apply to state laws. Meanwhile, Maloney, the defendant in the New York case, is appealing his loss to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments this week in a related case.

Something with a name like "incorporation doctrine" may sound like an obscure topic only a law professor could love, but it's really not. These disputes will decide whether or not states and municipalities can legally disarm their residents, or whether the Second Amendment right the Supreme Court recognized last year in D.C. v. Heller applies to state and federal laws equally.

In some sense, if Sotomayor holds the same views as the man she's been selected to succeed -- retiring justice David Souter -- not much will change in terms of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Souter disagreed with Heller's 5-4 majority opinion, signing on to a dissent that said: "The majority's decision threatens severely to limit the ability of more knowledgeable, democratically elected officials to deal with gun-related problems."

But based on Candidate Obama's remarks last year, gun owners may have hoped for more. Mr. Obama's campaign platform said he "believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms."

Souter rejected the idea of the Second Amendment protecting an individual right; in her 2004 joint opinion, so did Sotomayor. During confirmation hearings, expect pro-gun senators to ask the judge if she agrees more with her predecessor or the stated views of the president who nominated her.
_______________________________________________________
Sotomayor: Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

http://www.moonbattery.com/

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-gun-ownership.html

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message803742/pg1

Offline KoWBoY

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 737
  • Super Patriot
    • WAR ON YOU
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2009, 11:49:50 pm »
Sotomayor may not be against firearms just the ammo that they use.

If she is or is not against the Second Amendment I am sure there are some other rights she would like to take away. Corruption runs too deep and greed is the only motivation for these people.
Placement is Key.
Violence Begets Compliance.
Ignorance is Temporary. Stupid is Forever.
I HUNT! Because the voices in my head tell me to.
http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #2 on: May 27, 2009, 11:53:36 pm »
Wary?  I would say downright hostile!  She has not ruled pro-gun for any American, but military!

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #3 on: May 27, 2009, 11:54:59 pm »
Maybe Kissinger was telling Medvedev the truth an this is how they are going to try it.... A matter of fact I am sure of it. Does anyone know how mad I am  ???

yes burlyguy, I am surprised you are coherent enough to type a sentence!

Offline chrsswtzr

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,700
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #4 on: May 27, 2009, 11:56:28 pm »
Maybe Kissinger was telling Medvedev the truth an this is how they are going to try it.... A matter of fact I am sure of it. Does anyone know how mad I am  ???
As mad as I am I'm sure!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggga!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@#k

Offline JonTheSavage

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,655
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #5 on: May 27, 2009, 11:57:05 pm »
Maybe Kissinger was telling Medvedev the truth an this is how they are going to try it.... A matter of fact I am sure of it. Does anyone know how mad I am  ???

When it all comes down, Ill just get wasted, and start firing in random directions while figuring out how to walk.   ;D ;D ;D

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #6 on: May 28, 2009, 12:18:53 am »
I am a hunter, an outdoors man, a private security guard, and a pissed patriot. The sheriff already pulled my ccw permit without reason or cause. I had breakfast with him and he told me he couldnt tell me the reason. I have been obviously red flagged. He told me to sue him and the county and told me he would help me. Obviously this US supreme court appointee is the nail in the coffin for many of us.... Take the guns, forced inoculations, Fema camp detentions, Oh God please have mercy upon my soul. I am not going to surrender unto the rulers of the land. I cant believe I am living in this nightmare.... :'(

 I will never surrender >:(

Can you get someone to bend his ear to let you know where this affront is coming from?

Offline Unintelligable Name

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,630
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #7 on: May 28, 2009, 02:11:49 am »
I am a hunter, an outdoors man, a private security guard, and a pissed patriot. The sheriff already pulled my ccw permit without reason or cause. I had breakfast with him and he told me he couldnt tell me the reason. I have been obviously red flagged. He told me to sue him and the county and told me he would help me. Obviously this US supreme court appointee is the nail in the coffin for many of us.... Take the guns, forced inoculations, Fema camp detentions, Oh God please have mercy upon my soul. I am not going to surrender unto the rulers of the land. I cant believe I am living in this nightmare.... :'(

 I will never surrender >:(

Hey not without me -- who is going to pack my guts full of dirt?!

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #8 on: May 28, 2009, 02:27:44 am »
interesting dot connecting in these posts.I hope it is not so(the kissinger "theory")If it is,then it will only be a matter of time before either something happens or there is a false flag op..
Either way it does not look good.





GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline agentbluescreen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,435
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #9 on: May 28, 2009, 02:43:01 am »
As mad as I am I'm sure!!! !!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggga!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@@#k

Katie, bar the door!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #10 on: May 28, 2009, 02:46:08 am »
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #11 on: May 28, 2009, 11:34:14 am »
We definitely have to keep an eye on this traitor. 

The second amendment doesn't guarantee individuals the right to bear arms?  The second amendment means what it says and needs no interpretations!

Amendment II

"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." 

    "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
             ~Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

    "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
             ~Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


I don't need some Ivy League spinster misinterpreting anything-- she obviously is completely ignorant of our history as well.
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #12 on: May 28, 2009, 11:40:50 am »
http://guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment

Introduction

The Second Amendment:

    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.

The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Lilly Bighorn

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #13 on: May 28, 2009, 11:41:19 am »
in all fairness, the fact that she wrote that thesis all those years ago in college doesn't necessarily mean it reflects her current opinion. at the time, whether or not the 2nd amendment protected an individual or collective right was a legitimate legal debate. this issue has been decided somewhat forcefully in dc v. heller, and it's quite likely that she would respect the court's decision in that case as settled law, at least professionally.

that said, she does bear watching, because she probably does continue to harbor anti-gun sentiments. it's just that the debate has moved quite a ways since the time she wrote that essay.
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #14 on: May 28, 2009, 11:51:06 am »
That's a bogus site-it's satire.  After doing some RESEARCH I found out that that site tries to be like the Onion, but fails o so often.  Even though it might be somewhat true, I have not found the quotes or links from any legitimate source.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #15 on: May 28, 2009, 11:53:08 am »
That's a bogus site-it's satire.

Which site?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline jshowell

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 762
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #16 on: May 28, 2009, 11:57:11 am »
Which site?

The source of this "news" is jumping in pools blogspot in the OP.   It isn't news, it's satire and it's horrible satire.

Offline heavyhebrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,986
  • Laughter is the best medicine.
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #17 on: May 28, 2009, 12:01:44 pm »
The funny thing is this, she will get confirmed. And the even more hilarious (sarcasm here) is when the justices rule against the 2nd amendment, the way she lines up with the rest.

This isn't our government anymore and hasn't been for quite sometime. This is their game, not ours. Unless this woman comes out and eats a baby on live television, she is in. (and even then MSNBC would try to spin it. Babies good for health? Justice Sotomayor thinks so...)
We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,241
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #18 on: May 28, 2009, 12:05:43 pm »
This isn't our government anymore and hasn't been for quite sometime. This is their game, not ours. Unless this woman comes out and eats a baby on live television, she is in. (and even then MSNBC would try to spin it. Babies good for health? Justice Sotomayor thinks so...)

"And those who think otherwise are just crazy 'conspiracy theorists.'"  ::)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

nofakenews

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #19 on: May 28, 2009, 12:23:36 pm »
In response to conservative attacks that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee holds racist views, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs warned Republicans that they might want to “be careful” playing with such fire.

With astonishing speed, a Twitter by a man who hasn’t held office since he resigned a decade ago, traveled across the mainstream media until it hit the White House.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who has been generating more headlines for the GOP then he has in years, decided to push a little further Wednesday than many of his fellow Republicans who have been claiming that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, once made a racist comment.

As RAW STORY reported earlier, Gingrich Twittered, “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman’ new racism is no better than old racism. White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”

Not long afterward, ABC’s Jake Tapper Twittered in response, “so @newtgingrich just called Judge Sotomayor a “racist” and said she should withdraw. Will ousted Speaker impact former colleagues on Hill?”

Then an hour later, CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid, perhaps a bit confused about Internet terminology, asked the White House press secretary if he “was familiar with Newt Gingrich’s blog.”

“I am not,” Gibbs responded with a chuckle and broad smile.

After hearing the Twitter, Gibbs responded, “Well, I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”

Gibb said that when the Senate and American people take a look at “more than just a blog of a former lawmaker that they’ll come to the same conclusion as the president did.”

Writing at Politico, Alexander Burns notes, “In 2001, then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer drew criticism in the press for suggesting Americans ‘need to watch what they say’ in the overheated aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/27/gibbs-sotomayor-warning/

Don't talk bad about Sotomayor....   :P  :o

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #20 on: May 28, 2009, 12:38:38 pm »
in all fairness, the fact that she wrote that thesis all those years ago in college doesn't necessarily mean it reflects her current opinion. at the time, whether or not the 2nd amendment protected an individual or collective right was a legitimate legal debate. this issue has been decided somewhat forcefully in dc v. heller, and it's quite likely that she would respect the court's decision in that case as settled law, at least professionally.

that said, she does bear watching, because she probably does continue to harbor anti-gun sentiments. it's just that the debate has moved quite a ways since the time she wrote that essay.

Coming from NY you can bet, your bottom (fiat) dollar, she harbors anti-gun sentiments.  
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,412
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #21 on: May 28, 2009, 12:39:19 pm »
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sotomayor+guns&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=878518

http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-gun-ownership.html

"Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights."

http://www.infowars.com/sotomayor-on-the-supreme-court-a-gun-grabbers-dream-come-true/
Sotomayor on the Supreme Court: A Gun-grabber’s Dream Come True

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
May 28, 2009
Obama Supreme Court pick Sonia Sotomayor believes that suspects captured on the battlefield must receive all rights afforded to American citizens under the Constitution. That’s the good news. Now here’s the bad. She thinks American citizens don’t have the right to own firearms.

As a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor makes the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to Sotomayor, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

In 2004, in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” In another case, Sotomayor ruled that it is illegal for citizens to keep nunchakus in their homes.

“Judge Sotomayor’s record suggests hostility, rather than empathy, for the tens of millions of Americans who exercise their right to keep and bear arms,” said Dave Kopel of the Independence Institute.

Ken Blackwell of the Family Research Council believes her nomination amounts to “a declaration of war against America’s gun owners.”

Earlier this year, Sotomayor ruled that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, according to CNSNews. In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

Sonia Sotomayor would be a perfect Supreme Court justice for the Obama administration. Obama the supposed constitutional scholar is a notorious gun-grabber, although the corporate media refuses to underscore this fact. He endorsed the unconstitutional Illinois gun ban. In classic doublethink fashion, he has declared support for the Second Amendment in principle but backed local gun bans. Obama wants to ban “all forms” of semi-autos. But it is not simply semi-automatics — he would even ban most common rimfire target pistols, including those used in Olympic competition. For more on Obama’s gun-grabbing philosophy, see Barak Obama’s Gun Control Positions.

Many Americans understand Obama wants to outlaw guns and in response they are purchasing guns and ammo in record numbers. “Gun sales are on the rise across the U.S. and many dealers are having trouble keeping guns and ammunition in stock. Sales of guns moved sharply upward last November, the same month voters chose a new president,” reports VOA News.

A growing number of states understand the federal government is gearing up to not only outlaw firearms and trash the Second Amendment, but possibly confiscate them as well.

For instance, Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen has promised to sign a bill today making it legal to possess a firearm during martial law. “Sponsors say martial rule is the same as martial law at the federal level. They say the law is necessary after law enforcement in New Orleans went door to door seizing weapons in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina,” reports the Associated Press.



Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said on Wednesday that “Judge Sotomayor’s position on the Second Amendment is a clear signal that Mr. Obama’s claim that he supports gun rights is nothing but lip service,” reports CBS News.

Puerto Rican 's are loving it:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/05/27/10-things-about-judge-sonia-sotomayor/

How great she is blah blah blah....

Those people over at MoveOn.org move quickly:
In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/05/sotomayor_overturned_60_of_the.html

May 27, 2009
Sotomayor overturned 60% of the time by Supremes
Rick Moran
If senators vote on Sonia Sotomayor's track record, they might want to look at the 60% reversal rate when her decisions reach the Supreme Court
...

Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times , thinks that the reversal rate may be a potent line of attack for the opposition:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

There is no chance Obama will withdraw her name (unless some personal trouble emerges) nor is it likely that she will be defeated on the floor of the senate.

But the American people should be shown just what our president thinks of the Supreme Court to nominate such a candidate to sit in judgment on our most vital cases involving our principles and rights.

Here's the spin on that:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/washington-times-supremes-uphold.html

Washington Times: Supremes Uphold Sotomayor Opinions at Above-Average Rate

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stupider comes this gem from the conservative Washington Times:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.
There are two fairly obvious problems with this. Firstly, only five of Sotomayor's opinions have been ruled upon by the Supreme Court. That's hardly enough to reach a statistically sound conclusion. Moreover, as a matter of semantics, most people don't begin quoting percentages until the number of instances is significantly higher than five. If you came into the office on a Monday morning, and I asked you whether you'd gotten out over the weekend, you probably wouldn't say: "Yes, I got out 66.67% of the time!" -- you'd just tell me that you went out on Friday and Saturday and then sat around and watched basketball on Sunday.

But secondly, a 60 percent reversal rate is actually below average based on the Washington Times' criteria. According to MediaMatters.org, the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon.

The reason that the reversal rate is so high, of course, is that the Supreme Court has a lot of discretion about which cases it chooses to review and rule upon, and is generally not going to be inclined to overturn law dictated by a lower court unless the legal reasoning is substantially questionable and has a strong chance of reversal. The better metric would probably be the number of decisions that the Supreme Court overturned out of all of Sotomayor's majority opinions -- whether the Court elected to review them in detail or not. According to the terrific SCOTUSBLOG, "Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases". Even if we do not count the opinions she has authored in criminal, rather than civil, cases, that means the Supreme Court's reversal rate is not 60 percent, but at most 2 percent -- 3 cases out of 150. I have no idea whether that figure is above average, below average, or somewhere in between, but three reversals in more than a decade's worth of jurisprudence strikes this layman as being an extremely solid track record.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline heavyhebrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,986
  • Laughter is the best medicine.
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #22 on: May 28, 2009, 12:44:14 pm »
I wonder, will this nomination have a pube on a coke or some other juicy details? Or will it be vanilla John Roberts type nomination?
*waits in anticipation for the MSM hype job to ensue*

What is funny is you would think the Repugs would latch on to her obvious 2nd amendment issues or her stand on abortion.

No, they are going to go with the race card. Keep pushing that divide.
We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

Offline Nailer

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,448
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #23 on: May 28, 2009, 12:50:44 pm »


Sotomayor the Puerto Rican wench that obama picks to help in his quest to abolish the rights of the people and Abolish the US Constitution.
I am a realist that is slightly conservative yet I have some republican demeanor that can turn democrat when I feel the urge to flip independant.
 
The truth shall set you free, if not a 45ACP round will do the trick.. HEHE

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,829
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #24 on: May 28, 2009, 01:29:52 pm »
The funny thing is this, she will get confirmed. And the even more hilarious (sarcasm here) is when the justices rule against the 2nd amendment, the way she lines up with the rest.

This isn't our government anymore and hasn't been for quite sometime. This is their game, not ours. Unless this woman comes out and eats a baby on live television, she is in. (and even then MSNBC would try to spin it. Babies good for health? Justice Sotomayor thinks so...)

Ya know, this may be their intitiation, they microwave a infant and she eats it for breakfast while the crew of sociapaths enjoy the show.
Populaion control???????????? Not funny, I know.

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #25 on: May 28, 2009, 01:39:58 pm »
Sessions says Sotomayor comment is "troubling"
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/05/67371675/1

The Senate Republican who is charged with grilling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings told USA TODAY's Matt Kelley this morning that she needs to explain a 2001 speech in which she said a "wise Latina woman" might make better judicial decisions than a white man.

"The American people need an answer before she goes on the bench as to exactly what she meant by that," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"It's on its face a troubling statement," Sessions continued. "It goes against the idea of color-blind justice -- blind justice, not just color-blind justice."

Conservatives have seized on the speech Sotomayor delivered at the University of California, Berkeley's law school. In a discussion about discrimination cases, the federal appeals court judge 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."

Some conservative commentators, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, have called the statement racist. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested yesterday that the statement was being taken out of context. "I think she's talking about the unique experiences that she has," Gibbs said.

Sessions said that the confirmation hearings will be "a very rigorous examination, but fair."

One reason he wants to give Sotomayor a fair chance to defend herself: Sessions told USA TODAY that he feels he was treated unfairly in 1986, when the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to a federal district bench. Several Justice Department lawyers testified at the time that Sessions, then the U.S. attorney in Mobile, had made racially insensitive comments. Sessions testifed that he never made such comments and that some were taken out of context.

In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor went on to say that "we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group."

She continued:

"However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

(Posted by Catalina Camia; AP photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline Lilly Bighorn

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 962
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #26 on: May 28, 2009, 01:42:55 pm »
Sessions says Sotomayor comment is "troubling"
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/05/67371675/1

The Senate Republican who is charged with grilling Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings told USA TODAY's Matt Kelley this morning that she needs to explain a 2001 speech in which she said a "wise Latina woman" might make better judicial decisions than a white man.

"The American people need an answer before she goes on the bench as to exactly what she meant by that," said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

"It's on its face a troubling statement," Sessions continued. "It goes against the idea of color-blind justice -- blind justice, not just color-blind justice."

Conservatives have seized on the speech Sotomayor delivered at the University of California, Berkeley's law school. In a discussion about discrimination cases, the federal appeals court judge 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."

Some conservative commentators, such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, have called the statement racist. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs suggested yesterday that the statement was being taken out of context. "I think she's talking about the unique experiences that she has," Gibbs said.

Sessions said that the confirmation hearings will be "a very rigorous examination, but fair."

One reason he wants to give Sotomayor a fair chance to defend herself: Sessions told USA TODAY that he feels he was treated unfairly in 1986, when the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected his nomination by President Ronald Reagan to a federal district bench. Several Justice Department lawyers testified at the time that Sessions, then the U.S. attorney in Mobile, had made racially insensitive comments. Sessions testifed that he never made such comments and that some were taken out of context.

In her 2001 speech, Sotomayor went on to say that "we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group."

She continued:

"However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

(Posted by Catalina Camia; AP photo by Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

news flash, if you think the law is some science where all you do is adjust figures and consult charts to churn out a decision -- it's not! judges routinely have to make (shock) judgments. the idea that someone with a working class background can make it to the supreme court should be a good thing, supposing they haven't totally sold out (not likely if obama is nominating them). in other words, that comment is way overblown, more about politicians trying to look conservative than anything substantive.
Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #27 on: May 28, 2009, 02:00:13 pm »
news flash, if you think the law is some science where all you do is adjust figures and consult charts to churn out a decision -- it's not! judges routinely have to make (shock) judgments. the idea that someone with a working class background can make it to the supreme court should be a good thing, supposing they haven't totally sold out (not likely if obama is nominating them). in other words, that comment is way overblown, more about politicians trying to look conservative than anything substantive.

Just pointing out what HeavyHebrew posted--they are using the race-card.  This is what will distract the people rather than looking at her merits.
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #28 on: May 28, 2009, 02:20:42 pm »
Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Shadowy Thinking      
Written by Jack Kenny   
Tuesday, 26 May 2009 11:52
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/1164

There may soon be more “penumbras formed by emanations” in the invisible, unpredictable “living Constitution” if President Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, should play a significant role in shaping the evolution of legal doctrine on the nation’s highest court.

"Penumbras"? That's how the Supreme Court has rationalized certain actions establishing new federal laws, and overturning state laws, that cannot be justified based on the clear language of the Constitution.

While the nation’s media will make much of the nominee’s gender (female) and ethnicity (Latino), conservatives both in and beyond the U.S. Senate are likely to devote more time and attention to Sotomayor’s utterances concerning the development of law on both the Supreme Court and on appeals courts, “where policy is made,” according to the judge.

A Youtube clip of Sotomayor, who sits on the Second Court of Appeals in New York, shows her participating in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School in 2005, talking about what kind of Supreme Court nominee certain interest groups would want for the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made,” Sotomayor said. At that point, seemingly aware that she had committed a gaffe, she turned to the other members of the panel, and made a pro forma equivocation. “And I know, and I know, this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law,” she said, waving her hands in the air and drawing laughter from the audience. “I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, I’m not advocating it, I know.” 

Sotomayor then went on to describe the difference between the way a case is adjudicated at the federal district court level and at a court of appeals. In district court, the application of the law is “not precedential, so the facts control the case,” she explained. “On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. So that you’re always thinking about the ramification of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law.”

It is possible a potential nominee could wave a bigger, brighter red flag before both political and judicial conservatives indicating that the judge will legislate from the bench, but it is hard to imagine how. Those opposed to the high court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, establishing abortion as a constitutional right, will be quick to point out that the right was “discovered” in a previous (i.e. “precedential”) ruling in a case in which the court overturned Connecticut’s ban on contraception. (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965).  Associate Justice William O. Douglas, writing for a 6-3 majority, based his ruling on a broad right of privacy, to be found in a “penumbra,” or shadowy area, formed by “emanations” from other privacy rights spelled out in the Constitution.

The Constitution protects personal privacy by demanding security in “persons, houses, papers and effects” from “unreasonable searches and seizures.” It stipulates that soldiers shall not in peacetime be quartered in a private home without the consent of the owner. It guarantees the right of a criminal defendant to be free from self-incrimination. It guarantees the free exercise of religion and of speech and of the press and of assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. These all form a zone of privacy which, in its “penumbras,” must also include the right of a married couple to be free from interference by the state in their acquisition of and use of contraceptives, the court said. “Ipso fatso,” as Archie Bunker used to say. In the past, state and local governments decided laws regarding public morality, which fell outside the few and defined powers of the federal government, but Griswold opened a Pandora's box.

That ruling became “precedential” and the basis for further expansions of the “right to privacy.” The court would later rule that unmarried persons must also be free to practice contraception. Eventually, the right of privacy became the basis for overturning laws against sodomy. Today, five states even recognize same-sex unions as marriages. And the right of privacy in family planning and family life became the basis of the court’s 7-2 Roe ruling on January 22, 1973 that the right to terminate a pregnancy is protected by the Constitution. Today, based on subsequent court rulings, states may not require the consent or even notification of parents of minors seeking abortion without including “health of the mother” and “judicial bypass” provisions to speed the process along and ensure that the right of the “woman” (sometimes as young as 14) to an abortion is not impeded.

In recent years, it has become common practice to give out condoms to students in public schools. The sex-education curricula in most public schools treat homosexuality and same-sex unions (or “marriages” in some states) as natural, normal, and even healthy. An estimated 4,000 babies are aborted, on average, every day in the United States. And there is virtually nothing either the Congress or the states may do about it, according to Roe and subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court.

By the late 1960s, some states were already moving toward a “liberalization” of laws governing contraception, abortion, and sodomy. But there is little doubt that the rulings of the Supreme and appellate courts made policy that not only accelerated the process, but left all states defenseless to stop it or even slow it down. That is how not only law, but “compassion” has developed in America over the last 43 years. The answer to President Obama’s quest for “real world” compassion might be for the people in their respective states to say what the infants in the womb are unable to say on their own behalf: “We are defenseless before the onslaught of your ‘compassion.’”

It is also worth remembering that President Reagan’s first choice for the third Supreme Court vacancy he would fill was Judge Robert Bork, who was skewered (the term of art is now “Borked”) for his stated belief that there was no general, undefined “right of privacy, ” as described in Griswold, Roe et al., anywhere in the Constitution. Bork’s nomination was defeated and Reagan then chose Judge Douglas Ginsburg, who withdrew after confessing to having smoked marijuana in his youth. Reagan’s third choice, Judge Anthony Kennedy, was confirmed and became, with Sandra Day O’Connor, one of the pivotal swing votes between the liberal and conservative blocs on the court.

It remains to be seen if Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate today, most of whom have said they favor “strict constructionists” on the bench, have the stomach for anything like the kind of fight against Sotomayor that liberals waged against Bork.   
 
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline heavyhebrew

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,986
  • Laughter is the best medicine.
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #29 on: May 28, 2009, 02:31:43 pm »
Just pointing out what HeavyHebrew posted--they are using the race-card.  This is what will distract the people rather than looking at her merits.

It isn't just that they are playing the race card. Politically what they are doing is the dumbest route to go. But to their Masters it is what they want.
It fools the Hispanics into thinking they have one of their own on SCOTUS, it makes Whites resentful and it continues the ages old ethnic division.
Here is the one thing the elites know better than anyone else. Hispanics and Whites are more alike than any other groups. And together we would represent a fatal combination to the elites plans.

Ask yourself, why is her identity as a latina getting so much media and not her judicial record on the Court of Appeals? Or her judicial reviews? Or her writings in academia?
Because racial antagonism sells and is useful to the corporate masters.
We work jobs we hate to pay for stuff we don't need to impress people we don't like. Am I the crazy one here?

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,029
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #30 on: May 28, 2009, 02:46:01 pm »
It isn't just that they are playing the race card. Politically what they are doing is the dumbest route to go. But to their Masters it is what they want.
It fools the Hispanics into thinking they have one of their own on SCOTUS, it makes Whites resentful and it continues the ages old ethnic division.
Here is the one thing the elites know better than anyone else. Hispanics and Whites are more alike than any other groups. And together we would represent a fatal combination to the elites plans.

Ask yourself, why is her identity as a latina getting so much media and not her judicial record on the Court of Appeals? Or her judicial reviews? Or her writings in academia?
Because racial antagonism sells and is useful to the corporate masters.

I wholeheartedly agree!
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2009, 01:00:01 pm »
DEMAND that the U.S. Senate REJECT anti-Second Amendment judicial activist Judge Sonia Sotomayor from the Supreme Court!

https://secure.conservativedonations.com/saf_sotomayor_he/?a=2474

Sotomayor Is Unfit To Sit On the High Court

http://www.cfiflistmanager.org/stopsotomayorhe.html

Anti-gun Supreme Court Nomination

http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=13440286

JBS

  • Guest
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #32 on: June 06, 2009, 01:44:07 am »
May 27, 2009 5:40 PM
Gun Rights Groups Are Wary Of Sotomayor
Posted by Declan McCullagh



And just what the heck is HE looking at?

Offline KI4BNC

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 686
  • WAKE UP PEOPLE!!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #33 on: June 06, 2009, 01:52:30 am »
And just what the heck is HE looking at?

tele-prompter reflection,in a puddle?
What?I'm just trying to think outside the box. :o :o
those that would give up a little liberty to obtain a little security,deserve neither and will lose both.

Offline Kilika

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,762
  • Thank you Jesus!
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #34 on: June 06, 2009, 04:57:58 am »
Quote
A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment "imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it's not clear who wrote it.

This is key; federal vs. state rights. The problem is that the federal government has a track record of imposing it's position on the states, forcing it to be a federal issue. Namely, claiming that the National Guard is the militia, while the federal government steps in and "federalizes" the National Guard for federal active duty service with the regular standing army. In fact, the National Guard is under the command of the regular army, which to me disqualifies them as a state's militia. That defeats the whole point of "a well regulated militia", which is distinctly seperate from a standing army. And that is the basis for them saying "the right to keep and bare arms..." does not apply to individuals, but rather the militia, or rather the feds militia.

They are in effect acknowledging the right to bare arms, but they game the system by redefining to their advantage what a militia is, thereby stripping individuals of their rights. They are claiming if your not in the militia, their militia, you have no right to bare arms.

Quote
As a graduate student at Princeton University, Sotomayor wrote a these entitled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.” In the text, Sotomayor makes the argument that the Second Amendment does not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms. She believes only the military has this right. According to Sotomayor, it has been illegal for individuals to own firearms since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

I rest my case!
"For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows."
1 Timothy 6:10 (KJB)

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,412
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #35 on: June 06, 2009, 11:43:27 pm »
Understand what their game is:
" unitary system: a type of government that concentrates power in the central government"

So they need to "select" jurors who go along. Notice that their "decisions" allow "the government" to decide a citizens freedoms (or lack thereof).

http://www.constitutionfacts.com/index.cfm?section=funzone&page=glossaryofterms.cfm

The Dirty Dozen, Robert Levy, Book - Barnes & NobleThe Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and ... the Court has allowed breathtaking expansions of government power that .... Inc. (2001), they contend, have fostered the concentration of power in the ...
search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Dirty-Dozen/Robert-Levy/e/9781595230508 -



Synopsis
A non-lawyer's guide to the worst Supreme Court decisions of the modern era

The Dirty Dozen takes on twelve Supreme Court cases that changed American history—and yet are not well known to most Americans.

Starting in the New Deal era, the Court has allowed breathtaking expansions of government power that significantly reduced individual rights and abandoned limited federal government as envisioned by the founders.

For example:
• Helvering v. Davis (1937) allowed the government to take money from some and give it to others, without any meaningful constraints
• Wickard v. Filburn (1942) let Congress use the interstate commerce clause to regulate even the most trivial activities—neither interstate nor commerce
• Kelo v. City of New London (2005) declared that the government can seize private property and transfer it to another private owner

Levy and Mellor untangle complex Court opinions to explain how The Dirty Dozen harmed ordinary Americans. They argue for a Supreme Court that will enforce what the Constitution actually says about civil liberties, property rights, racial preferences, gun ownership, and many other controversial issues.

I DON'T agree with alot of what this next review says , but it does talk about the cases...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26314

'The Dirty Dozen' Cases the Changed Our Country
by  Henry Mark Holzer
05/02/2008

A Book Review: "The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom."

In two months the Supreme Court will conclude its 2007-2008 Term, some 216 years after it rendered its first decision.  During those years, the Court decided thousands of cases.

While Americans have been considerably affected by the Court’s interpretation of federal statutes, its constitutional decisions have had the greatest impact on the limited government and concern for individual rights bequeathed us by the Founders. 

As to which constitutional decisions are “worst,” lawyers usually disagree.  (In a book I’m writing -- Fifty of the Worst Supreme Court Decisions -- my standard is cases, beginning with M’Colluch  in 1819, adversely affecting  in a major way republican institutions (e.g., federalism) and individual rights (e.g., speech).

To choose their “dirty dozen,” the authors considered “post-1933 cases that had the most destructive effect on law and public policy, either by expanding government powers beyond those that are constitutionally authorized or by imperiling individual liberties that are constitutionally protected.” (My emphasis.)

Given the authors’ stated goal -- i.e., the selection of a dozen cases that “expanded” or “imperiled,” which by itself was a workable objective -- regrettably they’ve created a serious contradiction for themselves: On the first page of their Introduction they write: “This book is about twelve Supreme Court cases [beginning in 1934] that changed the course of American history -- away from constitutional government.” (My emphasis.)

Cases “expanding government powers” or “imperiling individual liberties” are one thing, and not difficult to find.  But cases that “changed the course of American history” are something else entirely, and not so prevalent.  If the authors’ “dirty dozen” were intended to satisfy the “expanding” or “imperiling” standard, the book succeeds, albeit only in part.  However, if all twelve must satisfy the “chang[ing] the course of American history” standard, only five succeed.

For example, in his foreword Professor Epstein rightly disagrees with the authors’ selection of Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., (administrative agencies, not Congress, enacting legislation) and United States v. Miller (limiting the  right to bear arms). 

He’s correct about Whitman because, as he says, it was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council in 1984, “that inaugurated the principle of high judicial deference to administrative agencies on practically all questions of law.” Chevron would easily have satisfied the “expanding” or “imperiling” standard, and perhaps even the “changed” standard.

Professor Epstein is correct also about Miller, because the decision, strongly implying that Americans did not possess the individual right to bear arms, neither significantly “expanded” nor “imperiled” citizens’ right to own guns, which millions of Americans currently do (albeit subject to some regulations).  Miller be said to have “changed the course of American history -- away from constitutional government” but only in a limited sense.  (The case currently before the Court on the District of Columbia gun ban will be of far greater import, regardless of its outcome).

Bemis v. Michigan, a 5-4 ruling allowing the state to forfeit assets used in a crime even though they belonged to an innocent owner, is hardly an earth-shaking due process decision compared to many previous ones.  While, like others, it may have “expanded” or “imperiled,” Bemis is hardly is a case that “changed the course of American history” --whatever the moral implications of an innocent being wrongly punished.

As to McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, prohibiting speech within a couple months of an election, the authors are correct that “Campaign finance laws attack the heart of our democratic political system,” and in that sense the case “expands” and “imperils.”  However, McConnell involves only one category of speech -- political -- while, since 1933, the Court has sanctioned government suppression of other kinds of speech, e.g., symbolic, obscene, commercial, and more. McConnell is thus just another suppression of speech, but surely not one that has changed American history.

Although the authors are certainly correct that Kelo v. City of New London and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York, allowing confiscation of private property through eminent domain and regulation, for commercial as well as government purposes, were “expanded” and “imperiled” cases,  Kelo was actually the product of the case to which they give “dishonorable mention”: Berman v. Parker.  In that “urban renewal” case, decided a half-century earlier, the constitutional term “public use” was given a broad interpretation, and the nature of real property ownership changed dramatically.  As the authors note, after Berman in 1954, “courts routinely deferred to legislatures and planning commissions in eminent domain actions . . .” -- making Kelo a mere consequence of Berman.  And, in that respect, so too was Penn Central.

The last of the “dirty dozen,” discussed in Chapter 12, is the 2003 case of Grutter v. Bollinger, upholding racial preferences in undergraduate admissions -- a decision presaged by the Court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, to which the authors give “dishonorable mention.   In Bakke, the Court approved the consideration of race to achieve “diversity” in undergraduate admissions. Despite the justifiable outrage that accompanied Grutter and the cogency of the four-justice dissent (especially Justice Thomas’s), the case added little if anything new to the reprehensible racial preference scheme propounded by Justice Powell in Bakke.

On the other hand, in five of their “dirty dozen,” the authors are correct in their assessment of the cases’ impact. 

Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell allowed states -- in repudiation of Article I of the Constitution’s Contact Clause -- to nullify private mortgage contracts because of depression-induced inability of mortgagees to make their payments.

In Helvering v. Davis, the Court upheld the Social Security system in the name of spending for the “general welfare.” As Epstein says, the case “transformed the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause from a limitation of government power to a source of added power.”  We see the consequences at every session of Congress, and every term of the Supreme Court. 

In United States v. Carolene Products, involving federal prohibition of interstate shipment of a certain type of milk, the Court severely limited review of a federal statute by asking only “whether any state of facts either known or which could reasonably be assumed affords support” for the legislation.  Carolene Products thus effectively took government depredation of economic liberties out of the realm of judicial review.  To say that the decision “changed the course of American history” is an understatement.

Wickard v. Filburn, upholding federal quotas for home-grown wheat to be consumed locally, engorged the Commerce Clause, profoundly changing the delicate equilibrium between the federal government and the states. 

Korematsu v. United States, upheld the wholesale WW II removal of Japanese-American citizens from their homes.  The decision unarguably expanded government power and imperiled individual rights -- indeed, it trampled on them -- and changed, hopefully for the better, the future treatment of American citizens who are prima facie innocent of any wrongdoing.

In trying to select twelve post-1933 “dirty” cases, Levy and Mellor gave themselves a difficult assignment.  Although by the standards they set for themselves they have not completely achieved their goal, still, they have brought to the general public a challenging indictment of the Supreme Court that is at once accessible and provocative.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline egypt

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,035
  • Love: A Wish to bestow the fullness of Joyous Life
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #36 on: June 06, 2009, 11:53:49 pm »
Sotomayor needs to go back to wherever it is she came from and away from any positions and politics.

Online TahoeBlue

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,412
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #37 on: June 07, 2009, 02:00:11 pm »
La Raza member 1998 - 2004 (claims shes not a member anymore?)

Sotomayor - Senate Questionaire
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/SupremeCourt/Sotomayor/upload/Questionnaire-2009.pdf

National Council of La Raza 1998–2004 Member
The Council works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans in five key areas: assets and investments, civil rights and immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. Mildred J. Reyes Raul Yzaguirre Building 1126 16th Street NW Washington, DC 20036 (202) 785-1670

10/26-10/28/01   (Yes after 9/11 this is what was on her mind:)
University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law
I presented the Olmos Lecture at this event, “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.” Draft speech provided as attachment to Question 12(a) and published as A Latina Judge’s Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 87 (2002).
My travel, lodging, and meal expenses were reimbursed by the sponsor of this event, the University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law

A Latina Judge’s Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza Law Journal 87 (2002).

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420
Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group

Posted: May 27, 2009

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
Behold, happy is the man whom God correcteth: therefore despise not thou the chastening of the Almighty: For he maketh sore, and bindeth up: he woundeth, and his hands make whole ; He shall deliver thee in six troubles: yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee. - Job 5

Offline TelepesT

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
  • Genetic Dictator
    • Freedom T
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #38 on: June 07, 2009, 03:05:48 pm »
As AJ says " it is too late to confiscate the firearms"


This just legal wrangling, It will take alot of stooges to take the american guns. It will not go down like in Australia. Americans will die before giving up the guns. We will have to wait and see.

http://wcbstv.com/local/sonia.sotomayor.supreme.2.1033108.html
she loves to eat pig innards!
WTF
also notice the fake smile and huge eyelashes she always trys to make this a 100% affermative action issue.

The capitol has gone rotten, we must clean out the filth or the country will die.



Ten Foot Lizard Man from Planet Snickle-Snack in the POP-TART sector 
Freedom T
Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.
- Mohandas Gandhi

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,843
Re: SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor: "Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional"
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2009, 07:02:24 pm »
Tell Congress: REJECT Judge Sotomayor as UNQUALIFIED!

https://secure.conservativedonations.com/rm_sotomayor_he/?a=2508