Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for the Supreme Court

3blade

Very Active Member
Messages
1,944
Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for the Supreme Court
-- Time to start contacting your Senators right away

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


Friday, May 29, 2009


Unless you've taken a very long Memorial Day vacation, you've no doubt
heard the big news.

President Obama has picked an anti-gun radical to replace Justice David
Souter on the Supreme Court.

Obama's pick is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who is currently on the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second District. There she has racked up an
anti-Second Amendment record and has displayed contempt for the rule of
law under the Constitution.

The Heller decision put the Supreme Court in support of the
Constitutional protection of the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Sotomayor, a politically correct lover of centralized government power
(as long as she is part of the power elite), immediately went into
counter-attack mode against the Heller decision.

Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled
in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the
states. As she and her cohorts claimed, the Supreme Court has not yet
incorporated the states under the Second Amendment. Until then, she
believes, the Second only applies to the District of Columbia.

This is pure judicial arrogance -- something Sotomayor relishes (as long
as she is one of the ruling judges). In fact, protection of the right
to keep and bear arms was a major objective for enactment of the
Fourteenth Amendment, as recently freed slaves were being disarmed and
terrorized in their neighborhoods.

But Sotomayor disdains this important right of individuals, as indicated
by an earlier opinion from 2004. In United States v. Sanchez-Villar,
she stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental
right."

Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s.
Fox Cable News reported yesterday that in her senior thesis at Princeton
University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns
and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

Sotomayor's Second Amendment views go hand in hand with her politically
correct views on the law and the role of judges.

In a speech given at Duke University in 2005, she made it abundantly
clear that judges are involved in making policy. Realizing that this
did not sound very judicial (even though most judges act on this basis),
Sotomayor tried to laugh off her brazen admission: "I know this is on
tape and I should never say that, [audience laughing], because we don't
make law -- I know. Um, okay. I know, I'm not promoting it, I'm not
advocating it." The audience continued to laugh. They got the joke.

But Sotomayor's joke will be on us and our liberties if she gets
confirmed to the Supreme Court. And that is why we need to start
contacting our Senators early and often, urging them to vote against
this dangerous nomination.

ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to oppose the
nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. You can
go to the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the
pre-written e-mail message below.


----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

If you cherish the Second Amendment and agree that it protects an
individual right to keep and bear arms -- as stated by the recent Heller
decision -- then you must vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

This choice for the Supreme Court is totally unacceptable! Consider a
partial rendering of her anti-gun record:

* Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the
right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which
ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to
the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which
stated in April that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.

* Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s.
Fox Cable News reported on May 28 that in her senior thesis at Princeton
University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns
and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to
firearms ownership.

I will consider a vote in favor of Sotomayor as the most anti-gun vote a
Senator could cast. To send an anti-gun liberal judge to the Supreme
Court for the rest of her life is to establish "legislation without
representation." After all, she says that the courts are where policy
is made, and once she's there, we'll never be able to vote her out.

Again, please vote against this dangerous nomination.

Sincerely,
 
I don't care too much for her, seems to be anti gun and there's no clear gaurantee she's a strong abortion rights supporter.

Still I expect her to be appointed unless something major come out of the closet, too early to know.
 
I'm not worried. Hdude assured us that Obama has too many irons in the fire to think about gun bans.

Eel
 
elections have consequences...right eel??....wtf did we expect him to nominate?...Wayne LaPierre???



great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
If only if she was a hemophiliac. We need one on the court to represent all the Americans who suffer from Hemophilia.
 
...and what is your obsession with abortion rights all about H'dude???


great post/pic, thanks for sharing

JB
497fc2397b939f19.jpg
 
What's your obsession with taking abortion rights away?

I'm not obsessed with it, I just happen to agree with the past court decisions and I want it left alone. that's it.

I would prefer a pro gun, pro choice judge but that would be asking too much. don't expect a lot of organized opposition to Solomayor by the republicans, they aren't going after her unless the get something better than what they have so far, they're just going to whine and snivel a little. the hispanic vote means more to them than the NRA vote they've got that anyway.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-29-09 AT 10:54PM (MST)[p]If abortion had been known procedure back in the days you were born there's little doubt you would have been cut short yourself kilowat.
 
LAST EDITED ON May-30-09 AT 02:49AM (MST)[p]I'm still sorting through the cloud of b.s. that permeates the web to learn more about Sotomayor. So far I have discovered that there are 60 or so blogs about Sotomayor's apparent desire to want to take away our guns or redefine the 14th Amendment.

I have seen Maloney v Cuomo being portrayed the majority of the time on the net as being associated with gun confiscation or trampling on the 2nd & 14th Amendment. Maloney v Cuomo has absolutely nothing to do with Guns directly...it's about owning or possessing Nunchuks. Read the article and it will present the constitutional questions, just keep in mind that thereare many other Appeals judges that sided against Maloney.

IMHO it is total b.s. that Nunchuks are illegal in New York and California and that one cannot legally own them for personal entertainment or martial arts. The real battle here is between the 2nd and the 14th amendments. Sotomayor's findings are simply an interpretation of law and she is joined by a multitude of peers.

Outside of the Nun-chuk issue I am still researching her background before I take a stand on her confirmation. So here is the big question: Is it unconstitutional for a state or city to impose a weapons ban and is it a direct violation of the 2nd and 14th amendment?

http://lonelymachines.org/2009/02/10/maloney-v-cuomo-and-incorporation/

I'm really not sure what to think of Sotomayor other than she was nominated by Bush Sr and I trust him. She does have a rather extensive and impressive educational background. As she is vetted in the press, perhaps more revealing information will become available.
 
Well Forthewall I would have to agree with you on this.

The things that have come out so far that concern me are her associations with "la Rasa", her take on interjecting her race into her decisions and her comments about about setting policy from the bench. I am as you are still sifting through the whats true and whats not true about her.

I am very impressed with her story. Not unlike Clarence Thomas's story. Only in America could a person accmplish what she has with the odds stacked against her. I like a story like that.



"Here's something for you doom and gloomer, coolaid drinkers that might help you from offing yourselves; you could have had Hillary."
Tfinalshot March 24, 2009
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom