As the confirmation hearing proceeds, it is worth remembering the
important areas where Judge Sonia Sotomayor is on the liberal
extreme. Robert Alt of the Heritage Foundation helpfully
covers three of the most important cases. He
writes:
Throughout her career, Judge Sotomayor has made statements and
issued decisions that raise grave concerns about her
impartiality, her judicial philosophy, her views on ethnicity
and gender, and her perspective on issues ranging from gun
rights, to property rights, to U.S. courts' reliance on foreign
law. With that in mind, here are three troublesome cases that
will highlight the hearings:
Second Amendment. Everyone knows about the 32
words Judge Sotomayor uttered about the "wise Latina woman,"
but what about the 11 words? That's how many she dedicated to
determining whether a state law prohibiting weapons possession
involved a fundamental right. She held that the Second
Amendment doesn't apply to the states -- a ruling that would
permit local governments to completely ban gun possession if
they so desire.
Sotomayor's defenders have suggested that this case is an
example of judicial restraint, because she relied upon 19th
century cases in deciding that weapons could be outlawed. But
the Supreme Court just last year said those cases do not meet
the requirements of current law. This defense also ignores that
Sotomayor did not cite a single case in her decision, just
dismissing seven pages of analysis that the Ninth Circuit
conducted to reach the conclusion that the right to bear arms
is a fundamental one, deeply rooted in our nation's history.
Anyone who finds themselves to the left of the "Ninth Circuit" is
definitely "out there".
Funny how she finds an unrestricted "right" to abortion in the
constitution by not to ownership of arms.
Perhaps she is reading Ammendment 1.5A:
"For the maintenance of a free and un-tethered lifestyle, the
right of a woman to mutilate, kill, suck from the womb in little
pieces, her child as it writhes in agony- shall not be
infringed".
You see....it takes a superior "Latina woman" to find those
'special' amendments in the constitution and to understand that;
What isn't there actually IS and what is there actually ISN'T.
I hope you're taking notes......
RM| 7.13.09 @ 9:16PM
Any attempt by any branch of the federal government to abridge
the rights defined under the Bill of Rights - particularly the
First and Second Amendments - is a declaration of war on liberty.
Therefore it is a declaration of war on the American people.
Sorry. That's the line in the sand. I will not obey any laws
infringing on those rights.
Cass S., the Supremes, Holden, Powers, Holder, Koh, etc. etc. I
don't care who they are, who appoints them, or how "politically
correct" they are. They infringe - they violate the clear and
unambiguous language of the Constitution - they are illegitimate
and the laws / regs /rulings they pass or hand down are
illegitimate.
We have a standard. I do not care that the elitists don't agree.
They are wrong.
They do not own us. We are not their serfs to be ruled. They are
our servants to protect our liberties.
Solo| 7.13.09 @ 7:37PM
Anyone who finds themselves to the left of the "Ninth Circuit" is definitely "out there".
Funny how she finds an unrestricted "right" to abortion in the constitution by not to ownership of arms.
Perhaps she is reading Ammendment 1.5A:
"For the maintenance of a free and un-tethered lifestyle, the right of a woman to mutilate, kill, suck from the womb in little pieces, her child as it writhes in agony- shall not be infringed".
You see....it takes a superior "Latina woman" to find those 'special' amendments in the constitution and to understand that; What isn't there actually IS and what is there actually ISN'T.
I hope you're taking notes......
RM| 7.13.09 @ 9:16PM
Any attempt by any branch of the federal government to abridge the rights defined under the Bill of Rights - particularly the First and Second Amendments - is a declaration of war on liberty. Therefore it is a declaration of war on the American people.
Sorry. That's the line in the sand. I will not obey any laws infringing on those rights.
Cass S., the Supremes, Holden, Powers, Holder, Koh, etc. etc. I don't care who they are, who appoints them, or how "politically correct" they are. They infringe - they violate the clear and unambiguous language of the Constitution - they are illegitimate and the laws / regs /rulings they pass or hand down are illegitimate.
We have a standard. I do not care that the elitists don't agree. They are wrong.
They do not own us. We are not their serfs to be ruled. They are our servants to protect our liberties.
They fear us or we fear them.
I choose the former.