• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Sotomayor: America has a "deadly obsession" with guns

KCIndy

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2007
Messages
6,342
Did anyone else get this Gunowners of America alert?

I'm guessing it's going to be a losing battle, but I've decided I'm going to go down swinging. It's time to start bombarding the Senate with requests (or demands) to have the Sotomayor nomination dumped.

http://gunowners.org/a052909.htm


Obama Picks Anti-gun Judge for the Supreme Court
-- Time to start contacting your Senators right away


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 use the Legislative Action Center to send your Senators a pre-written e-mail message.
 
Some Americans have a "deadly obsession" with freedom, and have had since 1775.;)
 
Sonia Sotomayor has an undergraduate degree from Princeton, a graduate degree from Yale and taught at Columbia. It cannot go unnoticed that the same quote-unquote Ivy League schools are producing a disproportionate number of our Rulers and, further, that a disproportionate number of our Rulers tend toward corruption in office. Rats love ivy.

I sense that if Commoners would focus on the inbreeding, rather than proposed policies or suspected positions, this confirmation hearing would incite scrutiny into the glad-handing favor-trading that has the citizenry and the economy tied in knots.
 
America has a deadly obsession with free speech.
America has a deadly obsession with guns.
America has a deadly obsession with privacy.
America has a deadly obsession with due process.
America has a deadly obsession with State's rights.
 
America has a deadly obsession with free speech.
America has a deadly obsession with guns.
America has a deadly obsession with privacy.
America has a deadly obsession with due process.
America has a deadly obsession with State's rights.

+1776.

Remember, Obama and Biden won't take your guns. Their picks for Attorney General and the Supreme Court will.

If they are seriously insane enough to attempt a disarmament of America, we will be well on the way to a civil war.

How the hell can you justify appointing a Justice that does not believe in individual rights, and wants to essentially repeal the most important part of the Bill of Rights?
 
Last edited:
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.

A GIANT WTF!?!?! Is in order for that logic. seriously what are they smoking.
 
A GIANT WTF!?!?! Is in order for that logic. seriously what are they smoking.

It's a dumb logic, but I remember hearing in government class that each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd) has been "incorporated," meaning that the Court has ruled on these amendments in a certain way and if they haven't that means the law is unclear. I can't explain it very well, but hopefully someone here will chime in.
 
They are not amendments!

It's a dumb logic, but I remember hearing in government class that each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd) has been "incorporated," meaning that the Court has ruled on these amendments in a certain way and if they haven't that means the law is unclear. I can't explain it very well, but hopefully someone here will chime in.


The first ten, are known as The Bill of Rights for a reason.

If not for the BoR, the remainder of the Constitution would not have been ratified.

The Ten Articles in the Bill of Rights therefore supersede the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence provides the template delineating our necessity for shedding the tyranny that has usurped and corrupted the Rule of Law, beginning with our individual, Divinely appointed Bill of Rights.
 
Ignorant people have deadly obsessions with firearms and they tie their ability to be somebody important, to homicide.

Violence is an ignorant mans way of leveling the playing field.

She should condemn La Raza, as they are responsible for a majority of gun related crime in my state.
 
It's a dumb logic, but I remember hearing in government class that each of the amendments in the Bill of Rights (except the 2nd) has been "incorporated," meaning that the Court has ruled on these amendments in a certain way and if they haven't that means the law is unclear. I can't explain it very well, but hopefully someone here will chime in.

The Supreme Court can rule any way it likes, they still can't alter the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of what religious beliefs you have, the rights listed on the Bill of Rights are integral and individual, granted to a person on the moment of their birth. Government cannot strip you of those rights.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of what rights we have, its a list of what rights government cannot touch.
 
The Supreme Court can rule any way it likes, they still can't alter the Bill of Rights.

Regardless of what religious beliefs you have, the rights listed on the Bill of Rights are integral and individual, granted to a person on the moment of their birth. Government cannot strip you of those rights.

The Bill of Rights is not a list of what rights we have, its a list of what rights government cannot touch.

They can make bullets illegal.
 
All the thieves in black robes and Congress Critters should be more worried about banning rope.

I think it poses more of a threat to them than guns.
 
Back
Top