Supreme Court Nomination anti-2nd Amendment

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/05/26/blackwell_ken_obama_sotomayor/

KEN BLACKWELL: Obama Declares War on America’s Gun Owners With Supreme Court Pick
By Ken Blackwell
Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union/Family Research Council

President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.

—————

According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

—————

Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.

In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.

Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.

But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.

That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.

This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.

If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.

The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.

Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.

But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.

There are a number of pro-Second Amendment Democratic senators from deeply red states, including Mark Begich from Alaska, Jon Tester and Max Baucus from Montana, Ben Nelson from Nebraska, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad from North Dakota, and Tim Johnson from South Dakota.

These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court. Second Amendment supporters will now be up in arms over this radical anti-Second Amendment nominee, and you should never underestimate the political power of American gun owners.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and the Family Research Council.

She also said her job is to ‘legislate law from the bench’

From a bit of reading, she hasn’t had to make any serious decisions on any critical issues…yet, which should make her confirmation by the Senate less contentious. However, since she is now the Obama nominee for the SCOTUS, her opinions on the 2nd amendment should come as no surprise to any of us.

Obviously there was no one else qualified for the job. :rolleyes: This is Obama making good to the lefties for the other things that he has done lately that pissed them off.

An anti-self-defense elitist tart.

Blue dogs get a chance to prove who is a blue dog, and who is just a dog.

This appointment needs to be stopped.
The 2nd Circuit ruling was handed down just a few months ago and it is crystal clear: the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

This needs to be stuffed. Lots of pressure needs to be put on any pro gun democrats out there as well as the whole Repub party. If this can get stuffed now and heavily it may make the Big O think more carefully next time.

Make guns an issue before the 2010 elections.

What can we do? Thats a serious question by the way.

Talk it up in any forums you are on.

Write in to your local newspaper.

CALL and WRITE your congressman and senators no matter what party and tell them how you feel on this (I know only the Senate confirms – just letting the Congressman know is a way to reinforce this). Make sure the 2A views are what are compelling you to write on this.

Chad

Elections have consequences. All of you who voted for Ron Paul or stayed home can pat yourselves on the back. With the make up of the Senate there is roughly a zero percent chance that her nomination will be scuttled because of her views on the second amendment. She might have other skeletons in the closet but even if she goes down he isn’t going to roll out a pro-gun jurist, ever.

Why is any of this a surprise to any of you? Did anyone here really think President Obama was going to nominate a candidate that takes an expansive view of the second amendment? On the positive side her nomination is to replace a member of the court that was just as hostile to the second amendment as she is so there is no net change on the bench. We had better wish nothing but good health to Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito over the next four years.

I agree with you elections have consequences. But there is a chance to stop this on 2A grounds. Don’t give up until the fight is lost.

The 2010 elections are coming and we need to make guns an issue in the election.

a big +1 here…no one on the short list was pro-2A…i do think that its a bit of a statement from Obama to choose a judge from the only panel to decide a significant 2A case in a very anti-way since Heller…

i also don’t think there is a chance this doesnt get confirmed…the Republicans may filibuster her some, but your best chance of not getting her in is to discover an unknown crack habit…

We’ll agree to disagree that her one major ruling on weapons will prevent her from being confirmed. Unless she has skeletons in her closet this is a done deal. The chance to beat her nomination circled the drain with McCain’s defeat in November. I am not saying that you should remain quiet but rather you should be realistic about your chances of effecting the outcome here. If she turns out to be a real wingnut it can’t hurt during the 2010 election cycle.

This states rights shit is so confusing. How can one ruling say “the individual has the right to bear arms” and another say “the state chooses whether or not you have the right”. What the HELL is that???

So do state’s rights take precedence over my rights?

Her judicial acumen leaves something to be desired - 80%+ of her decisions have been OVERTURNED on appeal. Sounds like the very definition of a LOUSY judge to me. :mad:

Fail.

Thats covered by the 9th and 10th, the BoR are absolutes that cannot be violated by any state etc(supposed to be anyway) and it says they cannot take any rights you already have

But anything else is left to the people, or states

+1:

This one is very winnable and it would be a huge victory.

– The last two votes in the Senate went our way by large margins: 62 and 66 out of 100.
– Ken Salazar was on the short list for SCOTUS , he is a strong 2nd Amendment guy.
– The President has a history of throwing “gun control” under the bus anytime that he needs traction.
– Mr. Obama is a fairly smart guy and this can be a teachable moment. If he gets stung hard enough , he won’t make the same mistake twice.

:wink:

If this is a done deal then an AWB is a done deal. But the AWB seems to not be a done deal.

We can make this fail if we make it a big enough issue and make the issue guns.

Soooooooo can anyone explain how a state or city can tell you if you have the right or not to own a gun if the Bill of rights cant be violated by a state?