~~~She's also refused to state her views on abortion to The American People she'll be assaulting with the 'stroke of a pen, law of the land, kinda cool.'..as you know, English ["subjects" (of the King)] have no right of/to self defense-is she perjuring herself as many extreme Left groups are now claiming, lying under oath since she denied any belief or preference for, Judicial Activism (while all of her speeches proclaim the opposite)......or is she truly ignorant of the Constitution? Her silence is deafening.~~~
"In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions.
Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year.
But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states.
But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions.
Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that
addressed that issue.
Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism!
Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination?
Take a stance AGAINST this nominee.
Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless.
Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers.
We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court. We consider her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense.
She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live."
Click to view image: '16e2bc89510b-redsonja.jpg'
|Liveleak on Facebook|