RSSDespite The Spin, Sotomayor NOT A Constitutionalist Nor A Qualified Judge
J.J. Jackson | May 29, 2009
President Obama is out and about pumping up Sonia Sotomayor as some sort of qualified jurist. But the truth comes out the more people dig into her background and start looking at decisions she either penned (which are notoriously vacuous) or that she signed on to. For example, Sotomayor, like so many liberal judges, proves her incompetence to hold such an office by ignoring clear Constitutional law. Declan McCullagh reports on her problems with the second amendment:
The difficulty in evaluating Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is the lack of definitive statements. No old law review articles advocating a Scalia-esque originalist approach have been unearthed; no speeches to the Brady Campaign calling for nationwide gun confiscation have surfaced.
A handful of Sotomayor’s Second Circuit decisions, however, have.
In a 2004 criminal case, U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, a three-judge panel that included Sotomayor wrote that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.“
Really? You are joking right? This woman is not qualified to clean the bubblegum off the sidewalk spouting such idiocy when the Constitution itself, under Amendment II, states clearly, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Want to tell us again how the right to bear arms is “not a fundamental right” you twit?
But wait, there is more stupidity from Sotomayor to come!
Another case involved a fellow named James Maloney who was arrested in Port Washington, N.Y. for possessing a nunchaku — typically sticks connected by rope or chain — in his home. Maloney claimed that the Second Amendment rendered the state law banning nunchakus unconstitutional.
A three-judge panel including Sotomayor unanimously rejected his claim in January 2009, ruling that the Second Amendment “imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts.” All members of the panel agreed with this sentiment, but because the opinion was unsigned, it’s not clear who wrote it.
Hey uh Sonia, yoo hoo over here – I know the shiny lights are detracting you but do try to pay attention here ok? Grab your Constitution please … no, not that revised and extended liberal version with scribbles in the margin by Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi. I mean the actual Constitution!
Now be a dear and flip down to the 14th Amendment will you? What does it say?
It says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
So yes, technically you are right … uh Sonia … sweetheart over here … pay attention. Technically you are right that the second amendment does perhaps only apply to the federal government BUT the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment apply to the states.
And people are still trying to seriously argue that this woman is qualified for the Supreme Court? Hell the woman is illiterate! Either that or she is dumber than a sack of wet mice as Foghorn Leghorn used to say.
Do the facts matter at all here?
Contributor's website: http://www.libertyreborn.com
Content posted by users from other sites is posted for commentary and news purposes under fair use and each author is responsible for their own postings and a particular posting should not be construed as being endorsed by this site or its owner.
Leave a Reply
Loading ...Recommended Reading:
