Barry's pick for SCOTUS

[user]

There's all this talk about "re-interpreting" the Constitution. Like, that's a surprise? This is a person who has indicated that, when she is confirmed, she will use her power exactly as she sees fit and do what she thinks is "right", regardless of what we've already decided and enshrined in the Constitution.

[KING64]

The Constitution of the United States is a troublesome and annoying thing for liberals. How many countries who have no constitution or a constitution that can be changed, manipulated and circumvented at the will of the seated powers have experienced real freedom? Are we headed into a banana republic mode?

[Bobitis]

As bad as it sounds.
NO woman should hold an office that requires logic.
Estrogen engulfs them. They can think clearly 25% of the time.
And then, it's all warm fuzzy stuff they'd like to believe.

My apologies to the ladies on the sight.

Boy am I gonna regret this.

[dge479]

Well once again Nobama met my expectations for continuing to attemt to screw the country up to the beyond repair point.

[user]

Originally Posted by Bobitis

As bad as it sounds.
NO woman should hold an office that requires logic.
Estrogen engulfs them. They can think clearly 25% of the time.
And then, it's all warm fuzzy stuff they'd like to believe.

My apologies to the ladies on the sight.

Boy am I gonna regret this.

Well, it's true. And, at the same time, no man should hold such office either. Testosterone, you know.

Bottom line: it's them derned humans! If we could just get rid of all the humans, the planet would be just fine.

[alhefner]

Bottom line: it's them derned humans! If we could just get rid of all the humans, the planet would be just fine.

Carefull there user...that is exactly the goal of PETA.

[Prizefighter]

Sotomayor's Gun Control Positions Could Prompt Conservative Backlash
Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
---
Judge Sonia Sotomayor could walk into a firestorm on Capitol Hill over her stance on gun rights, with conservatives beginning to question some controversial positions she's taken over the past several years on the Second Amendment.

Earlier this year, President Obama's Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.

A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama's nomination a "declaration of war against America's gun owners."

Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor's record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.

But Sotomayor's position on gun control is far more crystallized.

Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is "very, very disturbing."

"That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk," he said. "What she's basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms."

The chief concern is her position in the 2009 Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which the court examined a claim by a New York attorney that a New York law that prohibited possession of nunchucks violated his Second Amendment rights. The Appeals Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The ruling explained that it was "settled law" that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government might seek on individual gun rights.

Despite last year's landmark Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms, the Maloney ruling determined that case "does not invalidate this longstanding principle" that states are not covered by the Second Amendment. (Another appeals court since the Heller case reached the opposite conclusion.)

Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace, dissented from the majority decision in D.C. v. Heller, so Sotomayor wouldn't necessarily tip the balance on such issues. But she's joining a split body -- the D.C. case was a 5-4 decision -- and with the Maloney case likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court her presence could be threatening to gun rights groups.

"We have concerns and we have questions," Andrew Arulanandam, public affairs director for the National Rifle Association, told FOXNews.com. He said the NRA would work with members of Congress to have those concerns addressed in the coming months, and that the NRA has researchers looking more closely at Sotomayor's gun rights record.

Ken Klukowski, a fellow and legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, predicted this issue would heat up as the confirmation process moves forward.

"If this nomination were not to succeed, it would likely be because of the Second Amendment issue," he said.

Klukowski questioned the brevity of the Maloney decision, which spanned only a few pages, more than the actual conclusion. He said it glossed over decades of relevant legal precedent.

"The idea that you would be the first circuit court to take up this profound, constitutional question after the Supreme Court's landmark ruling and only give it one paragraph is stunning," he said.

But Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the issue of Sotomayor's gun rights position is being "overblown" since the court was merely following precedent. He agreed that the Heller decision did not mean Second Amendment rights apply to states.

He said any controversy over the issue would be a "red herring."

As interest groups launch a heated campaign to define Sotomayor and draw the battle lines ahead of her confirmation process, the White House has voiced unequivocal confidence in her judgment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was "very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his."

FOXNews.com's Judson Berger and FOX News' Shannon Bream contributed to this report.

[artabr]

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/s...deny-2nd-amend


Sotomayor: States Can Deny 2nd Amdmt

From Ms. Sotomayor’s decision in Maloney v. Cuomo
Case pdf: http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/pdf/ma...581-cv_opn.pdf

Maloney v. Cuomo
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

______________

August Term, 2008
(Argued: December 15, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2009)
Docket No. 07-0581-cv

Plaintiff-appellant James Maloney was arrested at his home on August 24, 2000, and charged with possessing a chuka stick in violation of N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01(1)… This charge was dismissed on January 28, 2003, and Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of disorderly conduct… Appellant filed the… complaint… seeking a declaration that N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 are unconstitutional insofar as they punish possession of nunhakus in one’s home… He argues, inter alia, that New York’s statutory ban on the possession of nunchakus violates (1) the Second Amendment because it infringes on his right to keep and bear arms, and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment because it lacks a rational basis. Neither of these arguments has any merit…

The Supreme Court recently held that this confers an individual right on citizens to keep and bear arms. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2799 (2008). It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right. See, e.g., Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) (stating that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state”); Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75, 84, 86 (2d Cir. 2005) (holding “that the Second Amendment’s ‘right to keep and bear arms’ imposes a limitation on only federal, not state, legislative efforts” and noting that this outcome was compelled by Presser), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1174 (2006). Heller, a case involving a challenge to the District of Columbia’s general prohibition on handguns, does not invalidate this longstanding principle. See Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2813 n.23 (noting that the case did not present the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states). And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we “must follow Presser” because “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent ‘has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.’” Bach, 408 F.3d at 86 (quoting Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477, 484 (1989)) (alteration marks omitted); see also State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 20 (1997). Thus, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00 through 265.02 do not violate the Second Amendment.

So by this same reasoning the states can deny citizens freedom of speech. It’s only the federal government that is prevented from doing so.

It’s funny, but somehow we had gotten the impression that the federal law, and especially the Constitution, took precedence over state and local laws.

But according to the legal lights of Ms. Sotomayor we were mistaken.

As were the Supreme Court Justices who decided the case she says “compels” her decision, Presser v. Illinois:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265

But it seems they actually ruled just the opposite.


Art

[Old Guy]

The Democrats definitely don't care about the Constitution. That is definitely a proven fact with the illegitimate office holder of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But even more distressing is where are the Republicans? It is one thing to make noise just to make noise as the Democrats did very effectively to get into total power. But, as it stands right now they are all complicit. The first challenge to the birth certificate came from a Democrat in PA. The Republicans did not touch it!!! Based on the performance of all I don't know if any of them really give a rats a**. It is time that "We the People" stand up!!

Old Guy

[alhefner]

Originally Posted by Old Guy

The Democrats definitely don't care about the Constitution. That is definitely a proven fact with the illegitimate office holder of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But even more distressing is where are the Republicans? It is one thing to make noise just to make noise as the Democrats did very effectively to get into total power. But, as it stands right now they are all complicit. The first challenge to the birth certificate came from a Democrat in PA. The Republicans did not touch it!!! Based on the performance of all I don't know if any of them really give a rats a**. It is time that "We the People" stand up!!

Old Guy

I hear ya!

I think the "TEA parties" are a start in that direction. We all need to support and add to that effort in any LEGAL way we can. Talk to those friends who seem to be more interested in watching "American Idol" than protecting their freedoms. Feed them a little at a time, short attention spans ya know, to plant the seeds. Fertilize and water those seeds with a bit of information, easy reading stuff, from time to time.

It is up to those of us who care enough to get involved to break the trance of those who are currently blind.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by bcj1755;449684


Associated Press writer Ben Feller contributed to this report.
[url

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_sotomayor[/url]

Not only is Barry "pushing" the Senate to confirm his pick, but now La Raza is chiming in. They're hoping that she'll help make it easier for the illegals to get a free ride. That's all La Raza does, make it easier for the illegals I love how The Hussein always "pushes" the Senate to do his bidding, like they're supposed to obey him Too bad none of him have enough backbone to tell Barry what he can do with his "pushing" and where he can stick it

And now this:


http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420

Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member'
American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group

Posted: May 27, 2009
11:20 pm Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily




As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening!

The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right.

"I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America."

(Story continues below)




"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."

But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact on her confirmation to the bench.

"She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand."

The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor.

"Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's president and CEO.

La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.


As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.

[FM258]

"the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." -Sonia Sotomayor



Piss on her.

[Old Guy]

GOA has an alert to send to your senators.

Old Guy

[45nut]

Originally Posted by FM258

"the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." -Sonia Sotomayor
Piss on her.

+1

Interesting quote from Thomas Jefferson on the Judiciary Branch of Fedzilla:

"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone. This will lay all things at their feet..." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820.

[bcj1755]

She's a member of La Raza, why am I not suprised. So I have to assume that she's in favor of amnesty and more free gov't coin for the illegals.