What the Media won’t tell you about Judge Sotomayor

2009 July 2
by Jason

sotomayorThere has been a lot of reports on Judge Sotomayor and her troubling record as a district court judge since President Obama has nominated her to the highest court in the land. Coincidentally, one piece of critical information has only slightly leaked out and has not been picked up by the main stream media. (I wonder why?) This information is extremely important and vital to every American… What I am referring to is Sotomayor’s opinion on the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution, and how Judge Sotomayor has previously ruled on this Constitutional right.

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. ~ 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment is rather clear. Essentially it states that the Federal government cannot infringe on any states right to assemble a militia, and any person’s right to keep and bear arms. (Rather simple correct?)

Well there is some serious concern over Judge Sotomayor’s interpretation of this right, which seems to indicate her tendancies to legislate from the bench, and construe the Constitution to fit her own world view. An excerpt from Fox news explains how Sotomayor’s 2nd Circuit Court ruled on the 2nd 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.”

And an excerpt from the same story in newsmax.com further explains the position of the 2nd Circuit Court that Sotomayor was apart of…

Federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor has over the years developed what some experts are calling a ‘troubling’ record on Second Amendment issues.

In January, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court joined an opinion, Maloney v. Cuomo, that ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments, according to Reason magazine.

The case dealt with a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year’s District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC’s handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

“It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”

But that Second Circuit ruling ran counter to a Ninth Circuit decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which upheld the Second Amendment as a deeply held right embodied in the Constitution that transcends state law.

For any liberty loving conservative, this is very troubling indeed. Essentially Judge Sotomayor is suggesting that the 2nd amendment is not a individuals fundamental right and that the State itself can infringe on this right. To me, this clearly shows that Judge Sotomayor wishes to interpret the Constitution to fit her own world view and legislate from the bench. It’s clear from the 2nd Amendment above, that the law was written as a person’s fundamental right to keep and bear arms. If you don’t believe me, believe the founders as their quotes below are self explanatory.

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe.” ~ Noah Webster

“A free people ought to be armed.” ~ George Washington

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

scotusFurthermore it’s clear from our founding documents that the framers of our Constitution understood the need for free people to keep and bear arms. These rights must never be infringed by any government, federal or state, for they are instituted to keep the people free… You see the highest purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for the people to protect themselves not from criminals, but from the tyranny of government. The founders knew that by instituting this right, they were setting up a last resort for the people to defend their liberty.

Judge Sotomayor’s rulings are a danger to the people and must be questioned by our Congress and Senators. Our Supreme Court judges must be of the highest moral character, and understand their role of interpreting the law as written and intended by the founders. If she wishes to legislate from the bench, she should be quickly removed from consideration for the open Supreme Court seat.

The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act. ~ James Madison

Share this Post:
  • Print this article!
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • RSS
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter

Related posts

5 Responses leave one →
  1. 2009 July 11
    Ed Yount permalink

    For most of my adult life I have used firearms for sport and for target shooting. I used to reload my spent cartridges because it is less expensive to do so. Since January of this year I have been unable to purchase primers for my shells. Whats that all about?
    I feel that this is the first step towards taking our guns away. Am I right?
    Ed in Kansas

    • 2009 July 12

      I believe that those on the left who wish to end the 2nd Amendment will not attack it directly, but will attack it through the back door by taxing and restricting items such as ammunition and certain types of weapons they deem as too dangerous. I agree with you that their real goal is to remove our freedoms of owning firearms. We need to be vigilant against these initiatives and recognize what they are really about.


  2. 2009 July 7

    “It is settled law,” Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, “that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” How can it be “settled law” when it’s NOT what the Constitution says?

    The first amendment says “Congress shall make no law,” but the second amendment says: “shall not be infringed.”

    The first amendment limits the actions of Congress, only, but the courts apply that same limitation to States, Counties and Cities. The second amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (period).

    It’s obvious that nobody, no State, no City, no organization no legislature is allowed to even infringe that right. That’s what the Constitution clearly states.

    I think Sotomayor has disqualified herself from any position on any court by clearly holding a public opinion in contradiction to the Constitution she pledged to defend and protect.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Fact Check!: Senator attempts to avoid Sotomayor's exact quotes! | The Patriot's Mind
  2. Americans continue to arm themselves | SmallGovTimes.com

Leave a Reply

Note: You can use basic XHTML in your comments. Your email address will never be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS