Republicans Shoot Down Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Interpretation

Posted by Staff on June 24, 2009 |

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

Republican Senators are objecting to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“In her decision making process in cases that she decided, Judge Sotomayor, earlier this year, rendered an opinion that held that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right,” said Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), referencing a ruling Sotomayor issued as a 2nd Circuit judge for the city of New York last year. The Supreme Court nominee determined that the Second Amendment did not apply to city and states, but only the federal government.

Sen. Jim DeMint argued during a press conference with fellow Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Wednesday that if the Second Amendment does not apply to every American, then the Constitution no longer has any bearing on controlling the role of the federal government.

“It’s a very important question that goes… beyond the question of bearing arms but whether or not we are still a Constitutional Republic.”

The Senators reiterated their belief that the right for the people to keep and bear arms applies to all Americans and stated that they plan to ask Sotomayor questions about her interpretation of the Second Amendment during her confirmation hearings in July.

June 24, 2009
« ABC Stands For The “All Barack Channel,” Says Georgia Congressman
Rep. Van Hollen: U.S. Has To Move Forward On Energy Policy »
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses to “Republicans Shoot Down Sotomayor’s Second Amendment Interpretation”

  1. A Says:
    June 24th, 2009 at 10:02 pm

    The Republicans are out of their minds. They reject spending cuts in Cali, reject stimulus, reject healthcare, reject the judge, reject regulation, reject energy policy, reject bernanke, embrace the bible (sometimes!). No, no, no, no, blah blah blahablaahhahahhh. Seriously, it’s getting old, just like these politicians. A bunch of hypocrits want their power back and seem like they are are just sleepy and old and crazy. Ok, so you are opposed to (insert idea here)? Then what do you suggest we do? “Uhhh, we need to take our time and think about things, make it work more efficiently the way it is, uh durrrrrr.”

    What a pathetic and lost party.

  2. William Says:
    June 26th, 2009 at 1:34 pm

    Without disclosing my position, I’m curious how many commenters will even know why people think that we need the 2nd amendment.

  3. Scott Huminski Says:
    June 26th, 2009 at 3:05 pm

    SOTOMAYOR IGNORANT OF THE LAW

    Sotomayor flunks on getting the most basic principle of appellate law wrong – the Standard of Review.

    In Huminski v. Haverkoch, 11/5/04, 03-7036 2d. Cir., Sotomayor reveals an ignorance of the law by failing to apply the correct standard of review to an important civil rights case. She found appellate review was for reversible error when the correct standard of review for such a case (summary judgment) is De Novo.

    A simple google on, “standard of review for summary judgment de novo” supplies tens of authorities on the issue. I guess Sotomayor would rather be wrong than google on such a rudimentary issue. She also could have assigned her flock of law clerks to research the issue. Further, on a motion for rehearing specifically pointing out her error she did not act and correct it.

    Here is the link to the Sotomayor summary order from this case in which she presided over.

    http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/doc/03-7036_so.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/cb42154f-30e6-47ee-ae7c-d8e4c3acc2e5/1/hilite/

    See also,
    http://www.judgewatch.org/web-pages/cja-members-efforts/huminski-scott.htm

    Where the order states “For the Court”, it refers to Sotomayor and the 2 other judges on the case.

    Empathy, not much empathy for this wrongly convicted and incarcerated citizen,
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/nyregion/10dna.html?_r=1&emc=eta1

    See a different case of mine, Huminski v. Corsones, No. 02-6201 (2d Cir. 10/07/2004) (“We review a district court’s grant or denial of summary judgment de novo.”)

    – Scott Huminski
    (202) 239-1252

  4. Samaritan Says:
    June 27th, 2009 at 4:23 am

    William,

    We need the Second Amendment because…when seconds count and your life is on the line, the police are just minutes away.

    Dear “A”,

    Wow, you seem really upset that some politicians are finally saying “No” to profligate government spending. On the other hand if you would just volunteer to pay for my children’s (and grandchildren’s and great-grandchildren’s, etc) government imposed debt we can dispose of this argument immediately! I’m sorry but I don’t hear you voluntering. No takers? Well that was an easy argument to win…uh durrrr!

Categories

Related


Latest Audio

  • Despite Slower Job Loss, Millions Still Unemployed Says New York Democrat
     
    icon for podpress Play Now
  • Boehner Opposes Democrats’ Healthcare Bill Despite Cost Benefits Says Hoyer
     
    icon for podpress Play Now
  • Texas Republican Says Positive Reports About The Stumulus Are False
     
    icon for podpress Play Now
  • Majority Leader Steny Hoyer Hopeful House Will Pass Health Care Bill Saturday Night
     
    icon for podpress Play Now

Happening Now - TRNS on Twitter