Pajamas Media

126 Comments

1. Well Educated Cad:

Since it’s obvious that Democrats do not pay their taxes like they expect everyone else to do, what makes you think that they will give up what few guns they have when the government comes to collect them?

May 29, 2009 - 1:20 am 2. PatriotUSA:

Tere are enough reasons to dislike this person for the Supreme Court. I could not care less that she is a minority and a womean. She has very radical views, is a member of La raza, pro abortion, and has it made it clear that she thinks it is quite all right to legislate from the bench, not follow the constitution as it is.
She is vehemently anti gun ownership and will do all she can to enure the mullah obamaham’s plans are acted upon via legal fiat and smoke and mirrors. It is also a play to garner all those hispanic voters, legal or not for the upcoming elections. A pathetic but not surprising pick from an even more pathetic President. One loser picking another, Charming.

May 29, 2009 - 1:55 am 3. David Thomson:

Sonia Sotomayor’s goose is cooked. She will not be confirmed. Those who support our Second Amendment rights can make sure of that. Sotomayor is too left of center—and the MSM and its leftist allies will be unsuccessful in portraying her as something of a moderate. Barack Obama may abstractly have the votes, but these same Democratic Party politicians have to eventually run for reelection. At the end of the day, Sotomayor is a mealy-mouth left-winger who talks out of both sides of her mouth. She is totally committed to identity politics and the left-wing agenda. Also, don’t forget what Sotomayor did to the discriminated against white fireman Frank Ricci. He should be our poster boy in the campaign to defeat her nomination.

May 29, 2009 - 3:30 am 4. eon:

Sotomayor’s ruling in Maloney V. Cuomo is interesting, in that it refers to both Heller V. DC and the much earlier (1886) Presser V. Illinois decision. In effect, her opinion is that the Heller decision is simply wrong, and that the Presser decision holds that states, cities, etc., are under no compulsion to obey the later decision, as it applies only to the Federal government. She specifically states that the 14th Amendment (extending Constitutional restrictions to the states) has no bearing here.

This is an amazing ruling- in the sense that it directly contradicts the Constitution at virtually every turn, and is very careless of facts. To wit;

1. Presser V. Illinois was not a ruling on the individual right to keep and bear arms. It was ruling on whether or not a private citizen had the right to form an armed, organized group (a “militia”)in defiance of government authority. The conclusion was “no”, as that did not fall into the definition of a “well-regulated” militia. The second clause, regarding the “right of the people”, was never addressed in Presser V. Illinois. (BTW, the existence of the Presser decision has always made me wonder why those forming various “militias” today aren’t in Federal courts on a daily basis. They should be, under that decision.)

2. By holding that the 14th Amendment has no standing in this matter, Judge Sotomayor upsets the entire structure of “Constitutional rights”. Put simply, if only the Federal government is bound by the Constitution, then states and cities can do as they please, regardless. Which means you can toss out not only the despised Second Amendment, but the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, etc.- in effect, the entire Bill of Rights, and the body of the Constitution with it. I wonder if Judge Sotomayor would be as eager to make this argument if the case were a state law which challenged Roe V. Wade, supported capital punishment, or argued that (based on her interpretation of the 14th Amendment), that the “several states” would be perfectly free to re-institute “Jim Crow” voting laws, or even slavery. On the other hand, by her reckoning, the “several states” are not legally entitled to levy income taxes, either. Which is also curious, as this is a position often taken by people who form… “militias”.

I find myself wondering if Judge Sotomayor has even read the decisions she cited in her opinion. If not, she needs to read them, carefully.

If she has, and still insists that her view is correct in spite of the body of law to the contrary, she is not only unqualified to be seated on the high court, she probably isn’t qualified for the post she now holds.

clear ether

eon

May 29, 2009 - 4:17 am 5. Michael:

If the 2nd Amendment is not a univeral right then none of the other amendments and indeed the Constitution itself can be abridged at any time. The abridgement of the 1st Amendment will be just around the corner if the current administration is not reigned in.

Yes this is that big a deal.

May 29, 2009 - 5:43 am 6. Michael:

“…and indeed the Contitition itself is not and can be abridged at any time.”

Still early in the morning here.

May 29, 2009 - 5:45 am 7. wancow:

2. PatriotUSA: “is a member of La raza”

All by itself this makes Sonya Smarterthanawhiteman a racist.

May 29, 2009 - 5:50 am 8. RedHeadedTexan:

We don’t care if Sotomayor is female or Hispanic…the fact that she is wanting to use her position on the Court to do away with our freedoms and our Constitution….THAT annoys us.

May 29, 2009 - 6:07 am 9. Mr. M:

I wish I didn’t have to say this, but, given the many betrayals Obama has displayed in his short tenure, I can’t trust him anymore than I would trust Bush to give us someone that would up-hold the constitution and rule of law.

IMHO we’re so far along the road to tyranny, so fooled by a corrupted propagandized MSM, so poisoned by tainted food, water and air, that far too many are fooled into believing what they’re told and not what their better judgment would lead them to believe.

May 29, 2009 - 6:17 am 10. Broadsword:

Tangentially, if Soto is such a “wise Latina woman” how come she cannot see that it ain’t so wise to base decisions about character on skin color?

May 29, 2009 - 6:22 am 11. RV:

Great job talking about the Maloney v. Cuomo case, but providing no references at all. Great work as a writer.

And the Ken Blackwell article? Big suprise, no references to his opinions anywhere.

And following the “no right to own a firearm” link, we get this:

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.”

This satement is, of course, very misleading. The statement “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right” is in the ruling. However, it is not an opinion written by the justices, but rather a statement referenced from a prior United States ruling.

May 29, 2009 - 6:30 am 12. GClarke:

Federalism is one of the simplest concepts to understand from the Constitution: meaning what is specifically granted to the People and to the Federal Government is theirs to control and act on, and everything else, not specifically reserved for them, is left to the States. So says the Tenth Amendment, specifically added for those who were afraid future generations might be obtuse about what they were thinking about. I read Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissent in Bush v. Gore and it was pretty clear she hopped back and forth from “this is the federal province” to “this is the state province” without regard to the words of the Constitution but pretty much according to what would serve the partisan objective she was shooting for: Get the Florida Dems another shot at counting their disputed votes til they got the outcome they favored, all laws and rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

Sotomayer in saying that the 10th Amendment trumps the 2nd Amendment when obviously it is the other way around, means to me, from her own words, that in the projects she grew up in, people were popping off their Saturday Night Specials too much and too often for her comfort. The Feds no doubt, or Bloomberg and Patterson, she sees as her “Magnificent Seven” but she should not forget that the first thing the Seven Samurai or Gunfighters did in defending the town was to arm the peasants. Disarming the law abiding citizens is not the answer, no matter what fears her upbringing and culturarl blinders instilled in her.

May 29, 2009 - 6:42 am 13. "progressive"watch:

Let’s look at more than gun rights. Let’s take in the whole big picture. The America we love is not Obama’s country; he hates it. He is out to get us. The Obama-Napolitano right-wing extremist list came straight from his heart.

What’s the difference between Barak Obama and Kin Jong Il?
20 years in office.

What Obama says has a shorter half-life than a Mcburger.

May 29, 2009 - 6:51 am 14. Frank:

Taking our guns is all about power. They fully intend us to be subjects rather than citizens and all this crap about taking our guns will make us safer is a smokescreen to that end.

May 29, 2009 - 6:55 am 15. james:

She is going to be confirmed. These people run the country, and the disgraceful republicans are so weak and ineffectual one must wonder if they haven’t all become sex transplants.
Find a place to hide your guns, because some sweaty little bureaucrat with a lifetime pension will be looking for them in a couple of years.
And wherever you live, send money to Allen West’s campaign. If every state elects just one man like West next time around we might be able to survive. We won’t be able to do it on our own.

May 29, 2009 - 7:11 am 16. Joe Bison:

Why do you think guns are any different than
anything else to a Statist? The state will
control all aspects of your life. Being a
collection of experts the members of the
state apparatus are far wiser than an
individual.

That is why it is so important to get everyone
heavily integrated in the benefits of the
state. This includes employment, healthcare,
government largesse etc. Identity politics
is also very important as it fragments society
into groups vying for government favor.

Once the tipping point comes and the
independent middle class is diminished enough
the rest becomes easy. Every election and
appointment is seen as vital to the leftists.
Nothing they do is illogical in regards to
the end goal.

May 29, 2009 - 7:22 am 17. Pastor of Muppets:

As retarded and mindless as it is, I understand the political rationale of continually screaming “They’re gonna take our guns!!”

1. The gun fetishists will react reflexively and furiously to any mindless, baseless claim by Beck, Hannity or Limbaugh that the Democrats will take your guns. This is because they automatically assume that whatever crap these comedians are spewing is the truth. This inevitably causes the gun fetishists to seriously freak out and buy more guns and ammo; which is great for the GOP, the NRA, gun manufacturers, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.

2. If at some point in the year 3576, a ban on microfusion-powered gauss rifles goes into affect, the GOP, the NRA, CyberLimbaugh and Glenn Beck XXXIV can finally get up and yell, “See?! We told you all those years ago!”

So basically it’s a win-win.

That is, of course, unless you’re a young child who accidentally kills himself or a loved one with a loaded gun left around the house.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/21/forgotten.gun/index.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20090110/ai_n31194393/

http://www.mirror.co.uk/2009/05/29/toddler-shoots-dead-her-two-year-old-brother-after-finding-hidden-handgun-115875-21398598/

But really, who’s going to complain about a few shot toddlers when there’s so much flipping money to be made?

May 29, 2009 - 7:34 am 18. fred:

The Marxists desperately want to disarm us. It is their historical pattern, as they know an armed citizenry is a free citizenry.

The Founders intended the 2nd Amendment as the way in which the people are the mailed fist, not the government. Once you disarm the people, they can be dominated with impunity.

Obonga and his water carriers in the media may try to portray the opposition to Sotomayor as due to racism and sexism, but everyone with a brain knows that a strong, principled stand can be taken against her nomination simply by reference to her record, her writings, her opinions (in her legal decisions and in her many public discourses), and by the observations of her peers and by clerks. I agree with the comment that she is not even qualified to hold the position she now has.

Her impending nomination – and I think she will be voted on to the Court – is a cipher to a lot of the ugliness that is in Obonga’s mind and soul. This man aims to fulfill what he sees as his destiny as the perfect Manchurian Candidate. He sees himself as the perfection of Marxism and aims to pound this nation into the shape that ideology dictates.

May 29, 2009 - 7:49 am 19. sheesh:

Mustard! Emapthy! . . . Why are we letting these critical standards of conservatism slip by the wayside? Don’t lose track of the things we spent so much time frothing at the mouth about just because the world sees how stupid they are! Stay focused!

May 29, 2009 - 7:56 am 20. Rudy:

Pelosi just stated the “All parts of our lives must be inventoried and made right by the government”. They will do this if we let them. Do the repubs in office not understand that this a last stand against evil? If they prevail there wont be anymore elections for us considering that the MSM and now corporate America are on their side. This conformation should be our line in the sand! To hell with what voter we might lose.

May 29, 2009 - 8:03 am 21. njcommuter:

Sotomayor’s confirmation can be derailed if the Republican senators who question her can force her to admit to–or visibly evade–enough of her disqualifications. How does her membership in La Raza comport with the principles she is supposed to uphold as a judge? In fact, how does membership in an organization that wants to dismember the USA comport with her PRESENT position as a judge?

How does her position on “empathy” comport with the oath of office, wherein she would swear to do equal justice to rich and poor? Does she intend to violate that oath? Has she taken a similar oath, and has she violated that?

As a former lawyer and as a judge, Sotomayor will be very skilled in setting and evading traps in questioning. But if the facts are pounded home often enough and clearly enough, it should be possible to trap her. And if enough senators do it in enough different ways, even the New York Times will have to report on it.

And if that happens, Sotomayor will not just stink to the heavens, she will be radioactive. And Obama will be forced to take back his first Supreme Court nomination.

Obama is beyond Teflon; he is so slick he is greased. But at some point, the grease will wear off. This, if it happens, might be that point.

May 29, 2009 - 8:14 am 22. The Shadow:

What a bunch of loonies!

May 29, 2009 - 8:15 am 23. Sherab Zangpo:

And if you Folks will take the time to read Drudge this morning, you will discover that the Black Panther thugs who have threatened the voters in Philadelphia have NOT been charged.

This means: the next time we vote there will be thugs everywhere.

The Republicans must understand what I posted yesterday:
this administration is not playing politics, it is moving to subvert the Country.
In commie terms: this administration is changing the MATERIAL CONSTITUTION of America (control of the banks, control of the major corporations, end of the law for what concerns contracts, cap on the executives’ pay, cap and trade as a general marxist tax on production, widening of the welfare, etc. etc. etc.).
And this administration is positioning itself for FURTHER changes in the future (hence, projects of gun control, fairness doctrine, etc.).

The Republicans must understand that the game is NOT the good old game and they must stand up and tell the TRUTH about what is happening !

Taking away the People’s weapons is just part of the general plan.

(Beware, the Black Panther’s decision is the first OPEN breach of the Order. We are now in new territory.)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
And let’s hope we have an opportunity to comment even in two years from now.

May 29, 2009 - 8:24 am 24. scott:

One step closer to secession. This is no longer my country. We are under occupation. The decent folk left in this ravaged land need to migrate to the reddest states and then we must mount a campaign against the evil Left. There is no political solution to this situation. Good men must fight tyranny in their own land. It cannot be allowed to stand.

Or …. the ‘constitutionist’ red states once having dissolved the bands that have enslaved them to the District of Columbia could simply let the free-loaders eat each other over time.

May 29, 2009 - 8:25 am 25. anton:

17. Pastor of Muppets:

ad homineum attacks and sorry stories do not support the retraction of a Constitutional Right. Far more children are killed each year by stairs and swingsets than guns. Carelessness can be fatal, in any aspect of child-raising.

The real issue, Sotomayor’s profound lack of dispassionate regard for the word of the law, got past you somehow. She contradicts herself in her legal opinions and does not respect the rulings of higher courts, this is one of the reasons that she is amongst the most often overruled judges on the bench.

May 29, 2009 - 8:46 am 26. anton:

19. sheesh:

WTF? at least PoM tries to make a point, go away you incoherent buffoon.

May 29, 2009 - 8:48 am 27. oldguy:

Nothing really changes with this appointment does it? He has three more old liberals to go.
The conservatives are young so the key is still justice Kennedy.

May 29, 2009 - 8:49 am 28. scott:

anton,

Don’t waste your words. A statist with a whiff of victory in his nostrils knows no bounds. They won’t stop until they have the power to drag christians and freedom loving activists off to a firing squad without trial. We must all love Big Brother.

May 29, 2009 - 8:56 am 29. Professor Guvinoff:

In the so-called “modern” world, tyranny covers much more territory than liberty does. An armed citizenry is the only compelling obstacle on the path to tyranny. No wonder the wannabe tyrants of all stripes want to suppress the possession of arms.

What “Gun control” really means is gun rights becoming the exclusive privilege of the criminals.

May 29, 2009 - 9:03 am 30. Falconsword:

As per “Pastor of Mupets” (more list leader of asshats)

Please people don’t feed the trolls…

May 29, 2009 - 9:11 am 31. Dr. Mark:

Pastor of Muppets..for the umptheenth time GTFO this site and get to Huffington where you belong. You are leftist swine with hackneyed arguments about the “poor child left alone with a gun”,etc. Typical liberal/ thoughtless arguments that attempt to portray gun owners in a light akin to Charles Manson that fall on deaf ears on this site…oops, his minions used knives. As one of those “scary” combat veterans, I can assure you that thousands of us have “stocked up” and it may be your freedoms that we have to defend someday..here.

May 29, 2009 - 9:20 am 32. shaui-jan:

POM”As retarded and mindless as it is, I understand the political rationale of continually screaming “They’re gonna take our guns!!”

i think that is the closest example i’ll ever see,of you conceding a point.

2. “If at some point in the year 3576, a ban on microfusion-powered gauss rifles goes into affect, the GOP, the NRA, CyberLimbaugh and Glenn Beck XXXIV can finally get up and yell, “See?! We told you all those years ago!”

even if you ripped that line off from someone else….it’s still pretty funny.

……and in 3576 your side will still LOSE.ha.ha.

“That is, of course, unless you’re a young child who accidentally kills himself or a loved one with a loaded gun left around the house.”

it is illegal to leave a loaded firearm where a minor would have access to it.when did we start legislating our rights away in accordance to criminal behavior?

oh wait…..it’s for the chiilddrren!now i get it.

May 29, 2009 - 9:21 am 33. Sherab Zangpo:

#28 Scott

“They won’t stop until they have the power to drag christians and freedom loving activists off to a firing squad without trial.”

That’s probably what many subversives dream to do, but they have learned a lot from their past mistakes.
Now they move carefully: they don’t kill you, they brainwash your children at school. They don’t throw the Christians to the lions or into mental institutions, they brainwash the clergy with “social activism” ideas. Etc.

I don’t mean to feed the troll, but if you go and read his arguments, you will notice that he is “defending the poor children killed by the bad gun owners”.

And this comes from people who have killed TENS OF MILLIONS of babies with their abortion laws !!!!

It’s the perfect example of brainwashed idiot.
They want to reduce you and me like that , or make us live surrounded by zillions of brainwashed idiots.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

And now that we have a CYBER SECURITY CZAR, I feel much better.

May 29, 2009 - 9:42 am 34. james:

Uh, Pastor, it’s “effect,” not “affect.”
And if you are actually stupid enough to believe that the issue of gun ownership has anything to do with Glenn Beck and nothing to do with the Second Amendment and 200 years of case law, then, well, I guess you’re stupid enough.
Why are guns banned in Cuba and not in Montana? Ever ask yourself that, genius?

May 29, 2009 - 9:45 am 35. Ms. Attitude:

4. eon: “She specifically states that the 14th Amendment (extending Constitutional restrictions to the states) has no bearing here….By holding that the 14th Amendment has no standing in this matter, Judge Sotomayor upsets the entire structure of “Constitutional rights”. Put simply, if only the Federal government is bound by the Constitution, then states and cities can do as they please, regardless. Which means you can toss out not only the despised Second Amendment, but the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Tenth, etc.- in effect, the entire Bill of Rights, and the body of the Constitution with it. I wonder if Judge Sotomayor would be as eager to make this argument if the case were a state law which challenged Roe V. Wade, supported capital punishment, or argued that (based on her interpretation of the 14th Amendment), that the “several states” would be perfectly free to re-institute “Jim Crow” voting laws, or even slavery. On the other hand, by her reckoning, the “several states” are not legally entitled to levy income taxes, either. Which is also curious, as this is a position often taken by people who form… “militias”.”

Excellent post!!

May 29, 2009 - 9:50 am 36. AThinkingPerson:

As much as the liberals would like to believe that only rednecks living in the backwoods of Kentucky want guns, they are wrong (as usual). Witness the hysteria they are trying to whip up here with comments like “toddlers die from guns” etc., etc. Toddlers die from drowning, choking, being hit by cars, abuse and from a myriad of unfortunate accidents. Should we ban pools, hotdogs, and cars? Typical liberal blather to skirt the Constitutional issue at hand.

Having a gun is a Constitutional right. Period. Being a liberal is proof of mental defect. Period.

May 29, 2009 - 9:51 am 37. Brother Cadfael:

All you have to do is listen to whom she quotes as her mentors and the people that have influenced her through out her life. Every one of them are the worst Socialists and Fascists to have ever been given a soap box to spread their blather in this whole world! Her college year book quote is by the only openly Communist Presidential candidate. Just more of those ‘Fellow Travelers’ we have been warned about since FDR was our original potentate!

May 29, 2009 - 10:00 am 38. Ms. Attitude:

22. The Shadow: What a bunch of loonies!

I agree!! But for some reason the bunch of loonies don’t see what harm they have brought our country by voting for a socialist. Now he is appointing a socialist judge. But it is sad because Liberalism is truly a mental disease.

May 29, 2009 - 10:08 am 39. Roark:

The GOP in the US Senate NEEDS to filibuster this racist know-nothing of the rule of law or original intent of the US Constitution.

May 29, 2009 - 10:14 am 40. tom:

The GOP wonders why it’s dying? One only need to look around here.

“mullah obama”
“they’re going to steal our guns”
“buy more ammo!!”
“media conspiracy”

etc… need not go on. Americans have spoken. They will no longer be governed from an neo-con extremist position. Suppose you could all join the MI Militia and live on a compound somewhere.. oh wait, TX is going to secede.

May 29, 2009 - 10:33 am 41. Sherab Zangpo:

The GOP Senators need to read Rikki-Tikki-Tavi.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

May 29, 2009 - 10:38 am 42. AThinkingPerson:

Re #40 tom: “Americans have spoken.”

You are partially right. Americans ARE BEGINNING to speak. We let ACORN and the uninformed elect Obama. The GOP got lazy. Now, much to the chagrin of the liberals, the American patriot is awakening and beginning to defend the Constitution (you did know we had one right?).

If you really want an eye-opener, I’d suggest reading through the venom and lunacy on a leftie blog. They still cannot lay any of Obama’s policies at his feet and we’re already 6 months into his candidacy. Sad and yet funny all in one.

May 29, 2009 - 10:53 am 43. Banned by Huffpo:

3.7 million firearms and 1.5 billion rounds of ammunition (in December alone!)

Stats like that give me a warm tingle up my leg . . .

Thank you, Your Messiahship!!

May 29, 2009 - 10:58 am 44. Pat J:

I think it comes down to how one defines “arms” as it applies to the Second Amendment. The key questions now are whether, when, and to what extent the Second Amendment will be incorporated, i.e., held by the Supreme Court to protect citizens from infringements by state governments and their political subdivisions.

I found it interesting that “Maloney v Cuomo” was about possession of nunchuckas in the State of New York, where they are banned. So, if in this case, the ban does not apply to firearms, is the 2nd Amendment indeed relevant?

Then I did some research on nunchukas. They were originally farm elements and then adapted as a weapon in Okinawa when invaders banned the inhabitants of possessing swords or spears. They are also considered, as probably many of you know, a training tool for those engaging in martial arts. Maybe there may be a Constitutional issue regarding the banning of nunchukas in the State of New York.

Whatever the case. I think Ms. Sotomayor may have to recuse herself if the case does make it to the Supreme Court.

May 29, 2009 - 11:00 am 45. Pat J:

22. The Shadow:
What a bunch of loonies!
——————–
Arguably so. But at least they have a Constitutional right to post these comments. Now if we can just do away with the silly name calling.

May 29, 2009 - 11:01 am 46. Meryl:

“The Supreme Court nominee is a gun-banning radical who has ruled that cities and states can disarm you.”

And we are supposed to….do what???

The Republicans in Congress have grown accustomed to their own faces bearing tiretracks and bootmarks. They’re not going to do anything. They’re going to be nice. They’re going to get along. They’re going to prove just how nice they can be.

That sound you hear is that of a nation governed by law being flushed down.

May 29, 2009 - 11:09 am 47. Pat J:

“Just six months after Heller, however, Sotomayor issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo that the protections of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states, and that if your city or state wants to ban all guns, then they have the right to disarm you. Such an opinion seems to fly directly in the face of Heller, exposing Sotomayor as an anti-gun radical who will affirm full-on gun prohibitions and believes that you have no right to own a firearm, even for the most basic right of defending your family in your own home.”

No it doesn’t. Heller involved the District of Columbia which is not a state. Second, Maloney involved nunchukas, not guns. So the author is full of crap and merely jumping on the wingnut bandwagon regarding the idea Obama’s going to get their guns>

May 29, 2009 - 11:13 am 48. AThinkingPerson:

The LIBERALS ARE RIGHT for once! TeleBama is NOT going to take our guns away apparently…

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1

…Well, maybe he’ll let us keep them if we join the Black Panthers. Apparently they get to have weapons AND engage in voter intimidation. The Obamination Administration has spoken!

May 29, 2009 - 11:26 am 49. karlstro1:

This appointment makes a mockery of the Constitution and everything it stands for. The trashing of individual rights and freedoms by this administration is a very troubling situtation that has just hit the tip of the iceberg.

May 29, 2009 - 11:55 am 50. David M:

The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 05/29/2009 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

May 29, 2009 - 12:05 pm 51. noreen:

Hello tyranny. Good bye freedom and liberty. I grow more afraid by the day. Just when I think I can’t be shocked anymore. a new atrocity surfaces . The theme of the week is that elections and affirmative action have very real consequences

May 29, 2009 - 12:10 pm 52. Macko:

sotomayor will get the job because right now we have a one party system. Bush appointed sotomayor when negotiating for a conservative judge in another position. The democrats don’t have to negotiate and won’t. Remember the republicans are now the party of no and the dems brag about not having to listen to them. As far as the second amendment I don’t believe she can change the vote with who we have right now and she probably won’t be able to persuade any conservative justices to vote her way on other rulings. This adminstration hasn’t been around for 6 months and we are almost bankrupt. In another 6 months who knows what kind of mess we will be in but it would be worth your while to have plenty of canned food and ammo “before” they try to come and take it away.

Trolls like the puppet and sheesh shouldn’t worry, boobama will feed you. Just as long as you do exactly what he tells you.

May 29, 2009 - 12:38 pm 53. fred:

PatJ,

Regardless of the type of weapons involved in that case, the reasoning behind the decision is what matters most. She did say if states or cities want to ban all guns and disarm the populace they are free to do so.

You flunked the law class, which means you have to repeat the course until you get it right.

May 29, 2009 - 12:50 pm 54. styrgwillidar:

Sotomayor may suprise both sides. Her comments were in the context of ‘your background will influence the way you think’. She also talked about the need to be impartial and why it is hard. Reasonable statement, otherwise you wouldn’t need multi-judge panels to decide if a law is unconstitutional. If impartiality and reading of the law were easy, no judges would disagree. She does seem to respect precedent.

The Heller vs DC ruling left a lot undecided. It specifically stated that states could impose “reasonable restrictions”. Since Heller Vs DC discusses that the intent of 2A and the Miller ruling indicated the right was access to arms relevant to service in the milita and in common use, that leaves a lot of undefined ground on what weapons 2A covers. Additionally, Court didn’t specifically hold that 2A was incorporated on the states by the 14th amendment since DC isn’t a state. During orals before SCOTUS, the US Atty General who was defending the ban stated:

– I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day — but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is…
…I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.”

In fact, the SCOTUS dissenting opinion criticized the majority for not clarifying what types of laws on weapon types etc. would be constitutional. Sotomayor’s subsequest lower court ruling in a Maloney vs Cuomo(with the majority) ruling applied the precedents of Presser and Miller that the 2nd amendment is a limitation on the Federal government but not the states and is not covered by the 14th amendment. Which brings us to the concept of incorporation, in the aftermath of the US Civil War, the southern states refused to grant the freed slaves the same rights as whites, particularly the right to keep and bear arms. The 14th amendment was passed with the intention of forcing state governments to abide by the same restrictions as the federal government. SCOTUS however, interpreted it differently (example US vs Cruikshank SCOTUS held that despite the 14th amendment, the 1st amendment didn’t apply to the states’ govts). The various rights i.e. 1st amendment free speech have had to be incorporated against the states in seperate rulings by SCOTUS.

An amici brief in the Chicago Gun Ban case is worth a read. It was filed by the Congress for Racial Equality and details the racist basis for the initial gun bans and their link to the Fourteenth Amendment.

So in essence, you can blame Sotomayor’s ruling on SCOTUS Heller ruling failing to specifically address the legal questions of Presser, incorporation and ‘reasonable restrictions’

May 29, 2009 - 1:09 pm 55. David S:

Looks to me like a judge that understands the technical nature of her job, and respects the principles of stare decisis.

There is no end run here – in fact, Sotomayor handed the Supreme Court a golden opportunity to revisit the relationship of the 2nd amendment to the prerogatives of the States. Upholding precedent and leaving the question to the Supreme Court is the kind of conservative and careful jurisprudence that our system requires in such a case.

Of course, you can spin it however you like – but the reality is that she made the right decision based on the law.

Do I think that the New York statute is unconstitutional? Yes, I think it probably is, and I think that given the opportunity, the Supreme Court will revisit the precedent that demanded an adverse ruling from Sotomayor. But you can’t blame Sotomayor for following the law. She did her job, and without prejudice.

Peace.

DS

May 29, 2009 - 1:11 pm 56. Delia:

Give a mouse a cookie and…

He/she will ask politely for more goodies at first and…
when ‘asking’ isn’t good enough…
they will ‘demand’ and when ‘demanding isn’t good enough…

-And, excuse me but my Italian in-laws look more ‘ethnic’ than Sotomayor. I thought she was a white woman at first glance.

May 29, 2009 - 2:06 pm 57. sheesh:

26. anton: . . . “WTF? at least PoM tries to make a point, go away you incoherent buffoon.”

How could you miss the point in #19 . . . that you folks are an endless and string of hysterical paranoia moving from one topic of aggrieved victimhood to the next. “Empathy” was proof, proof I tell you, that Obama was not interested in a judge who honors the Constitution, then OOPS! Alito had said the same thing, so empathy disappears from the discussion, just like Obama’s choice of spicy mustard at the burger shop, which Hannity and Ingraham spent two days whining about.

i thought it was pretty clear.

May 29, 2009 - 2:19 pm 58. Macko:

One other thing to remeber is that after the Heller case the gentleman that was the security guard tried to register his model 1911-A1 semi-automatic pistol but was refused. He was told that he could not register his “machinegun”. The definition of machine gun had been changed from firing more than one round with one pull of the trigger to firing more than I believe 10 rounds without reloading. The standard magazine capacity for the 1911-A1 is 7 rounds but, because you can manufacture a magazine that will work in a 1911-A1 with a capacity of more than 10 rounds the 1911-A1 semi-automatic pistol is now classified a machine gun in DC. I believe the decision left reasonable restrictions legal. I would hardly call that reasonable.

May 29, 2009 - 2:21 pm 59. Metz:

17 POM

You are correct in stating that the carelessness of some gun owners does lead to some tragic events. However, that is not the issue at hand. The issue is whether the government has the RIGHT to control every aspect of our lives.

I am not a gun owner, however, this is MY CHOICE. And yes, part of the reason is I have two small children in the house. I do believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right granted by the Constitution and the BOR, and I would assist those in attempting to defend that right. Well, as long as they do not want my assistance in defending their right to own an AK47 and armor piercing bullets.

I live in Arizona, and have for years listened to the stories of deaths of children (around 100 each summer) who have drowned in the family swimming pool. Is it not the same degree of “carelessness” that led to these deaths? According to your logic, should we not outlaw swimming pools as well?

May 29, 2009 - 2:32 pm 60. AThinkingPerson:

Sheesh: Just wanted to point out that YOU’RE the only one who ever mentions mustard. Might you be trying to fan that flame?

May 29, 2009 - 2:52 pm 61. Delia:

Don’t forget to outlaw all sharp objects (even nail clippers), water (which could cause drowning), pillows (which could be used to suffocate), frying pans, fists, teeth, fingernails etc.

Oh and long hair…which could be used to strangle!

May 29, 2009 - 3:01 pm 62. shaui-jan:

ah..sheesh.”How could you miss the point in #19 . . . that you folks are an endless and string of hysterical paranoia”

i guess in your foggy recesses valid concerns of our constitutional rights being taken away could be considered “hysterical paranoia”

“moving from one topic of aggrieved victimhood to the next.”

not alot of “victimhood” being practiced around here,we leave that to the meek and disarmed.

“Empathy” was proof, proof I tell you, that Obama was not interested in a judge who honors the Constitution, then OOPS! Alito had said the same thing, so empathy disappears from the discussion,”

sotomayor is clearly an ‘activist’ judge,no way to spin it….you did make an admirable effort though.

what we want:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_constructionism

what she embodies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

= no worky.

more stale talking points:

“just like Obama’s choice of spicy mustard at the burger shop, which Hannity and Ingraham spent two days whining about.”

don’t these two characters have hours of airtime a day to fill up,how many people listening do you think actually care about mustard?

try tuning in to mark levin….then you will be much more up to date on the current mindset of the informed right wing nutter.

you can thank me later.

May 29, 2009 - 3:21 pm 63. David S:

@59. Metz:

Well, as long as they do not want my assistance in defending their right to own an AK47 and armor piercing bullets.

What have you got against the AK47? That’s self-defense right there. You are on to something, though. The right to bear arms means little when bullets are illegal.

The 2nd amendment is not in danger from Sotomayor, and is one issue on which the wise err on the side of individual rights. Revolution being the last resort in case of tyrrany, the means to promulgate it must always be retained by the people.

Peace.

DS

May 29, 2009 - 3:29 pm 64. "progressive"watch:

Does anybody remember a little something someone said about hope and change and crisis,crisis,crisis.

Since I have found out what Barak Obama’s CHANGE is,I know he was lying about HOPE.

May 29, 2009 - 3:48 pm 65. Metz:

@ 63 David S

You give me credit for something that was not my intent, but it does pose an interesting theory, which is let everyone keep their guns, but without the means to use them.

What I was attempting to portray was that their is a compromise on the issue. I don’t believe that the side trying to do away with all guns is any more right than the ones trying to allow all guns, and vice versa.

Unfortunately, I do see a revolt coming, but I see it as those more towards the center of issues, who in my humble opinion represent the true majority, against those on the far left AND those on the far right. For too long we’ve allowed these groups to bicker and fight the “my way or the highway” battle at the expense of the rest of us.

May 29, 2009 - 3:51 pm 66. Metz:

typo…their = there

May 29, 2009 - 3:54 pm 67. sheesh:

62. shaui-jan: It would be nice onde day to see a respone from you that was actaully a response.

Where IS the empathy outrage?

Right wing media idiots can say whatever they want because they have “time to fill”? You should really set yourself some higher standards.

If SM were an activist judge, she would have ruled in favor of Ricci. (Do your homework first, Shy One, you don’t want to fire off an ill-informed opinion about that last comment and be made to look the fool again and again and again.)

As for “The Grating One” I know all about that charade Levin. There is no more arbitrary mouthpiece for the disaffected right wing crybabies. This ring a bell?

MARK LEVIN: Answer me this, are you a married woman? Yes or no?
CALLER: Yes.

MARK LEVIN: Well I don’t know why your husband doesn’t put a gun to his temple. Get the hell out of here.

Brilliant! I can see why you admire him and his alternating simper and screech so much.

You’ve got five minutes.

May 29, 2009 - 4:02 pm 68. Venham:

It’s a good thing we have the usual suspects here to keep us straight. The dems aren’t going to take our guns because they said so. On the other hand if you google democrat + gun control you get an insignificant 8,190,000 hits,not to mention the 8 bills pending in congress right now. Can Obama count on his faithful servants who hide behind pseudonyms posting here to volunteer their help in the confiscation effort? Somehow I doubt it. 12 million hunting licenses sold in 2007,not to mention all the guns owned by people who don’t hunt adds up to alot of experienced shooters. The enemies foreign and domestic will never realize their fantasy of a disarmed United States,simply because they don’t have the numbers or guts to physically make it happen.

May 29, 2009 - 4:23 pm 69. 6.5mmGrnd:

Good News from the NRA and I quote;

“On Wednesday, NRA-backed legislation to restore the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks and wildlife refuges passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 279-147. Today, the measure was signed into law and, as specified in the legislation, will take effect in nine months, on February 22, 2010. This was a major repudiation of the gun control community’s anti self-defense agenda.”

We can impeach a setting Jurist (Judge) much like a President if the crimes reach that level like not following the constitution. States have rights also and they are not all following the ‘O’ on the weapon’s issue take Montana as an example. I could buy an unregistered firearm and a suppresser if I’m a resident without registration to the FEDS, I say cool beans but the catch is you must live in Montana and can’t transport said arms to another state. Utah is next on this path, so my fellow gun owners there is much hope and we do have the fire arms RIGHT 

MJR

May 29, 2009 - 5:10 pm 70. shaui-jan:

sheesh.we can stop right now working the empathy angle,it is a stupid line of questioning to be asking any judge.ever notice that chick thingy with the scales on an offical seal?

spend a few minutes educating yourself on the theory of “blind justice” then please come back and explain to me why race or gender would be a possible perquisite for the supreme court.

“Right wing media idiots can say whatever they want because they have “time to fill”? You should really set yourself some higher standards.”
“Brilliant! I can see why you admire him and his alternating simper and screech so much.”

alot of assuming going on there……

i think we have a fundamental misunderstanding,my little apparatchik.you’re the one that is influenced by extremist propaganda,you spout it regularly.even linking to it,too lazy to even bother connecting your diatribes to a credible source.

“you don’t want to fire off an ill-informed opinion about that last comment and be made to look the fool again and again and again.)”

what ill-informed opinion?please clue me in…. it is the only way i’ll learn.what was it again about the ricci case i should care/not care about?

take your time.

May 29, 2009 - 5:41 pm 71. tony smith:

You obviously know nothing about constitutional law. Heller said that the Second Amendment provides an “individual” right – not just a right of states to arm militias. But the case did not answer the question of whether this right is “incorporated” in the Fourteenth Amendment and made applicable to states. That’s a separate issue.

By the way, Chief Justice Warren was the champion of the “incorporation doctrine.” So, apparently, you like “judicial activism,” so long as you like the right at issue. Hypocrisy!

May 29, 2009 - 6:07 pm 72. Delia:

Spitballs will be considered bio-warfare.

May 29, 2009 - 7:07 pm 73. Kaid Presus:

I’m not much inclined to grant the government the authority to control our right to keep and bear arms any more than I’d grant them the authority to control a woman’s reproductive choices or grant them the authority to control the “sanctity” of civil unions.

Provided the People continue to present a divided front on the matter, more than happy to give the government a big stick when the beatings are directed elsewhere, it will simply grow in power and make ever more ridiculous claims to authorities we do not (and, in some cases, cannot) grant.

The Second Amendment is a prohibition on infringement, it grants no rights.

May 29, 2009 - 7:13 pm 74. 6.5mmGrnd:

Why is everyone so freaking out and being stupid! Are you folks goofy or are you a Sheeple dog. Please no one will ever take or get our stuff that is a promise unless you’re a sheep person so what is the issue here? Obama got ya scared please, no one in this world can take your rights away unless you let them.

Sheep talking to sheep funny stuff.

May 29, 2009 - 7:15 pm 75. Delia:

73. 6.5mmGrnd:

“Sheep talking to sheep funny stuff.”

Mind if I chisel that on your head-stone? That’s the perfect ‘libiot’ sh*t if ever I could write it myself. I mean, you nailed it all without realizing it.

Stagger into the wolf bane bare, we have cookies.

May 29, 2009 - 8:26 pm 76. ray:

Pastor of Muppets:

Your anti-gun rantings have to be some of the most blatant mis-truths and absurd reasoning ever to be posted at PJM. That would pretty much make you a liar. Not a very smart one either by posting stale talking points straight out of the failed Brady victim disarmament campaign. Fellow correct thinking Americans can rejoice in the fact that our alternative media on the internet is being used to help turn the tide of the leftist controlled media in this nation. That you post here is proof of this fact.

May 29, 2009 - 8:50 pm 77. fred:

The Libtards and Leftards have to be in a panic at some point. In the back of their minds they’ve always known that in a shooting war they get their clock cleaned, because

1. The military is not on their side, and

2. They know that Americans are not going to give up their weapons and that many of them DO know the foundational reason why the Founders crafted the 2nd Amendment: it is there to defend liberty against tyranny.

Folks, that is pretty much all there is to defend our liberties against the Communists who have infiltrated and have branded themselves by some other name. Corporate America makes its accommodation with these people, so it’s not going to defend us. The political elites, from the Ivy League institutions, are not going to defend us. They are mostly on the side of the socialists (as long as the socialists promise not to confiscate their wealth, they’re o.k. that Joe and Jane Plain Citizen get hosed). It’s just us and most (not all) of our sons and daughters serving in the military who will stand up and be counted when the modern Gen. Thomas Gage comes calling for our arms.

And as I type these words I know for a fact that 99% of the pedestrian Left-of-Center have utterly no clue as to why we are buying guns and ammo. Not a clue. We are mostly quiet about our complaints. We don’t talk much around them, so they don’t know our real thoughts about where they are taking us. But if the storm erupts it will take them completely by surprise. Probably not their leaders, who will try all manner of ways to spy on us and try to co-opt the military (it won’t work).

All of this could be avoided if they would just respect the Constitution and not destroy free markets and our economy. There are ways we can better take care of people without health coverage without socializing the entire system. Plus, we can show them reams of evidence that lowering taxes causes more widespread prosperity and increases revenues to the treasury. We can show them examples of other countries that have a flat tax and very low corporate taxes – where their economies are prospering and growing. But they don’t want to hear us. They want to have large swathes of our economy run by the government. They want to run up massive debts that will crash our currency and bankrupt the nation.

But I doubt that is going to happen at this point. The trajectory and logic of what is happening points in a terrible scenario eventually. For they are amoral and lust for power. It would appear that they can only be what they are and not repent of their pride. And pride is the most deadly of the seven deadly sins.

May 29, 2009 - 9:23 pm 78. Gozer the Carpathian:

Agreed Delia, I love how folks just state like it’s fact that there’s “no way” the dems will ever get our guns. I’m sorry I point to Australia, Canada, and England as all once gun owning citizens as examples of how the slow and stead pace of “gun control” leads into gun bans and confiscation.

It’s a tried and true system of banning specific guns like “Cop Killer” .50 Cal rifles (Which aren’t even used in crimes!) to placing restrictions on numbers of guns purchased or ammo types. Then it goes onto licencing of owners and weapons (So we know who has the weapons and what kinds). Then it goes to gun bans and confiscations (since we know who has the guns we just banned). It’s a long slow process but as we’ve seen time and again the Statist is patient and can take the time.

May 29, 2009 - 10:05 pm 79. M. Bouffant:

So, fred, calling for a “shooting war,” are you? Very nice. Glad you know who’s a “commie” & who isn’t. Or is it just let gawd sort ‘em out? He’ll know they’ve been “prideful,” right?

May 30, 2009 - 3:19 am 80. ajacksonian:

Now, as the Bill of Rights have equal standing, imagine that Judge Sotomayor said that your right to free speech can be abridged or repealed by the States.

If she is willing to rule against the fourteenth’s equal protection for the Bill of Rights, then she can use the exact, same rationale for anything in the Bill of Rights at all.

The States do, indeed, have the right to regulate the militia: currenlty every individual who is male between 17-45 belongs in the unregulated militia via the Dick Act of 1910. Reasonable regulations are such things as: training, arms safety, cleaning and maintenance of arms. Those are traditional venues of the use of arms by the population and fully in accordance with historical precedent. As has always been the case with the citizen militia (as opposed to the organized citizen soldier) the citizenry is to use the arms they are best familiar with, the State has no say in that. The State can have great say over some mandatory equipment by the militias if they wish to form under the auspices of not being paid, but in getting a tax break when they form up to work for the cost of their supplies. Thus such things as crew-served weapons, which were perfectly permissible in Britain and England prior to the Founding, were limited in their civil use although citizens could own them. In Heller there is a cited case on that in the common law. Unpaid, voluntary militia time under State regulations means you don’t get paid, you do have to follow the rules set down, and you can get some perks for equipment normally out of the reach of an individual.

States cannot ban such things, but regulate them for those that adhere to the voluntary guidelines put down by the State for a volunteer run and led militia under State auspices. That militia would need to do its own paperwork, ensure its own training areas, follow directives and demonstrate some proficiency in arms and tactics, and be available as a back-up force to police and federal forces but wholly under control of the State. As it is voluntary the State cannot forbid arms available to the citizenry at large, and can help in the procurement of some arms that are not available to the citizenry at large under Art. I, Section 10 where States are given the recourse to protect themselves in times of invasion or danger that will not admit of delay. That is a recognition that the States have the right to defend themselves when the federal government can’t or won’t do so.

It will be interesting to see as Montana butts heads with the BATF over locally made and sold firearms exactly what amount of federalism is left, as the State of Montana is seeking to allow freer use of arms constructed in their State for State residents than is provided for under federal law. That will run directly into the Raich decision… and if ever a decision needed push-back, that is the one.

May 30, 2009 - 5:51 am 81. shaui-jan:

fred.this gent might interest you:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com/

May 30, 2009 - 6:35 am 82. longun45:

The incremental restrictions on all of our rights are most troubling.
The lack of proper education in the public schools has been on going since the 1960s.

( Pravda 24-4-9 the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, )

Now comes a marxist president and it’s no wonder he would want to appoint a marxist to the Supreme court. There will also be a second appointment of a Marxist when Ginsburg dies. He must render meaningless the Constitution to “make the new country image”. ALA Fidel.

The people here will tolerate just about anything, higher taxes, greater restrictions and higher crime allowed by the federal government.

The war is coming and there is now nothing that can be done to stop it.

May 30, 2009 - 7:09 am 83. sheesh:

70. shaui-jan: . . . “You have amazing range, able to articulate complex thoughts in a way that soars between vapid and ambiguous. Rather than acknowledge every non-thought you sputter, I’ll pick just one and see if you can actually focus long enough to address its merits.

I said: “If SM were an activist judge, she would have ruled in favor of Ricci. (Do your homework first, Shy One, you don’t want to fire off an ill-informed opinion about that last comment and be made to look the fool again and again and again.)”

To which you replied: “what ill-informed opinion?please clue me in…. it is the only way i’ll learn.what was it again about the ricci case i should care/not care about?”

The answer is . . . the opinion I asked you for on the Ricci case, which you didn’t give. Imagine this – your boss comes to you and says, “Sahi-jaun . . . Shay guav . . . San Jaya . . . whatever your name is . . . I want you to clean the bathrooms” and when he returns two hours later you say, “What bathrooms?”

Focus. Focus. First you think, THEN you type.

May 30, 2009 - 8:42 am 84. shaui-jan:

sheesh.i could care less about ricci and even if i hadn’t know a thing about it,even a knuckle dragger like myself could have easily been informed of it by now.

so just go ahead and assume that ricci means absolutly squat to me.moving along…

still not up to date on why justice is always portrayed with a blindfold?doubtful,a more rational answer is that you’re not foolish enough to stick your head out that far(a smart move)

i gave you some time off after your last break down..you should have taken advantage of it.whether your a”blog slave”or a”flare”not exactly 100% sure what those terms mean,being new to posting and all.(chalk it up to being tall,handsome and charming)but i guess it boils down to for one reason or another….you cannot stay away for long.

which is good for me,i have converted more than a few of your kind over to the “darkside”.smart,educated individuals who non the less were still snookered by the soaring rhetoric and emotionaly based politics of your messiah.

i will be regularly applying copious amounts of the disinfectant known as truth to you.after witnessing the sheer volume of squealing following the viewing of five minutes of bezmenov,i can tell you are”ripe fruit”….just waiting to be picked.

BTW,how can you stigmatize jane fonda like that,after seeing her break the orgasmatron…SHAME ON YOU!!!!you crossed a line,buddy.

like i said,having accomplished this before under way more challenging circumstances,i WILL make you into an anti-idiotarian,sheesh… even if it takes every cannibal in the congo.(opps..i meant ‘the democratic republic of congo.’)

keep fantasizing about me,bosses and bathrooms all you want,in the end…..it will do you no good.just try to remain sane(if possible)as i diligently awake you from your self imposed dreamland.

feel no need to thank me later…..i consider it my patriotic duty.

May 30, 2009 - 11:08 am 85. Frank:

If anyone thinks for one second that it will end with the banning of firearms has another thing coming. Obama ain’t gunna let the people who thought ahead and stockpiled to grandfather their weapons in. Anyone remember the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-yVu8×8oC0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sm5PC7z79-8

Those are two different videos about it. Expect to see that repeated nationwide in the future, if this witch makes the seat and they get their way.

May 30, 2009 - 12:18 pm 86. shaui-jan:

frank.the dems aren’t going to expend political capital on this.they would if they could…but they cannot.maybe way off,in obama’s second term.

if you haven’t yet……join the NRA,the GOA or both.

May 30, 2009 - 1:31 pm 87. shaui-jan:

is this this the comment that got so excitable before?

me-”sotomayor is clearly an ‘activist’ judge,no way to spin it….you did make an admirable effort though.”

ok…let’s go checkout pravda….

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/05/26/us/0526-scotus.html

“Judge Sotomayor’s most high-profile case, Ricci v. DeStefano, concerns white firefighters in New Haven who were denied promotions after an examination yielded no black firefighters eligible for advancement.”

sounds like a legitament beef…….

” Joining an unsigned opinion of a three-judge panel of the appeals court, Judge Sotomayor upheld the rejection of a lawsuit by white firefighters”

oh well,this happens all the time….forgot to dot an “I” somewhere…probably.

” she declined to rehear the case. ”

i see.

on to another hot topic:

“Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man’s Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In this case, Maloney v. Cuomo, the court noted that the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down parts of the District’s gun control law, did not invalidate this principle, and “to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” earlier Supreme Court rulings took precedence in the case.”

sheesh.when the NYT can’t even white wash it….you’re out of luck.

May 30, 2009 - 2:47 pm 88. buddy larsen:

Wonder which is the greater number, toddlers killed by loaded guns laying around the house, or toddlers not killed by criminals who have to watch their step because all those bright shiny houses full of loot might house a gun-totin’ family too.

The only bad thing about deterrence is that it allows so many morally idiotic ingrates to prance and pose their holier-than-thou fantasies safely behind it.

May 30, 2009 - 3:34 pm 89. jim:

The question is how long we let scum like Obama treat us like slaves.

May 30, 2009 - 4:35 pm 90. Gus M:

Maloney v. Cuomo won’t be before the Supreme Court on June 26. That is the deadline for filing the cert petition. The NRA doesn’t even want that case to be the test case for incorporation because it doesn’t involve guns. They want to use the cases in Chicago that ban guns that were heard last week.

May 30, 2009 - 4:49 pm 91. fred:

“Expect to see that repeated nationwide in the future, if this witch makes the seat and they get their way.”

They won’t get away with it. Some of the National Guard and some of law enforcement might go along with the plan, but most of the military (active duty and reserves)and most of law enforcement will help us to get the rebellion going.

And it won’t stop until she’s arrested, along with those above her in the chain of command, if you get my drift. And they aren’t the only ones who will be on the proscription lists.

The Left is going to lose this fight and lose it badly.

May 30, 2009 - 5:39 pm 92. Robert:

To Master of Muppets:

Gun control is obsolete, period. It’s funny that you talk about the future, no ban on guns is going to work in the world of nanofactories and universal assemblers.

The precursors to those technologies exist today in the form of fablabs and digital fabrication. Even with simple hometools, one can build a fully operational submachine gun:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPhbdW9SxEM

And stop with the crap about toddlers. Those statistics with 13 “children” being shot every day has been discredited for years now. We all know its gangbangers shooting each other, not toddlers. The gangs will always get their guns if they want them.

May 30, 2009 - 5:43 pm 93. buddy larsen:

The big screaming question, once we all know that the anti-gun people know too, that the stats, county by county, prove guns reduce crime, is why the hell, knowing they know that, are they so dead set on disarming the citizenry? I mean, could they BE more freaking obvious ?

May 30, 2009 - 6:43 pm 94. Brian G.:

I have to say that listening to people complain about the Sotomayor reminds me of how Bush and his cronies Karl Rove and Dick Cheney would bully and disparage anyone who dared dissent from radical right wing ideology. Funny to hear right-wingers complain her position on guns when Bush spent trillions in his illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to rape, torture, pillage the indigenous non-Christian peoples of those peaceful states, using guns and other weapons of mass destruction in the process, so that he could make money for Haliburton, Blackwater, and Big Oil without regard for America’s moral standing in the world, which is why the world hated us until we voted Bush’s ass out and put Obama in office, even though Bush tried behind the scenes to stage a coup to keep himself in power, which he never legally was in power because he was made the President by the Supreme Court and not elected by us, who wanted overwhelmingly for Al Gore.

Guns kill tons of people. Big Gun manufacturers and ammunition makers are huge donors to Republicans, which is why they want to stop Obama from enforcing the true meaning of the Second Amendment, which says nothing about people having the right to carry Uzis in their house so they can shoot any minority that happens to llok at them funny, which rich white Republicans always seem to do under the guise of defending themselves. Plus, Republicans want to keep guns legal because they hope the gangbangers will kill each other, which is really supporting genocide of the non-white peoples of this country.

Sotomayor’s position on the 2nd Amendment is nothng more than saying what the amendment has always meant. People are distorting her record because they are racists who can’t stand that a Hispanic woman has reached such lofty status.

May 30, 2009 - 7:28 pm 95. Hanoi Paris Hilton:

Yo, Pastor! I thought you lefties are heavy into Darwin and all?

Anybody downright stupid enough to leave loaded guns around, accessible to young children, and then finds the poor tyke with his head blowed off, just strengthened the gene pool for the rest of us. Don’t worry, be happy. Yea, evolution!

Oh, sorry ’bout that, kid.

May 30, 2009 - 7:38 pm 96. macko:

Brian G: man are you ate up with it.

If the anti-gun people are so scared of gun people why is it that they are always trying to piss ‘em off ?

May 30, 2009 - 8:27 pm 97. sheesh:

Sun-jaya . . . How those bathrooms coming?

May 30, 2009 - 9:12 pm 98. shaui-jan:

brian g:please tell me your a new idiot and not just one of the regular ones with a changed name.

” in order to rape, torture, pillage”

if that’s what they’re trying to do,they suck at it.

“the indigenous non-Christian peoples of those peaceful states,”

yes,the peoples of iraq and afganistan are known world wide as very tranquil.

“using guns and other weapons of mass destruction in the process.”

holy crap! i have a WMD in my safe….please don’t turn me in…i hear they torture people.

“which is why the world hated us until we voted Bush’s ass out and put Obama in office”

wow.tell that the taliban,alqaeda,the chinese,the russians,hamas and hizbolla,hugo chavez..oh never mind.

“even though Bush tried behind the scenes to stage a coup to keep himself in power”

ok,great…now you got me feeling bad for picking on you,thanks for ruining it.here’s a ball now run along and play…WATCH OUT FOR CARS.ah.. i can’t help it…

“Guns kill tons of people.

if you measure by the pound.

“Big Gun manufacturers and ammunition makers are huge donors to Republicans”

the largest US gun manufacterer might have eighty full time employees.it is the membership dues(nra,etc.),that provide the juice.

“which is why they want to stop Obama from enforcing the true meaning of the Second Amendment”

i cannot wait until i hear your version of obama’s “true meaning of the second amendment.”

“which says nothing about people having the right to carry Uzis in their house so they can shoot any minority that happens to llok at them funny”

if i awake in my house in the middle of the night and there is ANYONE “lloking at me funny”…i am capping them.

May 30, 2009 - 9:17 pm 99. William Brown:

Obama is using Sotomayor for an end run around the entire Constitution not just the 2nd Amendment.

May 30, 2009 - 9:50 pm 100. Robert:

Brian G. You’re an idiot. So what “big gun manufacturer” created that submachine gun I just showed?

Brian G. said:

Plus, Republicans want to keep guns legal because they hope the gangbangers will kill each other, which is really supporting genocide of the non-white peoples of this country.

Here’s a genius idea, don’t gangbang dipshit! And by the way, Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t peaceful dumbass.

I have showed that gun control is obsolete, I have refuted it yet you continue repeating your refuted point over and over again, you are a liar Brian G. Repeating P.R.A.T.T.s (Point Refuted A Thousand Times) is a dishonest tactic. You are a lying pig.

May 30, 2009 - 10:05 pm 101. Praetorian:

PatriotUSA wrote: “and has it made it clear that she thinks it is quite all right to legislate from the bench.”

“Legislate from the bench” is just conservative jargon that describes any justice who would dare issue an opinion that they don’t like.

David Thomson wrote: “Sonia Sotomayor’s goose is cooked. She will not be confirmed.”

There are consequences to elections, in case you forgot. Sonia Sotomayor WILL be confirmed and rather quickly. I predict many, many Republicans will support her too. Especially pro-choice Republican stars like Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, maybe even Kay Bailey Hutchinson. There will be many. The fact that people like you are so visceral in your contempt for the woman will make it that much more delicious to see her confirmed. But by all means, keep yacking amongst yourselves. Whatever keeps the false fires or your overheated minds burning. The decision by Obama to appoint her was brilliant. The Republicans invented wedge politics, now the Democrats are shoving that wedge right up your a$$. Get used to it there’s more to come! LOL!

May 31, 2009 - 12:11 am 102. buddy larsen:

The Republicans invented wedge politics, now the Democrats are shoving that wedge right up your a$$. Get used to it there’s more to come! LOL!

What is an “a$$” ?

May 31, 2009 - 5:58 am 103. buddy larsen:

Existential forces are in motion and our very species is at risk as never before. Current data is future events and we –humanity –in all liklihood do not have near the control over them that our American left seems to believe is a “given” automatic, assured fact of nature. Coming soon, the unexpected –and all these social experiments are going to be seen for what they were, terrible distractions from the terribly exigent.

May 31, 2009 - 8:34 am 104. shaui-jan:

97.apparatchik.keeping it pithy?.being how there is a cornucopia of libtardience in attendence,it is of no concern.i am confident your mental equals are up to the task of keeping me amused,until your compulsive predilections get the best of you.

May 31, 2009 - 9:30 am 105. sheesh:

104. shaui-jan:

Evidently the jingle jangle threshold of railroad track inequities have coalesced to denigrate and elevate the intestate proxy mongers who now twiddle twaddle the nugatory ramifications of such clear and present dangers as they may be privy to vis a vis the data base constructions within and beyond the medical community that so gloriously distinguish the aforementioned convolutions . . . I think we can agree on that.

May 31, 2009 - 10:20 am 106. ionpro:

I’m confused. Souter dissented in Heller. How can appointing someone who feels the same way possibly change the outcome on this gun rights issue?

May 31, 2009 - 11:05 am 107. shaui-jan:

105.it’s the caffine…but still,i agree.

on another note…….some nut just offed tiller.sheesh,i’m lobbing you a soft one..3.2…1.

http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

May 31, 2009 - 11:09 am 108. buddy larsen:

She’s young, ionpro, and will be around a long time.

May 31, 2009 - 11:47 am 109. buddy larsen:

Say, what happened to the previous Hispanic nominee?

May 31, 2009 - 12:42 pm 110. EruditeMan:

In view of Mr. Obama’s refusal to supply his birth certificate to prove he’s eligible to be US President & childhood years spent in nations steeped in Islamic cultures it’s understandable he has limited appreciation of the wisdom our first Congressional Congressmen possessed & fact we are a Republic with federal government of limited powers. A racist woman who’s had more than 60% of her appellate decisions overturned by the US Supreme should not be allowed to create legislation from the bench. A judge has authority to interpret laws the legislature creates. “We the people” will not be served if Sonia Sotomayor makes it to the US Supreme Court as a Justice of that body. We should each write letters to all or our state senators & representatives in addition to sending E-Mail messages to all of our friends & acquaintances, prompting them to do the same & then place telephone calls to US Congressional Offices in an effort to get the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor rejected.

May 31, 2009 - 5:49 pm 111. kim:

I think it is time for Obama to step down and all his appointees go with him. In fact, I think we need to scale back all the way to Pelosi and Reid.

These “people” have an agenda that is not good for the USA and(after lots of careful listening and watching) I think are very dangerous. And it is showing more and more with each Obama appointee.

What can you say about a President who has a thing about appointing tax cheats, and other very contraversial individuals (including Sotomayor who seems to me to have racist tendancies) to posts within the government. Then goes from country to country appologizing for the US defending itself and not wanting to take any crap from anyone. And, his own aunt is an illegal.

We have a (so called)President who is not only in over his head on many things, but is hell bent on turning this country into his own personal kingdom, where he is grand dictator, shoves things down our throats, basks in wanting the government to run all. We have a “speaker” who says that it is UnAmerican to want something done about illegals and lies through her teeth about things that she knows.

This country had better wake up to the fact that they fell under the spell of and elected a person who we really still know little about, who campaigned on “Change” and had people so snowballed, that when asked what “Change” he was going to bring no one could answer, was going to be so “transparent” yet we still wait, wanted to end earmarks…then signed off on about 8000 of them……people, we have a probelm!

Now, with Obama on his way to Egypt and later Russia, most likely a continuation of his appology tour, maybe he should just stay in one of those countries, and take Pelosi with him. They would both thrive in that environment and be right within their element.

By the way, I’m not a Republican, and I do not vote along any party line. I must admit that I didn’t really like either candidate.

Jun 1, 2009 - 5:02 am 112. buddy larsen:

What are the odds we the American people are going to come out of Obama’s coming KGB meetings in a neutral or better position than going in?

I’d bet big on zero. Hmm, what do i mean, “i’d bet” –hell, i AM betting –and so are you. Have to, no choice now, the choice was back in November.

Jun 1, 2009 - 7:05 am 113. Delfin J Beltran MD:

A recent article by Thomas Sowell defined the difference between ‘Socialism’ and ‘Fascism’. Unfortunately the current course of the Washington political administration is on the course of Fascism without the usual route through Socialism.

Jun 1, 2009 - 12:22 pm 114. Dave Surls:

‘What is an “a$$”’

An ass is a stubborn, horselike animal, sort of like a Democrat, only prettier and with twice the i.q.

Jun 1, 2009 - 6:59 pm 115. buddy larsen:

ahh, i see –makes cents to me!

Jun 1, 2009 - 8:51 pm 116. Dave Surls:

“Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man’s Second Amendment rights, explaining the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.”

Big shock. Leftoids like her have been lying about the 2nd Amendment since before I was born…and that’s a while back.

Jun 1, 2009 - 11:14 pm 117. buddy larsen:

Next it’ll be, the second amendment only applies to history; next, “only to our imaginations”.

Again, one must wonder, given the vast data on the inverse relationship between gun ownership and violent crime, what exactly is the left up to here? Or better, since citizen disarmament is clearly what the left wants, why does it so want it? What does it have in mind that is so clearly thwarted by an armed citizenry?

That’s the question we should be asking these people –at every opportunity.

Jun 2, 2009 - 9:25 am 118. yankeedoodle2:

For those who doubt Obamainations intentions, just follow the link below to a Lou Dobbs video. You’ll find, if you have the guts to watch it far enough, he has discussed providing a list of American registered gun owners to foreign militaries. Now just why would he feel that’s necessary?

The only reason I can see is that when he doesn’t get his way he’ll turn to the U.N. for assistance in quelling the trouble. While the U.N is a paper tiger to all the other troubles in the world, they’ll probably bow to their hero, the pantywaist president as he’s known in Great Britain.

http://wearechangecoloradosprings.org/blog/?p=594

Jun 2, 2009 - 12:17 pm 119. Pat J:

53. fred:

PatJ,

“Regardless of the type of weapons involved in that case, the reasoning behind the decision is what matters most. She did say if states or cities want to ban all guns and disarm the populace they are free to do so.”

Objection. Irrelevant. You can’t make that case because you can’t read Ms. Sotomayor’s mind. She acted prudently and wisely. Actually she said nothing about guns. Considering nunchucks are a favored weapon of choice with gang bangers in both New York and California where they are also banned, she was alo protecting the public interest.

Now go hug your gun and go to bed.

Jun 3, 2009 - 8:34 am 120. buddy larsen:

Now go hug your gun and go to bed.

yep, we really want to be at your mercy, Pat J –so respectful and knowledgeable are you.

Jun 4, 2009 - 11:27 am 121. deepdish:

Those bitter townspeople in Pennsylvania better cling harder to their guns, according to these folks:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=329007151728356

Jun 5, 2009 - 12:47 pm 122. NedMadigan:

Sotomayor is a New York – born Puertoriqueña. Her parents came to NYC from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. They were native-born citizens of the USA.

She exaggerates her lowly early childhood life to make it seem like an episode of ‘Hill Street Blues,’ or ‘Fort Apache,’ the Bronx. Things in the South Bronx were quite different when she lived there than they are now. Her ‘pobre Puertoriqueña’ image may have helped get her Scholarships to Cardinal Spellman HS and later to Princeton University. It worked back then, why not use the same tactics for a U.S. Supreme Court confirmation? Much of what she claims is ‘window dressing.’

She claims to be a member of la Raza. I thought that was a Mexican Racial identity that derived from the Virgen de Guadalupe espousing a Mexican Race made up of European Spanish, native born Mexicans and Indians.

All that aside, her Court decisions have shown her to be a Racist (New Haven Firefighters), an anti-Environmentalist, and in favor of abolishing Second Amendment rights of Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms. I wonder how she felt about the Sullivan Law?

Blessed Sacrament Parish School is in the South Bronx, on Beach Street just off Bruckner Blvd. I used to go by there when we went out on a Party Fishing Boat from City Island. Cardinal Spellman HS is not in the South Bronx.

We all tend to embellish our Curriculum Vitae or ‘blow our own horn’ when an opportunity for advancement presents itself; but I think this lady is over-playing her hand.

Jun 8, 2009 - 3:43 am 123. Robert (Bear River, Wy):

The constition and the bill of rights is for the protection of nation against a tyranny governmemt such as we have now (Obam gov elect). Where is our american government that was elected to secure our nation? Has our government gone deserted,gutless,ashame, self respect, to admit there abuse of office. Sotomayor, is exactly what is said in the above comments, It is a good thing the 1st and 2nd amend is incorporated to the 14 amend. State soverieghty and state rights get up and support the american cause of law and order. I live here in Wyoming and the people and government respects the laws(that is my opinon). Pardon me if I steped on your big toe, the bigger the better. If we fall all will be lost, our freedom and self respect.

Jun 11, 2009 - 7:24 am 124. Willie Walkingstick:

what a tiny box!

Jul 16, 2009 - 5:55 pm 125. Willie Walkingstick:

When listening to the Supreme Court hearings on the DC gun ban law, I noticed there were few facts but mostly subjective opinions.
I did my research. Here are the facts!
Finding a city with zero tolerance to handguns, London, UK, about the same size as DC, I was able to get the stats on violent crimes for the year 2006 for both cities.
Violent crimes in London: 22,000
Violent crimes in DC: 11,000
THE NUMBERS DONT LIE!!!
Do the research.
What they show is a city whose citizens cannot protect themselves have TWICE the violent crimes as one which allows citizens to protect themselves.
In several news programs the bobbies in London openly confess they DO NOT have the ability to protect the citizens.
What the hell are we thinking?

Jul 16, 2009 - 5:59 pm 126. Dave Parrish:

This is essentially a Communist take over of our Nation. and the Nation is going for it. Look around at the younger crowd. It is enamored with Iphones, texting, etc. Mind candy. Enamored with Michael Jackson, a wierdo, sorry, just the truth. Our educational system is dumbed down and people today want the easy life, easy mortgage money, universal healthcare so we can party and not pay the consequences. We are doing our ownselves in. and we will see that Freedom and Democracy not under God will lead to the rise of a lazy, tyrannical government. Freedom of the underclass to take the wealth of smart and innovative business owners, is like USSR when they went to collectives and banned personal wealth incentives. Interesting both china and russia have moved more to capitolism and we are moving to communism and socialism!!! He, Obmama and Sotomayor will lead us down the pathway of helping other help themselves by taking from the blood sweat and tears of others. It will be the downfall of our nation. the Rich Politicians don’t seem to care. They have their position and pensions and the Hearings this week were a joke. this lady never said anything of substance. Just verbal drival. Aka “Lies”.
My suggestion, look to Eternity and Jesus Christ to be your King and leader. Pure, love, redeemer of your sins and He will be the final Leader / King over this world as all the systems and Governments of man crash and burn. Repent of your sinfulness and believe on Jesus and you will be able to ride this storm out because your hope will be in Eternity vs. putting hope in the systems of man. God Bless, Dave Parrish

Jul 18, 2009 - 4:31 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: