The New York Times published an article outlining some of her decisions in order to anticipate how she might stand on the important issues, but with the following proviso:
Judge Sotomayor, whom President Obama announced Tuesday as his choice for the Supreme Court, has issued no major decisions concerning abortion, the death penalty, gay rights or national security. In cases involving criminal defendants, employment discrimination and free speech, her rulings are more liberal than not.
One fascinating bit of evidence has been offered as an indication of her ideas about guns. As a graduate student at Princeton University, she published several papers, including Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. Here's what the Second Amendment March site has to say about it, taking the quote from AmericanNews.com.
In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.
I can imagine what kinds of comments that would generate. But The Second Amendment March site doesn't allow comments, just like the Brady Blog. Do you find something wrong with that? Is not inviting comments the indication of some problem?
That synopsis of the thesis written by Sotomayor made me wonder. If she's right, it's the gun enthusiasts who are in violation of the 2nd Amendment. If she's right, and I'm sure she's not the only one who ever come up with such an interpretation, then it's a distortion of the spirit of the 2nd Amendment to insist upon individual rights in this regard.
I suppose if she had been around during the Heller debate things might have been different. But that's water over the dam, huh? I can't wait to see what the future brings.
What's her position on capital punishment? As a minority woman, I don't suppose she's in favor of it, isn't it just the white male conservatives who go for that? What do you think?
What's your opinion? Is her nomination a big problem for the gun movement in America? Could this be why Obama seems to have avoided the issue; could he be biding his time and waiting for the right moment to begin making a move?
Please tell us what you think?
I would, of course, point out that all nine seated Supreme Court Justices agreed with and supported the individual interpretation of the Second Amendment.
ReplyDeleteThey may have disagreed concerning DC vs. Heller, but they all agreed on the point that the collectivist interpretation is bunk.
Yup, every single justice said that the 2A is in fact an INDIVIDUAL right. Furthermore, they all agreed that it was an inherent, pre-existing right (I.E. the BOR did not "grant" it)
ReplyDeleteSo basically Sotomayer's "interpretation" is not only intellectually and legally deficient, it is also at odds with the entire SCOTUS.
BTW Mike, all rights are individual in nature. Rights "of the people" are rights that each and every one of "the people" may freely enjoy.
I have viewed the 2nd Amendment the same as Sotomayer for much longer than she has been alive.
ReplyDeleteOf course author John Mason modeled the law on The Assize of Arms of 1181, a decree of gun-bearing in the aftermath of the Norman conquest of England when England had no standing army. King Henry II feared both an external invasion as well as peasant insurrection within his country and so he prepared an armed militia which he could call up if need be.
Mason understood that our newly-formed nation faced the same challenges and that our Army needed help if England [or Spain] would attempt another invasion.
The gun lobby has pimped the Constitution for its own purposes. Trouble is, the politicians are scared to challenge the lobby because they are afraid of not winning the next election.
The whole thing is nothing less than a disease-ridden whore house.
Ummm so Muddy the US Supreme Court's unanamous decision on an Individual right to keep and bear arms was a "pimping of the Constitution" by the Gun Lobby?
ReplyDeleteYou're as paranoid as MikeB!
Mud,
ReplyDeleteHow can you have a citizen's militia without the individual citizens having the right to keep and bear arms?
As a graduate student at Princeton University, she published several papers, including Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. Here's what the Second Amendment March site has to say about it, taking the quote from AmericanNews.com.
ReplyDeleteHate to burst your bubble, Mike (OK--I lied--it actually amuses the hell out of me), but that "article" that mentions Sotomayor's "Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture" is tagged as satire (see lower right).
Nice try.
Yeah, I read Volkh's explanation of the whole thing today. Time will tell's all I can say. It's hard to know what's what on the internet.
ReplyDeleteAnd I might add, before this "satire" business started flying around the place, a number of your favorite gun bloggers were expressing concern.
Mud, I loved it when you wrote, "The gun lobby has pimped the Constitution for its own purposes." I was thinking "bastardized," but "pimped" is pretty apt.
Obama has replaced one anti-gun justice with another. Not a gain or loss for anyone.
ReplyDeleteSerious question for the gun guys: If the Heller decision was a unanimous one, what did Sebastian mean by "Obama gets to replace one of the Heller five with a reliably left-voting justice."I took that to mean the Heller vote was 5 to 4. But now I'm hearing it was unanimous.
ReplyDeleteI repeat, it's a serious question.
The unanimity was in regard to the (rather obvious) point that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms.
ReplyDeleteThe four Heller dissenters somehow managed the logical contortions necessary to believe that, and simultaneously believe that the right does not necessarily extend to handguns.
They must be zen masters of rhetorical yoga.
45 Superman said, "The unanimity was in regard to the (rather obvious) point that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms."It's not "rather obvious" at all. In fact that's always been the exact point of difference hasn't it? The words are ambiguous, are they not? And haven't legal scholars through the years maintained opposing interpretations about that very question?
ReplyDeleteIt's not "rather obvious" at all. In fact that's always been the exact point of difference hasn't it? The words are ambiguous, are they not? And haven't legal scholars through the years maintained opposing interpretations about that very question?
ReplyDeleteIf you say so. It is, however, a settled point of law now, with that point settled unanimously.
"It's not "rather obvious" at all. In fact that's always been the exact point of difference hasn't it? The words are ambiguous, are they not?"And here mikeB shows his astounding level of ignorance on a subject he writes frequently about.
ReplyDeleteREAD THE HELLER DECISION MIKE! It is "rather obvious." It is not a matter of established law that the 2A is a inherent, pre-existing INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Every single justice, even the dissenters, dismissed the "collective rights" interpretation of the Amendment.
I have viewed the 2nd Amendment the same as Sotomayer for much longer than she has been alive.
ReplyDeleteActually, Mr. Mud, you apparently have viewed the 2nd Amendment the same as Sotomayer was satirically portrayed as viewing it.
Your view, in other words, could be said to be a joke.
I, for one, am enjoying the joke immensely.
45 Superman, I agree it's a pretty good joke. Usually I miss the most recent breaking news, but this one I was on it within hours. Then that "satire" bit was revealed. It's definitely funny.
ReplyDeleteBut, watch out. You know what they say about he who laughs last. I think you guys are right to stock up on guns and ammo while the gettin' is good.
Just keep in mind that some of us aren't just stocking up because we think they could be hard to get--we're also thinking about how necessary they might soon be.
ReplyDeleteThat I assure you, will be anything but a laughing matter--for anyone.
Quoting George Mason:
ReplyDelete"I ask you sir, what is the militia? It is THE WHOLE PEOPLE with the exception of a few public officials."