Justice Breyer: You Know Who Would Vote For Restricting Guns...The Founding Fathers

Supreme Court Justice made some startling assumptions regarding the origination and modern-day implementation of the second amendment in an interview on Fox News Sunday

If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.

Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller." 

Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms. 

Madison "was worried about opponents who would think Congress would call up state militias and nationalize them. 'That can't happen,' said Madison," said Breyer, adding that historians characterize Madison's priority as, "I've got to get this document ratified."

Therefore, Madison included the Second Amendment to appease the states, Breyer said.

That's a mighty big assumption. However, it seems that Justice Breyer only did a half-ass job at doing his homework, when he did his seance and found out what James Madison was thinking over 200 years ago. Ed Morrissey of HotAir found something that was, actually, written by Madison in the Federalist Papers, Federalist 46:

Madison also considered the right to bear arms an important check on federal power, too, and didn’t reluctantly come to that position to appease the states into signing the Constitution.  All Breyer needed to do to discover this was actually read Madison on the subject in Federalist 46, where Madison makes clear the role of states and men at arms in keeping the central government from overwhelming their sovereignty, emphases mine:

This is an excerpt from Federalist 46:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people.

On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

I will say that Breyer does have a point that the founders couldn't have envisioned some of the weapons that we have today. Would they have been ok with everyday citizens having machine guns, rocket launchers, or a nuke?

However, in Reality, there is no way that we can tell that for sure. He may have an argument, if he was talking about restricting guns, but I believe that they sure wouldn't be ok with the outright gun ban like DC had and what was the issue that they were deciding in "D.C. v. Heller" case.

State of Arizona Gains Traction Over Immigration Bill Debate After Court Ruling Friday

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and the state of Arizona get some of its mojo back, after receiving a favorable ruling,yesterday, in US District Court:

After suffering a major legal setback in the summer, Arizona regained its footing in court Friday when a federal judge dismissed parts of the U.S. Justice Department's challenge to the state's new immigration law and rejected several claims made by Hispanic activists and Phoenix police officers.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton's ruling on Friday struck down the federal government's challenge to the portion of the law that prohibits the transport of illegal immigrants.

It also rejected a challenge from Phoenix police officers and an advocacy group called Chicanos Por La Causa who argued that the cops could be sued for racial profiling if they enforced the law or lose their jobs if they didn't.
Bolton agreed with Arizona that they had no valid claim of immediate harm.

Bolton also dismissed a lawsuit from the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders who were seeking an injunction preventing authorities from enforcing the law because the group argued federal law pre-empts state regulation of national borders.

"I am pleased with today's decision," Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said in a statement Friday. "I strongly believe that the citizens of Arizona will ultimately prevail in all of these legal challenges. My defense of the rule of law will continue as vigorously as ever.”

This is an important development in the impending court case that was brought by the US Justice Department, earlier this year. It will allow local authorities to be able to move prisoners and greatly lowers the chance of officers and police departments being sued for racial profiling, if the question and hold suspects for illegal immigration violations. The judge, also, backed the notion brought up by the Arizona governor that states have every right to protect their borders just as the federal government does.

However, the judge refused to reject the case entirely. Some of the more controversial aspects to the law are still able to be challenged in court sometime next year.

Supreme Court Security Officer Allegedly Told High School Students to Stop Praying in Front of Court

Was the first amendment repealed, while I slept last night? Did they take out the freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof clause out of the amendment?

A Supreme Court security officer allegedly told students to stop praying in front of the Supreme Court because it’s illegal. They had to move to the “gutter” in order to finish their prayer:

A group of Christian students was allegedly ordered to stop praying outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on May 5 because a court police officer told them it was against the law.

The students were part of a junior high school American History class at Wickenburg Christian Academy in Arizona. After taking pictures on the steps of the Supreme Court building, their teacher gathered them to a side location where they formed a circle and began to pray.

According to Nate Kellum, senior counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a police officer “abruptly” interrupted the prayer and ordered the group to cease and desist.
“They were told to stop praying because they were violating the law and they had to take their prayer elsewhere,” Kellum told FOX News Radio.

Here is the response from the Marshal of the (Supreme) Court’s spokesperson regarding the allegation:

The Alliance Defense Fund sent a letter to the Supreme Court urging them to stop their police officers from banning prayers.

A spokesperson for the Court said the Marshal of the Court will look into the events alleged by the ADF.

“The Court does not have a policy prohibiting prayer,” said public information officer Kathy Arberg in an email to FOX News Radio.

“The Court’s policy regarding the use of most public areas at the Court has been to permit activity related to the business of the Court, including traditional tourist activity and ingress and egress for visitors, but not to permit demonstrations and other types of activity that may tend to draw a crowd or onlookers,” she said. “In addition, under 40 U.S.C. section 6135, it is unlawful to parade, stand or move in processions or assemblages in the building and grounds, including the plaza and steps, but not including the perimeter sidewalks.”

But Kellum said the 15 students and seven adults did not constitute a parade.

“From what we gather, the police officer at the Supreme Court building determined that because they were bowing their heads, they were bringing notice to their Christianity which they considered a movement and thus violating this federal statute,” he said.

That is some jump that the cop made.

Sen. Whitehouse: SCOTUS Recently “Discovered” the Individual’s Right to Bear Arms

This might be a slow week for me. Since this week is going to be dominated by the Kagan confirmation, I am not going to be writing as much because I refuse to write too much about them. Supreme Court confirmation hearings are nothing but a dog-and-pony show. Those that are being confirmed don’t ever really say what they think and tell the Senate what they’re really going to do once they get on the bench. So, I’d rather not write about something that is obviously kabuki.

Fortunately, I did find one gem from my new favorite senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.



He goes on to explain that he doesn’t want his judicial nominees to be activists and said that he was looking for “judicial restraint”, and if I didn’t know better, I would have sworn that he wanted a strict constructionist. Then, he goes on to rail on the conservative wing of the Supreme Court. He claims the THEY are the ones that are activists. He complains the Court has recently “witnessed the DISCOVERY of the individual’s right to bear arms” referencing the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual’s right to bear arms in DC. Then, he says that this is a right that had been “previously gone unnoticed by the Court for 220 years. Um, Sheldon, that’s probably because no level of government had ever tried to enforce an outright ban on guns until recently. Why would the Supreme Court have any reason to address blanket gun bans, if they didn’t exist before 1975? Before then, it was just understood that individuals had that right. There were no gun bans in the 1800’s. It was the activism of local lawmakers and lower court judges that recently discovered that the right to bear arms didn’t include individuals.

It gets especially rich, when he invokes abortion in his argument, considering that before 1973 there was no right to kill fetuses until the Court “discovered” one in Roe V Wade. Before 1973, it was just assumed that unborn babies had the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that everyone else did. I wonder if Whitehouse was just upset when the Court discovered that right. Somehow, I doubt it. It fits his political ideology unlike the incorporation of the Second Amendment on local governments.

Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Case That'll Reverse Chicago's Blanket Handgun Ban

The Supreme Court has just ruled against the Chicago in the McDonald v Chicago handgun ban case. While not specifically striking it down the handgun ban in Chicago, it will no doubt be the end result. It will, also, put both existing and potential handgun bans in other cities on the chopping blocks.

Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, in this case explains their decision:

Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

While Alito and the 4 other judges that voted for the ban pointed out that the Second Amendment should be incorporated for local governments just as it is with the federal government.

The 4 dissenting judges were arguing more for an “incorporation for me, but not for thee” view of the second amendment, as Justice Scalia portrays in the dissenting opinion:

The next constraint JUSTICE STEVENS suggests is harder to evaluate. He describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.” Post, at 24. I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judge sare more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful consequences? Attempting to give the concept more precision, JUSTICE STEVENS explains that “sensitivity is an aspect of a deeper principle: the need to approach our work with humility and caution.” Ibid. Both traits are undeniably admirable, though what relation they bear to sensitivity is a mystery. But it makes no difference, for the first case JUSTICE STEVENS cites in support, see ibid., Casey, 505 U. S., at 849, dispels any illusion that he has a meaningful form of judicial modesty in mind.

JUSTICE STEVENS offers no examples to illustrate the next constraint: stare decisis, post, at 25. But his view of it is surely not very confining, since he holds out as a “canonical” exemplar of the proper approach, see post, at 16, 54, Lawrence, which overruled a case decided a mere 17 years earlier, Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U. S. 186 (1986), see 539 U. S., at 578 (it “was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today”). Moreover, JUSTICE STEVENS would apply that constraint unevenly: He apparently approves those Warren Court cases that adopted jotfor-jot incorporation of procedural protections for criminal defendants, post, at 11, but would abandon those Warren Court rulings that undercut his approach to substantive rights, on the basis that we have “cut back” on cases from that era before, post, at 12.

The dissenting judges are letting their personal political views get in the way of their decision in this case. Their aversion for guns is the only reason why they are would go against McDonald here. There is no legit legal reason for incorporating every other amendment, including illegal search and seizure, freedom of press, and due process, but not the right to bear arms. Blanket handgun bans will very soon be nothing short of a bad memory.

News Flash: Cops Don't Have to Have ESP to Interrogate Suspects

Sorry, Miss Cleo! The police will no longer need your services in Cincinnati or any other city in the US:

The Supreme Court overturned a ruling from the appeals court that threw out a confession and a conviction in a murder case where the suspect provided monosyllabic answers to questions for three hours before finally admitting guilt, but did not explicitly invoke his right to remain silent.  The court’s decision equates that invocation with the right to an attorney, which must be explicitly demanded.

The decision that the original Cincinnati court made was foolish. What did they expect to have them do to make sure that they didn't violate their right to remain silent?

"You have the right to remain silent? Do you understand? No, no do you REALLY understand that you have the right to STFU? For the last time, REALLY?"

Come on!

The decision was 5-4, which was a bit surprising that it was more of a lopsided decision. I didn't think that it would be 9-0 like Ed thought that it should have been. I knew that there would have one or two dissenters that would not have had the common sense to see that the implication of the opposite decision would of been an unnecessary burden for our law enforcement to do their jobs and investigate crimes. They already warn them to shut up in Miranda. It is up to the person to actually shut up, if they wish.

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case Concerning Constitutionality of Local Handgun Bans Next Year

One of the first cases that the new Supreme Court, with the addition of Justice Sotomayor, will be a case involving an issue of apprehension for conservatives, the local application of the Second Amendment:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to decide whether strict local and state gun control laws violate the Second Amendment, ensuring another high-profile battle over the rights of gun owners. The court said it will review a lower court ruling that upheld a handgun ban in Chicago. Gun rights supporters challenged gun laws in Chicago and some suburbs immediately following the high court's decision in June 2008 that struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia, a federal enclave.

The last court, with Souter, decided against a similar ban in DC, earlier this year. However, since DC is a federal district and not an independent city or state, it doesn't automatically {pertain} to the rest of America on a local government level. So, the court took this opportunity to clarify their position on the issue.

As an appellate judge, Sotomayor decided in a case similar to this one in New York. That particular case was, also, appealed, but the Chicago case was taken instead. So, Sotomayor wouldn't have to recuse herself.

In the New York case, she voted to uphold the ban just as Souter voted to uphold the DC ban. So, the court didn't tilt anymore to the left with the addition of Justice Sotomayor. The dynamic of the is the same as before. As a result, there is a very good chance that the court will rule the same way and overturn all total handgun bans across the country. That would be a major victory for the Second Amendment.

The case will be heard sometime next year.

Exit Thought:

I find it extra delicious that they are using a case from Obama's home district. Was it intentional?

Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor's Decision in New Haven Firefighter Discrimination Case

Sonia Sotomayor has had a setback while waiting for her confirmation hearing:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The verdict was the right one, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld justice in this case. Discrimination and racial preferences is wrong no matter who you are.

This will be a blemish on her record. However, I do not believe that it will mean the end to her chances of becoming a Supreme Court justice.

It could just a bump in the road on the road to confirmation. However, it could be a one of many strikes against her that could lead to her being out of the Supreme Court. Time will tell which.

Sotomayor's Past Indicate Pro-Choice Beliefs, Dashes Conservatives' Hopes

With people like Rush expressing hopes that Judge Sotomayor is a closet pro-lifer, it is a huge downer to learn about her history in pro-abortion advocacy groups:

Consider that from 1980 until October 1992, Judge Sotomayor served on the board -- at times as vice president and at times as chairman of the litigation committee -- of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The New York Times in 1992 described her as "a top policy maker on the board." During that time period, the fund filed briefs in not one, not two, but at least six prominent court cases in strong support of "abortion rights."

The cases began with an abortion-funding case, Williams v. Zbaraz, just as she joined the board, and they continued through the landmark cases of Rust v. Sullivan, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Especially in the Webster case, in which all nine justices joined at least part of the decision saying that states need not provide public funds for abortions, the fund supported positions far more pro-abortion than the court itself did. Also, in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it "opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade."

No statement could be more categorical. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund thus presumably would oppose any restriction, including those on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, abortions for minors and the like.

Some were speculating that since she is a Catholic she might be pro-life. After all, most Catholics are pro-life. There weren't any of her opinions to abortion related cases that seemed to indicate otherwise. So, conservative pundits were trying to find the silver lining and say that she might secretly hold pro-life beliefs. However, this new revelation unfortunately seems to put that theory to rest.

Sotomayor Repeated Same "Racist" Comment Many Times

This has gone from one instance of using a "poor choice of words" to a consistent pattern of thought from Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Robert Gibbs may not be able to give another pitiful excuse for her this time:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

This is going to become a real problem for Evan Thomas' god-in-chief. Comments like this is very revealing to how she truly sees people of other races and gender. It makes one wonder if she can really be unbiased if she believes that a person of one race and/or gender are inherently better than whites and especially white men.

Flashback: Obama Was Among Those Involved in Justice Alito Supreme Court Filibuster Attempt

Jake Tapper mentioned an interesting fact on his blog today:

In January 2006, then-Sen. Obama joined 24 colleagues in a futile effort led by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., to filibuster the Supreme Court nomination of now-Justice Samuel Alito.

Therefore, what he said in his weekly address seems a bit hypocritical:

President Obama's expressed hope today in his weekly address "that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this (Supreme Court nomination) process, and Congress, in the past" runs against another historical first for the 44th president: his unique role in history as the first US President to have ever voted to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

While it looks likely that Sotomayor won't get filibustered by Republicans, it shows his propensity to be a bit two-faced or sanctimonious. This dubious distinction might get Obama some ribbing from Republicans for being for Supreme Court filibusters before he was against it.

NRA Stays Silent Over Sotomayor Despite Her 2nd Amendment Views

Conservatives received some bad news yesterday:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is staying on the sidelines in the battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to the dismay of conservative activists who hoped that the gun-rights group would pressure conservative Democratic senators to oppose her.

As The Hill explained, the NRA has a track record of staying mum in these sort of situations. However, may hoped that things would be different this time because of Sotomayor's previous rulings and comments regarding the 2nd amendment. Her thoughts of allowing the states to usurp power over the Bill of Rights especially the 2nd amendment would seem to be something that would normally enrage the NRA, but they seem to be keeping silent for now.

Gibbs Gives Pathetic Excuse Regarding Sotomayor's "Racist" Statement

A couple days ago, Robert Gibbs tried to explain away the statement by Sotomayor that white men don't make as good of decision as latinas most of the time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sparred with reporters during Wednesday's briefing about the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks. "I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said." But reporters pushed back demanding Gibbs explain what he thought Sotomayor meant in her remarks and "why there is no racial component" to them. Gibbs said the nominee had lived a different life than than others that would lead Sotomayor to different conclusions.

Judge Sotomayor didn't say they would be "different" conclusions. She said that they would be "better" conclusions. There is a huge difference.

It's amazing that this response was the best Gibbs could do to explain her "racist" statement. It shows that there isn't a good excuse that anyone can come up with to make Obama's Supreme Court nominee look good regarding this quote.

We should proceed with extreme caution. She has some very questionable stances in the past. We need to make sure that she was just misquoted or misunderstood. If she wasn't she is far outside the mainstream. We don't need to be giving a lifetime appointment to someone that far out.

Liberal Jonathan Turley Says Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth

MSNBC's Chris Mathews didn't get a tingle up his leg after being blindsided by the liberal Jonathan Turley's criticism of Obama's choice of Supreme Court replacement of Souter:

Until (Tuesday), liberal law professor Jonathan Turley was generally hailed by the leftwing blogosphere for speaking "truth to power." However, now that same group is attacking Turley for speaking truth to MSNBC. Chris Matthews probably thought Turley would support Sonia Sotomayor's nomination right after it was announced. If so, he was in for a big surprise.

Chris Mathews looked a bit like a deer in the headlights after Turley said this:

You're not going to have a nominee stand up and say "The first thing I do is get rid of the Founding Fathers." But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy.  You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We're selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I've read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don't speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I'll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed.

This could be interesting if the liberals start turning on her. It would be yet another failed nomination and appointment for Obama.

She has been called racist and now Turley is pretty much saying that she isn't really that bright for a Supreme Court justice.

This nomination just keeps getting better and better for The One.

Sotomayor: Many Question Nominee's Past Regarding Possible Racist Beliefs

Previous quotes and associations regarding Sotomayor has led many to question whether or not she holds certain racist beliefs:

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

La Raza claims to be just a Hispanic civil rights organization, but some of their views go beyond just looking out for the rights of Hispanics. They have advocated that some of the states in the Southwest United States should secede from the US.

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

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

So, according to Sotomayor, a white man could never have experience as "rich" as a latina. Therefore, a white man can't make a decision as well as a latina.

Isn't this same type of logic that whites used against blacks to justify their enslavement and later segregation? They believed that the European culture was superior to the African culture. Therefore, according to white supremacists, blacks can't be as smart as a white person. What is the difference between that logic and Sotomayor's?

This another dangerous position for a judge to hold. If she really believes that Hispanics "reach a better conclusion" than whites, she could subconsciously favor a Hispanic attorney or client that comes before her court over their white counterpart.

Obama Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Believes Second Amendment Doesn't Apply to States

Apparently, Sonia Sotomayor's "empathy" stops with gun owners:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

I wonder how we are to know which of the rights in the Constitution states are supposed to follow. Maybe New York can block the freedom of the conservative press. Florida can arrest any dissenters for daring to petition their grievances to Tallahassee. Utah makes the Mormon church of the state and will not any other churches to exist within its borders.

Let's not even start with the 13th-15th amendments. If those amendments didn't apply to local governments, slavery and segregation could possibly make a comeback.

What makes the 2nd amendment different from the other amendments other that Sotomayor and other liberals don't like it? Her decision flies in the face of the Supreme Court case just a few months earlier that said that DC must recognize the 2nd amendment.

She seems to believe that states can pick and choose which amendments they like to uphold and ignore the rest. This is a dangerous position for a Supreme Court judge to hold.

Justice Napolitano? Why Not? She's Done Such a Great Job At Homeland Security

This thought is keeping me sick:

Justice Napolitano? The homeland security secretary might just like the ring of it. Janet Napolitano declined to rule out being interested in an appointment to the Supreme Court when she was asked on "FOX News Sunday" about speculation that she might be on the list of potential candidates to replace outgoing Justice David Souter.

Fortunately, not even the One would make this boneheaded appointment. Would he?

Well, he doesn't have the best track record. His Cabinet is a who's who of tax evaders. He already lost two of his major cabinet nominees because of scandals: Richardson and Daschle. He lost Judd Gregg because of Rahmbo's power play to take the census away from Commerce and because of Obama's penchant for spending sprees on the taxpayer's dime.

On second thought, maybe he would.

Napolitano has proven herself an overachiever when it comes to inviting scandals. There many examples just pick one: here, here, and here.

Obama's Supreme Court Hopeful Sonia Sotomayor: Courts Are Where Policy Is Made

Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows exactly what many people are afraid of from an Obama Supreme Court appointment:



No, Sonia, policy is made by the other two elected branches of the government. This kind of judicial activism is what has taken away our rights and freedoms. Many judges act as if they are the ones that know better than everyone else. The overturn the will of the people because of their own beliefs even when they have no right to do that.

They overturned gay marriage bans even after the people voted to keep marriage between man and a woman in many states like Massachusets and California.

They've taken away some of our freedom of religion. Students cannot pray on school grounds anymore.

These are just a couple of examples of how liberal activists judges have wrecked havoc on our Bill of Rights. We don't need another judge who thinks that they are the lords of the law and can mold public policy as they see fit.

Liberal Judge Souter Retires: Obama Set to Pick Replacement, Firestorm of Debate Will Quickly Ensue

Obama's first judicial nominee battle seems to be upon us:

NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the current court term.

The vacancy will give President Obama his first chance to name a member of the high court and begin to shape its future direction.

Even though Souter was nominated by HW Bush, he has been a faithful liberal over the past decade and a half. So, whoever Obama picks will probably not throw off the balance of the Supreme Court any furthur left unless he picks Jeremiah Wright, and that isn't happening.

It may still be an interesting battle, however. It'll be fun to watch.