moonbattery.gif


« White Is the New Green | Main | Nothing Reverse About It »


May 27, 2009

Sotomayor: Right to Bear Arms Is Unconstitutional

There's one good thing about Obama's pick of ultra-left zealot Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court: it should enlighten those clueless enough not to realize that Chairman Zero is an extremely dangerous radical. At Jumping in Pools, we learn of Sotomayor's take on the crucial Second Amendment, which guarantees our right to bear arms:

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. 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.

Sotomayor also helped to establish our current pro-terrorist anti-terror strategy with the insane ruling that illegal combatants captured on foreign battlefields are entitled to all the rights of American citizens. She is militantly racist, as she made obvious in an appalling ruling by which test scores were discarded so that unqualified blacks could be promoted instead of qualified whites in New Haven's fire department.

Here she is declaring that the Constitution be damned, courts are where policy is made:

But despite being one of the last people on earth who could be counted on to faithfully interpret the Constitution, Sotomayor is assured of confirmation, because she has the qualifications that actually matter, being not only a flaming moonbat but a Hispanic and a female, and having grown up in a South Bronx trashcan. Here's Joe Biden discussing her unassailable credentials:

I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.

Whoops, he was talking about Clarence Thomas. But I'm sure Plugs must have said something similar about Sotomayor, if his point of view has any consistency at all.

Hat tip: The Blogprof.

Posted by Van Helsing at May 27, 2009 12:28 PM

Comments

"A little socialism won't hurt" the Liberals have said. So now we're getting a LOT of socialism. What do we do now, o' holier-then-Pope Liberals? Shall we kill you "just a little"?

>>Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry...>>

Ghost Of Welstone must be getting a "tingle" up and down his leg.

Posted by: KHarn at May 27, 2009 1:20 PM

This could be good. The sooner they try to disarm us, the sooner the Revolution begins. They'll soon find out about American Patriots. Every tree on the White House lawn will have traitors hanging from them. Pleeeeeeeeeeeas, bring it on fast!

Posted by: Jim McMahon at May 27, 2009 1:47 PM

The Joe Biden quote was a nice touch. He's one of the biggest racists in American politics, but he gets a pass because of the "D".

The shame of it is that once his one term as VP is over, he will forever be Delaware's "Elder Statesman" and go-to guy for comment on everything. It's hard enough to put up with the guy now.

As for Sotomayor, she's a straight-up racist and fascist.

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott was forced to resign just because he said something nice about America's olderst serving Senator, Strom Thurmond, on Thurmond's 100th birthday.

The Liberals went all the way 'round the block for that one...... Thurmond was actually a Democrat when he voted against the Civil Rights Act. No matter - Trent Lott was a "Raaaaacist!!!!"

Double standard.....Racist, Sexist, Ageist double standard. As Joe Biden would say, "....That's storybook, man!"

Posted by: TonyD95B at May 27, 2009 1:50 PM

I saw this on another site today (floppingaces.net maybe). Apparently the original site that posted this story tagged it as satire i.e. this story may not be true (although it could reflect her true attitude for all I know).

Posted by: JustAl at May 27, 2009 1:51 PM

So by Sotomayor's reasoning, the founding fathers saw the possession of firearms by individuals as unconstitutional. I guess this is why we read stories of how they rounded up all personal firearms following the Revolutionary War?

Or has the vast right-wing conspiracy covered this part of history up?

I don't suppose it would do any good to point out to the "wise Latina" nominee the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, which declared the reason for their existence:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the federal government's] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

or that the term the people appears in five of the ten amendments (#'s 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10).

Wow! The mental gymnastics one must undergo to distort logic, reason, and truth in order to subscribe to the pathetic world of the left.

Posted by: Lyle at May 27, 2009 1:52 PM

OT: what's up with comments? I've been trying all day to post the answer to my "Name that criminal's race" contest on yesterday's open thread, but with no luck. I get a message that the comment is being held for moderation.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 1:55 PM

If I were to form an opinion based on that video, it would be a negative one. It's hard not to get the sense that she's giving the finger to people who believe judges interpret laws, they don't write them and snickering that they just don't understand how the law "really" works.

Posted by: Judith M. at May 27, 2009 2:17 PM

Sotomayor is reversed yet again with the DC v Heller ruling, once again demonstrating her intellectual vacuousness; i.e., not only a racist, but wrong.

Sotomayor is of course what BO needs in a SCOTUS justice: a stupid racist that will tear up the constitution.
With empathy of course.

Posted by: Fiberal at May 27, 2009 2:20 PM

It'll be interesting to see what questions she gets from the Senate.

Posted by: Kevin R at May 27, 2009 3:26 PM

"Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 1:55 PM"

I just posted there, JAY.

Posted by: KHarn at May 27, 2009 3:48 PM

Sotomayor fits precisely with Obama's campaign promise that he will push for greater gun control measures. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/sotomayor-and-the-second-amendment/ And she won't be able to easily dismiss her anti-second amendment position taken in her law school thesis Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In fact, despite having the benefit of last year's Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, upholding an individual's right to bear arms and striking down a decades-old ban on firearms in Washington, D.C., Sotomayor ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo, 554 F.3d 56 (2009) that the Second Amendment only applied to the federal government, in effect giving state governments greater freedom to regulate weapons. That case may be headed for the Court next year.

She also served on the board of LatinoJustice PRLDEF, one of the racial grievance groups that helped to sink the judicial nomination of Honduran-born Miguel Estrada in 2003. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2258598/posts

Sotomayor also is apparently not the first "Hispanic" nominee to SCOTUS - Cardozo was, and he was appointed by a Republican.
http://www.openmarket.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-not-first-hispanic-justice-cardozo-was/

Posted by: zmarshall at May 27, 2009 3:56 PM

I just tried splitting the post into pieces, and then it went through. Don't know why I didn't think of that this morning!

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 3:57 PM

Dammit, I was looking for something on OscarMayor's take on the RTKBA. Couldn't find any when I did my post on her confirmation.

She is a dangerous leftists who has shown some aspects of reverse racism. Can anybody do any digging to see if she's done anything with La Raza or MECHA?

Posted by: Atomic Lib Smasher at May 27, 2009 3:57 PM

You should probably put a disclaimer that the first excerpt is false...some people are dumb/gullable enough to believe it..

She wrote one thesis at Princeton, and it wouldn't have been a "legal thesis" because: a) Princeton doesn't have a law school; b) she wasn't a "pre-law" major or anything of that sort. Her thesis was about Puerto Rican's first elected leader.

She also wrote one note for her the Yale Law Review, in which she attempted to determine whether PR would maintain the rights to their shores and the waterways to the Caribbean if they were granted statehood (or something like that).

Posted by: Buckeye State at May 27, 2009 4:21 PM

Sotomayor, being a libtard, will undoubtedly get a pass from the treatment that Senate Democraps gave another Latino nominee, Miguel Estrada:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111286,00.htm:

One Nov. 7, 2001, memo from staff to Sen. Richard Durbin, R-Ill., suggested that the "groups" would help stall the nomination of Miguel Estrada (search), a Bush nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The memo called him "dangerous," in part because he "has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."

Posted by: zmarshall at May 27, 2009 4:25 PM

zmarshall, Dick Durbin is NOT a Republican. They've got it bad enough without anyone thinking that guy is in their party. He's about as far left of a liberal Democrat as the get.

Posted by: Jim McMahon at May 27, 2009 4:39 PM

You are quite correct Jim ... I clipped the excerpt directly from the Fox News piece and didn't catch that glaring error.

Posted by: zmarshall at May 27, 2009 4:47 PM

Anyone laughing about -THAT- makes my teeth hurt .

Posted by: Katya Kakhov at May 27, 2009 5:07 PM

I am appalled at her take on guns (and nope, don't agree with her), and her take on the firefighters and in general....

... and not to distract from the discussion of the 2nd Amendment, but (as requested), I did a bit of a search re: the MeCHA & Aztlan folks and didn't find anything directly about Sotomayor. From a general google search I found only a very few references to her supposed ties with them identified from other, indirect blogs and forum.


One thing non-Latinos may not be aware of, which I observed for years living in communities that were more Latino than otherwise: there is an awful lot of tension, hatred & bigotry WITHIN the Latino "community". I have heard and seen this bigotry and conflict between Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, Dominicans, Hondorans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans.

This is what I heard mainly in Massachusetts (which has a lot of Latinos except for Mexicans, especially a large group of Puerto Rican single mothers going to UMass-Amherst, when I was there) - and also from living in a part of Orange County CA that was about 90% Mexican, where I was one of the very few residents that spoke English (and I spoke Spanish at that point also). Those ethnic groups really don't care much for one another (eh, that's putting it mildly, hate is quite common) and they fight a LOT. And in the west for example the MS-13 gang (Salvadoran) got its start in LA because these guys were getting beat on by the Mexicans, esp the Mexican gangs.


In New England (mainly NY/Puerto Rico transplants), I noticed a lot of Puerto Ricans have a very superior attitude; there is a tendency within that group to "like" other Latinos... IF they are Puerto Rican, but otherwise, no! They think they are better than other Latinos. You can observe similiar with all the other Latino groups I mentioned.


A lot of the media is making it sound as if Sotomayor has some kind of Mexican ties; but normally you'd not expect to see that among Puerto Ricans.


Coming straight from the horses "mouth" La Voz de Aztlan I did a search for her name & also a google search for her name & MeCHA (aka the La Raza gang), both Mexican oriented... and found NOTHING in either. If someone finds otherwise, I'd be interested in what they found and where. I suspect this is partly because the Aztlan folks are really also very anti-Semitic and it sounds to me like she is very likely of Jewish (or Sephardic?) Puerto Rican background...

Posted by: Ex-bat at May 27, 2009 5:22 PM

Zmarshall, nice Ann Coulter talking points there. By the way, Sonia Sotomayor has sat on panels with Republicans and voted with them 95% of the time. And again, you take a soundbite out of speech and discuss it's fictional ramifications. Ms. Sotomayor is hardly a liberal based on her rulings, but hey, don't let her rulings get in the way of a good smear! She has more experience on the bench than your beloved Antonin Scalia, or anyone else in the last 100 years. Further, if you are going to smear her quotes, at least have the decency to read the entire transcript.It is all you guys got since she is, by her rulings a pretty good nominee. And if she is such a racist, why was her vote for the state of CT.not beneficial to the Hispanics involved? You have to do more than read the headlines at Townhall or Heritage.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 27, 2009 5:41 PM

I see the Grand Wizard is checking in. Proof positive that Sotomayor is a racist and an extremist: you like her.

If she voted with Republicans 95% of the time (and not on just lunch orders), you'd be howling for her head on a pike. Since you're a fan, Americans worry.

And Obama is nominating her because she has experience? He must have balls the size of coconuts. Why, she hasn't even been a community organizer. Probably doesn't hang out with a single terrorist. You call that experience?

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 5:53 PM

And you got to do more than read the headlines at HuffPo, DU, Daily Kos, Stormfront, NY Times, or other collectivist sites.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 5:59 PM

Keep tryin' JAY

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 27, 2009 6:09 PM

Here is the full clip, in context...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 27, 2009 6:16 PM

If you see Susie again, strangle the bitch for me. 'Ppreciate it. Racist.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 6:18 PM

Isn't there some sort of rule that every Supreme Court needs it's Constitutional dunce?

Posted by: bill-tb at May 27, 2009 6:22 PM

Hmmm, and Rachel Maddow just had on a gentleman from SCOTUS blog and he was defending her, and debunking the right-wing attacks.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 27, 2009 6:27 PM

Give it up, Grand Wizard. If liberals are happy, Americans have cause to grieve.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 6:32 PM

What if the Second Ammendment WAS a "collective right"? I think it would say something like this:

"The several states have the right to form, arm and equip militias for their defence."

Quite diffrent from "...the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms..."

Posted by: KHarn at May 27, 2009 6:36 PM

Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Note that's a Sotomayor supporter.


That's a hell of a defense -- hey, there are a lot of dummies that make it to the Supreme Court; what's one more going to hurt?

Note that's a Sotomayor supporter.

That's a hell of a defense -- hey, there are a lot of dummies that make it to the Supreme Court; what's one more going to hurt?">FULL STORY

Posted by: SK at May 27, 2009 6:39 PM

Sorry for the mess.

Not all the former clerks for other judges I talked to were skeptical about Sotomayor. "I know the word on the street is that she's not the brainiest of people, but I didn't have that experience," said one former clerk for another judge. "She's an incredibly impressive person, she's not shy or apologetic about who she is, and that's great." This supporter praised Sotomayor for not being a wilting violet. "She commands attention, she's clearly in charge, she speaks her mind, she's funny, she's voluble, and she has ownership over the role in a very positive way," she said. "She's a fine Second Circuit judge--maybe not the smartest ever, but how often are Supreme Court nominees the smartest ever?"

Note that's a Sotomayor supporter.

That's a hell of a defense -- hey, there are a lot of dummies that make it to the Supreme Court; what's one more going to hurt?"

FULL STORY

Posted by: SK at May 27, 2009 6:45 PM

Ghost of Wellstone - It is you who should follow your own advice and read the transcripts of Sotomayer's rulings with objectivity, and not with the jaded liberal talking points you live by. Back up your empty rhetoric. Sotomayer's rulings regarding the Second Amendment in Maloney v. Cuomo (i.e. “The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.”) and affirmative action in the Ricci v. DeStefano case you refer to are radically liberal. In the Ricci v. DeStefano case which you apparently refer, there were 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who were plaintiffs. She perfunctorily affirmed rejection of the claim by the firefighters that the New Haven city officials violated their Title VII and equal-protection rights by throwing out the results of two promotional exams where no blacks qualified. Even Sotomayer's colleague, Judge Cabranes, himself a Clinton appointee, and five of his colleagues saw through the shennanigans that the panel members including Sotomayor acted as they did in affirming a dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims in order to prevent en banc or Supreme Court review of the firefighters’ claims: "This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal." Sotomayor displayed an unwillingness to give a fair shake to parties whose claims she evidently dislikes. The Supreme Court’s decision to grant review of this case that Sotomayor treated in such a perfunctory manner ratifies Cabranes’s indictment. Hardly the mark of a jurist worth serious consideration for the nation’s highest court.

Atomic Lib Smasher - According to http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html:
She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.

Posted by: zmarshall at May 27, 2009 7:01 PM

National Council of La Raza

"The Race." No, no racism there. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer, ein Raza, and for you, Grand Wizard, ein Klavern.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 27, 2009 7:09 PM

I think we should stop for a moment and recognize the foresight of Joe Biden. His comment about Clarence Thomas was 15 years ahead of his time. Maybe Biden understood the coming of the Messiah when he said that about Thomas. After all, it so obviously can be used for Der Leader:

"I think that the only reason Barack Obama is in the White House is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by the Democrats."

There. Fixed.

Posted by: Shayne at May 27, 2009 7:24 PM

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.

Ok - can anyone give me an example of a country where the right of the military to bear arms was in question such that they felt the need to enshrine it in their constitution?

What did you think the military was gonna fight with - broomsticks?

This beggars belief.

Posted by: Rob Banks at May 27, 2009 7:25 PM

"Here is the full clip, in context...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo"

That certainly does put her words in a different light; however, the fact that she claims to be thinking about the next step and how the ruling will be applied as policy seems to be negated by the fact that she has a 60% reversal rate for the majority opinions she wrote (3 out of 5). I also heard that the smart money says the firefighter ruling gets reversed next month, which would put her at an 80% reversal rate. Stats like that tell me there is something wrong with the way she determines cases.

Posted by: Judith M. at May 27, 2009 7:48 PM

Actually Judith, that number is low. I believe it is Scailia who owns a 100% reversal rating, and that is according to SCOTUS blog. Furthermore, that number is not bad given 3,000+ rulings. In addition, again you folks are judging as some far-left liberal, and she hardly is. Basing opinions on a couple quotes and two cases is shallow. Overall she has a straight down the middle record.

Posted by: Ghost of Wellstone at May 27, 2009 8:14 PM

The GOP has giddily announced plans to roll over for Sotomayor: so no filibuster, no dissenting and probably no real vetting.
At best they'll just be a few questions about her favorite salsa recipe maybe.

The good ol' boys will want to parse words in order to find a way to excuse her racist comment on the genetic superiority of the Latina Woman. They will blissfully ignore her insane ruling to set aside the fireman qualifying exam since no blacks passed it---as "unsettled."

I would like to hear just one of these milquetoast republicans explain how anyone with a membership in a group called "The Race" should be on any bench, let alone the SCOTUS. (a card-carrying member of La Raza gets a "thumbs up" from the ever-confused liberals of course)



I'm gonna get on the bandwagon; I'm only voting for women after this.
We need someone with some cajones in D.C.

Posted by: Fiberal at May 27, 2009 8:51 PM

Barack Obama is a stupid ignoramus he is too stupid to read even DICK and JANE

Posted by: SPURWING PLOVER at May 27, 2009 8:59 PM

This woman is completely filled with hate.
Judging from the direct quotes and considering her rulings:

She hates whites.

She hates men.

She hates the constitution.

She hates America.

Almost all lawyers who have been in her courtroom say she is hateful, condescending, and extremely intolerant.

She believes that race is more important than facts, race trumps freedom and liberty, disarming the populace is the only way for government (her) to sustain rule, SHE makes law & policy, and that SHE is the center of the Universe.

She is everything liberals have wet dreams about: A Justice who may help to bring down 250 years of liberty.

She has the same resume as Obama – a “never-done-anything” of color who silly liberals love for the simple reason she is “of color”. Screw her, screw Obama, and screw all you silly liberals.

FACT – not fiction.

And before all you "ghosts" who are so delusional that you pretend to read dead people's minds in order to echo their supposed sentiments begin a verbal butchering - save it - I'm not one to waste time reading your sophomoric rants.

Posted by: Jimbo at May 27, 2009 9:46 PM

Oh now that was rude of you Jimbo.
Ill bet Ghost wellstoned is crying in his bong by now.

Posted by: Fercryinoutloud at May 27, 2009 10:17 PM

Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott was forced to resign just because he said something nice about America's olderst serving Senator, Strom Thurmond, on Thurmond's 100th birthday.

The Liberals went all the way 'round the block for that one...... Thurmond was actually a Democrat when he voted against the Civil Rights Act. No matter - Trent Lott was a "Raaaaacist!!!!"

Double standard.....Racist, Sexist, Ageist double standard. As Joe Biden would say, "....That's storybook, man!"

Posted by: TonyD95B at May 27, 2009 1:50 PM

And yet, mention the fact that Robert Byrd was a Grand Dragon or Kleagle or whatever he was (I forget, and don't care enough to look it up) at DU and they will go ape-sh!t.

Posted by: mandible claw at May 27, 2009 11:53 PM

Judge Sodomite is whacked. Since when does a military need to have the right to bear arms described in a constitution? The military by definition has GUNS!!! A military without guns is an oxymoron - like Judge Sodomite.

Posted by: Anonymous at May 28, 2009 4:36 AM

mandible, especially when considering that while Byrd has renounced membership in the Klan to keep from hurting his public image, he has NOT renounced his racist beliefs (i.e. a few years ago, he was quoted as saying there are a lot of "White ni***rs" in this country).
Isn't La Raza the Latino extremist group that seeks, by any means necessary, to make California, Texas, and other states part of Mexico again?

Posted by: Adam at May 28, 2009 4:57 AM

But if people had the right to bear arms, the bears would have no arms to catch fish with and starve to death. Cutting the arms of bears is cruel! We do not have the right to bear arms - and not bear legs either. Bears need to walk around.

Posted by: Wisdom of the Ages at May 28, 2009 5:13 AM

GoW, I seriously doubt Scalia ha a 100% reversal rating for his rulings during his short stint as an appeals court judge. For one thing, I can find absolutely nothing to confirm that claim. For another, if he had a 100% reversal rate on his rulings, it should have been a major concern during his confirmation hearings, and it wasn't.

Posted by: Judith M. at May 28, 2009 5:24 AM

"Overall she has a straight down the middle record."


Only a raving moonbat could write this with a straight face.

Posted by: tired of liberal lies at May 28, 2009 6:46 AM

Barack Obama only surrounds himself with the most feindish memebers of the SECRET SOCIETY of SUPER VILLIANS becuase OBAMA is from the LEGION OF DOOM

Posted by: Flu-Bird at May 28, 2009 7:11 AM

GoW, Gibbs indicated that Sotomayor has only written 380 majority opinions during her 11 years on the appeals court, not 3,000+. The 60% reversal rate comes from the majority opinions she wrote that were heard by the Supreme Court. I think that statistic is interesting, because as we all know, the Supreme Court hears very few cases that are presented to it, and they've heard five of hers. I wonder how that with the other justices who sat on an appeals court prior to becoming a Supreme Court Justice?

Posted by: Judith M. at May 28, 2009 7:25 AM

GoW, I seriously doubt Scalia ha a 100% reversal rating for his rulings during his short stint as an appeals court judge.

Don’t waste your ....er....pixels, Judith. Facts are but mere tools to be fabricated to advance the cause of the Grand Wizard’s racism. We have always been at war with Oceania.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at May 28, 2009 10:46 AM

Wow, it's pretty impressive how fast and how far people are willing to fly off the handle when one guy on a blog alleges, without any citation, link or proof whatsoever, that Sotomayor wrote an undergrad paper titled "Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture" and argued that 2A makes individual gun ownership illegal.

Be more skeptical, people! I certainly hope you wouldn't let the whacky lefties fool you so easily on other matters.

I have yet to find anywhere that provides any substantiation for this claim. No doubt, she's no friend of the 2A, having been on the panel that ruled that 2A does not apply to the states. But the whole story that she wrote some paper at Princeton, arguing that 2A protects only the military's right to own firearms appears to be completely bogus.

Posted by: Bill at May 28, 2009 11:59 AM

Why whatever is a moonbat to do!?!

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/28/would-sotomayor-overturn-roe/

Tee hee hee...

Posted by: J at May 28, 2009 12:37 PM

As Jay says, GoW can't be bothered to check his facts, or otherwise put, "let [them] get in the way of a good smear!" of conservatives like Justice Scalia. As usual, GoW is flatly wrong. Of course Justice Scalia DID NOT have a 100% reversal rating in his short term on the D.C. Cir. Court of Appeals (1982-86) before being appointed by President Reagan to SCOTUS.

Justice Scalia authored some 84 majority opinions while on the D.C. Cir. Court of Appeals. Once example suffices to prove what a fool GoW is to believe what passes for facts from his ideological nitwit friends' rantings. In just one example, SCOTUS affirmed Scalia’s opinion in Synar vs. U.S. (invalidating the Gramm-Rudman provision which granted sequestration powers to the Comptroller General). http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh99-1064/21-23.pdf http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0478_0714_ZO.html

GoW's "faxts" must be taken with a grain of salt --- since Scalia has more intellect and wisdom in one of his little toes than Sotomayor, Obama and GoW and their ilk share collectively.

Posted by: zmarshall at May 28, 2009 12:48 PM

We need to spread this all over the internet. Someone needs to put this on FR and every site you can think of! Put it on Hannity's forum!

Posted by: Commenter at May 28, 2009 1:11 PM

Thanks for the info, zmarshall. Reason alone is sufficient to make one question a claim as absurd as a 100% reversal rate for somone who was confirmed unanimously by Congress for the Supreme Court, but it's good to have actual data to back it up.

"We have always been at war with Oceania."

Heh! Good one, Jay!

Posted by: Judith M. at May 29, 2009 4:50 AM

"Scalia has more intellect and wisdom in one of his little toes than Sotomayor"

I agree. Scalia is as sharp they come and you don't catch him saying grossly imprudent things like Sotomayor (even if some of her statements are not quite as bad in their full context, she seems to blurt things out without fully thinking through the implications of what she's saying until AFTER she says them, and that's not very "judicious").

Posted by: Judith M. at May 29, 2009 5:30 AM

It has to be made clear to any remaining non-fascists in Congress, that if they do not stand up and WALK OUT on this charade of a government, they WILL be fired.

Posted by: Yael at May 29, 2009 6:24 AM

How did this chick ever graduate from law school knowing so little about law? If she were a doctor, I wouldn't let her come near anyone I remotely cared for. She takes her true (& illegal) intentions & flails them about for everyone to see. As if taunting true Americans, "If you try to stop me, I'll scream 'RACIST!'."

Posted by: Kristy at May 29, 2009 10:35 AM

I look at her picture and I think: isn't this the idiot who gives everybody a hard time at the local DMV?

Posted by: oldguy at May 31, 2009 7:46 AM