Saturday, May 30, 2009

A little more on Sotomayor and Obama and the 2nd Amendment

Neither one of them thinks much of it:
The work began five years into Obama’s directorship, when the Foundation had experience in turning its millions into anti-gun “grassroots” organizations, but none at converting cash into legal scholarship.

The plan’s objective was bold: the judicial obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Joyce’s directors found a vulnerable point. When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend. …

The Joyce directorate’s plan almost succeeded. The individual rights view won out in the Heller Supreme Court appeal, but only by 5-4. The four dissenters were persuaded in part by Joyce-funded writings, down to relying on an article which misled them on critical historical documents.

Having lost that fight, Obama now claims he always held the individual rights view of the Second Amendment, and that he “respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.” But as a Joyce director, Obama was involved in a wealthy foundation’s attempt to manipulate the Supreme Court, buy legal scholarship, and obliterate the individual right to arms
This has been noted before, but think carefully: he took part in acting to provide false information to judges to influence their decisions. Specifically to trash one of the basic Amendments to the Constitution. And it partially worked; four justices based their decision on deliberately-faked information, and a lot of people are still using their arguments, based on falsity, to try to trash the 2nd, in part if not in whole.

And his nominee to the Court?
The recent landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller put an end to decades of arguments regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS rejected the collectivist interpretation favored by gun control advocates such as President Obama, noting that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right of citizens to own firearms for private use is an individual right that predates the Constitution, with its authority tied directly to the natural right of self-defense.

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.

There's an argument that Obama has nominated her both because of her views on things like this, and because he hopes dealing with her with cause less attention to be paid to his takeover of our health care. Could be. In which case, we need to keep yelling at our congresscritters on both: we can't let either one slip.


martywd said...

I've bloviated in the past about New Yorkers and their majority anti-gun psychosis.   Sotomayor is a Metro New Yorker and as such is almost certainly a hoplophobe.   Thus, her rulings of the past, as well as in the future will continue an anti-civil rights agenda.   In this I have no doubt.

GunGeek said...

Well, a reading of the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes it pretty obvious that they originally were intended to apply only to the federal government. Heck, even reading the actual amendments where they often include such statements as "Congress shall make no law..." makes it even clearer that they were limitations placed on the federal government, not states.

Then that pesky 14th Amendment came along, which should have prevented any non-federal gun control laws.

Of course, it could be argued that since the Constitution listed some specific rights that states never actually had the authority to impose restrictions on those rights anyway.