Screw you, lady.
Two armed U.S. Marshals on the protection detail for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor shot a would-be carjacker in self-defense last week, casting scrutiny on her co-signing a 2010 Supreme Court opinion that decried such firearm protection as a Second Amendment right.
...
The incident sparked criticism of Sotomayor's Second Amendment positions during her tenure on the high court, including one decision where she co-signed a dissent that said the Constitution does not protect "a private right of armed self-defense."
You and every other judge like you.
4 comments:
Bizarre!
Sotomayor is probably correct in thinking the 2nd Amendment does not protect an individual's right to self-defense.
The right to self-defense would be protected under the 9th and 10th Amendments. The 9th makes it clear that there are rights that are retained to the people that are not enumerated. The 10th makes it clear that the government is limited only to powers given it under the Constitution.
The 2nd Amendment specifically prohibits the Federal and State governments from infringing peoples' rights to own and carry arms.
There's that. There's also that the idea of someone being forbidden to use a gun in self-defense because 'The .gov hasn't made a law allowing it' would probably never have occurred to the Founders. Much like a bunch of them thought a specific note of the right to arms was so basic it didn't need protecting.
Sotomayor's line of thinking is the young man that got shot was "just another example of someone that shouldn't have a gun."
(Well, actually he shouldn't, but she doesn't think the rest of us should have one either.)
Post a Comment