Sotomayor Hearings Will Focus on Gun Rights

Individual vs. the state

Sotomayor believes in the complete sovereignty of the state and complete sovereign immunity. To her, individuals have rights, so long as none conflict with the current interests of the state.

Which makes all rights privileges not just subject to limits of action, but subject to general revocation without intense debate based on the original writings, debates and Constitution.

She did a lot of tap dancing at her confirmation hearing, but her decisions and written opinions spoke volumes.

They actually fear that???

It must be understood that even if the second amendment is never applied to the states under the 14th amendment, the 2nd still applies to the federal government. The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller has already forbidden a total gun ban, and this ruling is most certainly legally binding on the federal government. The notion that the federal government is going to impose a total ban on private ownership and a program of gun confiscation is just pure BS. It's just the work of wacko conspiracy theorists with a pro-gun slant.

Is ts appropriate to have a pro-gun litmus test for judicial nominees?

You have people on both sides of the abortion debate (pro-life and pro-choice), advocates for strict church-state separation, Christian conservatives, feminists, African-American civil-rights leaders (i.e. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton), and dozens of other special interests trying to impose litmus tests for Supreme Court and lower-court nominees. Since the Supreme Court ruled last year in Heller that the 2nd Amendment grants at least a limited individual right to gun ownership, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and other gun-rights groups are attempting to promote a so-called "pro-2nd amendment" litmus test for judicial nominees.

Gun Control

If Sotomayor believes it is alright for States to ignore the second amendment, what about the first amendment, and the 3rd., 4th., 5th., 6th.,etc., etc.?

The first ten amendments are known as "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" by the way.

Sotomayor and Precedents

Sotomayor says she bases her judgments on precedents. But, she's very selective about which precedents she cites -- she seems to prefer pick precedents that conflict with individual rights and with the US Constitution. This woman is lazy in the performance of her judicial responsibilities -- even the Supreme Court has ruled several times that her judgments are poor. Is this really the best judge that Obama can find to sit on the Supreme Court? Incredible!

The Founders

To waypasthadenough...Well now, seems we do have the courage to carry on! Perhaps we ought to see the 2010 mid-term vote results, that is, if we last 'til then. Either way, we as real Americans will win this fight. Anyone who believes we are not in for it, is finished, just look at history. Keep it high and dry, and know the enemy. America's Constitution is at stake, our moral constitution, as free people, will protect it. Stay armed, stay safe !

bad republicans

Sotomayor has been drilled on how to answer any questions. She has been told by demos that she is in so ,pander to the republicans (lie) we will understand. I blame the republicans for selling us out and WE THE PEOPLE have to pay the price. Is there any difference between a republican and a democrat? Hell no.

Federal Powers vs. State Powers

Many in the CORRUPT legal profession want you to believe that the states have powers that the Constitution assigns to the federal government.

This is CLEARLY NOT THE CASE, as it is stated that "powers not given to the federal government are reserved for the states and ultimately, the people."

Since the Right to bear arms is CLEARLY MENTIONED AS A RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, then it is STUPID TO BELIEVE that the STATES can over-ride the people, with powers that CONFLICT WITH THE ALREADY ASSIGNED RIGHT!

The ONLY TIME THAT A GOVERNMENT can make laws about the assigned rights is if, and when the right of one infringes on the rights of others. THEN and ONLY THEN CAN SUCH LAWS BE PASSED!

We KNOW that the FOunding fathers did NOT WANT THERE TO BE A CONFLICT between the powers of the federal government and the state governments. HOW DO WE KNOW? The condition existed that colonists were NOT BEING ALLOWED THE RIGHTS OF OTHER BRITISH CITIZENS, sometimes by the King, and other times by the APPOINTED GOVERNOR, who was supposed to represent the king. THIS CONFLICTING SITUATION WAS ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE REVOLUTION, and the FOUNDING FAHTERS WANTED TO BE CERTAIN THAT THIS TYPE OF SITUATION COULD NOT OCCUR IN THIER NEWLY FORMED Government!!!

ALL LEGAL DECISIONS THAT STATE OTHERWISE ARE HISTORICALLY IGNORANT AND FAULTY!

Racisim??

Wow-because a person isnt white and perceived flaws are pointed out and questions are raised about someones past-they are suddenly a victim of racisim?

Americans of all backgrounds have the right to be worried about the lady of the hour.She flip-flopps her opinions on past judgements.She is a close friend and collegue of the president.A little too close to ensure the seperation of powers(executive and judicial-in this case).She rulled funny on the firefighter case,her opinion being over-ruled by a higher court.

Regardless if she is a woman,Latina,Puerto Rican,or whatever the race/nationalist/gender baiters seek their offence in,her record should be looked at-CAREFULLY!!!I do not believe she is the prudent choice to represent American high law for the next 10,20,30 or however many years she would have on the bench.Others are better-others are worse.Loose the politics and really check this one out.We as Americans depend on these people to rule on laws impartialy.She is biased-to her own view on the Constitution and not that of the founders who wrote it and signed it 200 plus years ago.

This magazine

US News and World Report is a bias centered magazine that censors all people that write on this site. But then what did you expect from a right wing Jewish magazine.