President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a declaration of war against America’s gun owners and the Second Amendment to our Constitution. If gun owners mobilize and unite, it’s possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
Last year the Supreme Court handed down the landmark decision in D.C. v. Heller, holding that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individual citizens in their private lives. The ruling marked a turning point in gun rights in this country.
In the past year, the biggest question courts now face is whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That may sound crazy, but the reality is that the Bill of Rights only controls the federal government, it doesn’t apply directly to states or cities. Only the parts of the Bill of Rights that are “incorporated” through the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the states.
Since the Heller decision, only two federal appeals courts have written on the Second Amendment. That’s six judges out of about 170. Of those six, three said the Second Amendment does apply to the states. And those judges were out of the liberal Ninth Circuit in California, and included a judge appointed by Bill Clinton and another appointed by Jimmy Carter. — Even leftist judges can get this.
But not Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She is one of only three federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the Constitution.
This issue could not be more important. Today, on the very day President Obama has announced Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, the National Rifle Association is arguing Second Amendment incorporation in court before the Seventh Circuit in a case challenging the Chicago ban on handguns.
If this case, or one like it, goes to the Supreme Court, Justice Sotomayor would say that Chicago can ban all your guns. If she can persuade her liberal colleagues on the Court to join her, it could become the law of the land that states and cities can ban guns. Should that happen, then you can expect anti-gun liberals in state legislatures to rush to pass new state laws doing exactly that.
The White House is telling us all about Judge Sotomayor’s compelling personal story — and it is an amazing story of what is possible “only in America.” But compelling personal stories are not the question. Miguel Estrada, whom President George W. Bush nominated to the D.C. Circuit appeals court and was planning on nominating to the Supreme Court, had a compelling story as a Hispanic immigrant who legally came to this country not even speaking English. Democrats filibustered Mr. Estrada.
Supporters point out that Judge Sotomayor was first appointed by George H.W. Bush for the federal trial court — before Bill Clinton elevated her to the Second Circuit appeals court. That’s true, but George H.W. Bush also gave us Justice David Souter, so clearly he wasn’t too careful about putting liberals on the federal bench. We can’t allow the left to hide behind the Bushes.
But when it comes to gun rights, we don’t need to guess. Judge Sotomayor has put in writing what she thinks. President Obama has nominated a radically anti-Second Amendment judge to be our newest Supreme Court justice.
Yes, we are all just sitting around waiting to see what happens with North Korea since the UN is useless with their security resolutions and our “dear leader” is weaker than Jimmy Carter and cannot stop “blinking” in the face of someone flipping him the bird.
I just cannot wait to see what happens next (that’s snark folks).
North Korea has warned of a military response after South Korea joined an anti-proliferation exercise which could allow it to search the North’s ships.
The North said it is no longer bound by the armistice which ended the Korean War in 1953.
A military spokesman quoted by official media said Pyongyang could no longer guarantee the safety of shipping.
Its latest threat comes after two days of underground nuclear tests and several missile launches.
The United Nations Security Council is working on a strong condemnation of what it says is North Korea’s contravention of its conventions.
South Korea announced on Tuesday that it would not delay any longer in joining the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) – a US-led non-proliferation campaign involving searching ships carrying suspicious cargos and aimed at stopping the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.
North Korea has repeatedly warned that the South’s participation in the PSI would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
Joining the PSI “is a natural obligation”, South Korean Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan said, quoted by South Korea’s Yonhap news agency. “It will help control North Korea’s development of dangerous material.”
North Korea’s response has been firm.
“Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels including search and seizure will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty and we will immediately respond with a powerful military strike,” a spokesman for the North’s army was quoted as saying by the official KCNA news agency.
The Media is all over the Sotomayor announcement today, and though I put up something earlier, one always has to look a little deeper when it comes to Bambi’s appointees. Sotomayor is being touted as an appointee with the most time on the bench of anyone appointed in the last 70 years, and a breadth of experience not often seen; but what about that experience?
Sotomayor was a partner at the law firm of Pavia & Harcourt for 8 years, and what would this international law firm be most focused on?
Established in 1940, Pavia & Harcourt is a business law firm, concentrating in commercial and corporate law, banking, media and entertainment, real estate, litigation and arbitration, intellectual property, estate planning and administration, and immigration services.
Quite the smorgasboard of issues that Barack Obama wants to obtain control over.
We are based in New York City. With our experienced, American-trained attorneys fluent in Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese, Pavia & Harcourt offers a full range of legal services to companies, individuals, and Italian and French governmental organizations and agencies.
We represent Italian, French and other foreign entities and individuals who do business in the United States as well as American clients who do business in the U.S. and abroad.
As a citizen of the world, Barack Obama would definitely enjoy having this justice in his pocket in the coming months and years.
The Republicans that do not fight this nomination tooth and nail do so at the risk of all Americans. Not only does this judge legislate from the bench with racial overtones, but she is already pre-disposed to business law and international affairs. Barack Obama Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod definitely have a plan.
(As an aside, the number one search today on the Monster has been Sotomayor Gun Control.)
In the little world of Washington, D.C. the power grab and political machinations are so predictable, but the selected resident is so confident that imitating a mafia Godfather encouraging a primary candidate to step aside does not even make him blink. Obama is in his realm when “persuading” or forcing opponents off the ticket.
Word out of Washington, D.C., is that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the political wiseguys from the Obama administration plan on “visiting with” Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak.
Their objective is clear: Get him off the stage and out of a primary race against incumbent (and now Democrat) Sen. Arlen Specter.
“I have received a call” from DSCC chairman Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, Sestak said, “but we keep missing each other.”
So the battle lines are drawn: Sestak is not inclined to be pushed out of the race, and Menendez’s marching orders from the White House are to shove, not just push.
“Joe Sestak is a very credible candidate,” said Larry Ceisler, a Philadelphia-based political consultant. “If Specter would have stayed in the GOP, I believe Sestak would have been the Democratic nominee.”
Ceisler said part of Sestak’s appeal is that he is outside the traditional Democrat establishment and doesn’t owe anyone anything: “He is sitting on enough cash to lay the foundation for a good campaign.”
Ceisler predicted that President Obama will try to shut Sestak off from traditional campaign fundraising sources. But Sestak still could produce a strong fundraising showing.
Would it be enough? “To be determined and tested,” Ceisler said.
As of last week, Sestak had no plans of going anywhere but forward. “I felt when everyone was told to get out of the race that it was violating a principle of why I got into politics. Rather than being upfront and letting Pennsylvania Democrats have a choice in an election, they have cut a deal,” he said.
The downside for Sestak is that he would have to give up his House seat to run. But fear is no deterrent for a guy who was a Navy admiral and won his House seat by defeating an incumbent, Curt Weldon, in eastern Pennsylvania’s 7th District. “Last time I checked, there was no anointing of individuals to seats in America,” Sestak said. “Washington is trying to be a kingmaker. … This is a primary; it is open to all.”
Here is to hoping that the admiral does not have a Kellerman or Levy moment, and “crack” under the pressure.
I am not surprised by the new SCOTUS pick by the selected resident. An actual scotus pick that would not be interpreting the law to set policy would be a surprise after all the justices that have been chosen and put on the bench in recent decades. This one also has Biden-Gaffe-O-Meter written all over her….
(Author’s Note: Wouldn’t it be nice to have a justice that no one could label liberal or conservative, just an impartial constitutionalist?)
I’ve received some emails about this bill and when I originally started to read this bill, I went cross-eyed trying to figure it out until I got to the very end and started with the definitions of the parties involved. I could be completely wrong, but if I am, then I am sure one of my readers will let me know.
There seems to be an internet surge that states this bill is about keeping Barack Obama’s birth certificate a secret and that there are provisions to keep federal employees from being compelled to release documents. All of Bambi’s docs were permanently sealed when he signed E.O. 13489.
I’m not seeing this bill as a way to conceal federal employee’s records, and I have read and re-read this bill at least twenty times. I want to be the voice of reason, and explain how this bill is actually a national journalist shield law, and how the National Press Club endorses this bill, congratulates the House and wants the Senate to pass it also.
So let’s start at the end with the definitions, and I will try to break it down for you.
(4) FEDERAL ENTITY- The term ‘Federal entity’ means an entity or employee of the judicial or executive branch or an administrative agency of the Federal Government with the power to issue a subpoena or issue other compulsory process.
Federal Entity = US Department of Justice (for example)
(5) JOURNALISM- The term ‘journalism’ means the gathering, preparing, collecting, photographing, recording, writing, editing, reporting, or publishing of news or information that concerns local, national, or international events or other matters of public interest for dissemination to the public.
Journalist = Jake Tapper (for example)
Now here is the bill, H.R. 985:
Free Flow of Information Act of 2009
To maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.
SEC. 2. COMPELLED DISCLOSURE FROM COVERED PERSONS.
(a) Conditions for Compelled Disclosure- In any matter arising under Federal law, a Federal entity may not compel a covered person to provide testimony or produce any document related to information obtained or created by such covered person as part of engaging in journalism, unless a court determines by a preponderance of the evidence, after providing notice and an opportunity to be heard to such covered person–
I am not actually going to quote anymore from this bill as it becomes very redundant, but I will share this with you.
WASHINGTON (Map) – WASHINGTON, April 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The National Press Club commends the House for passing legislation that would protect reporters from having to reveal their anonymous sources to government officials, except under extraordinary circumstances. The Club urges the Senate to pass this legislation, so President Obama can then sign it into law.
“It is past time that reporters have a national shield against government attempts to learn the identities of anonymous sources,” said NPC President Donna Leinwand, a reporter with USA Today. “Unless reporters can withhold the names of sources on occasion, the press cannot do its job as well. If reporters cannot protect sources, it will chill their ability to shine a light on decisions and actions the government is trying to keep secret from the public — actions about which the public has a right to know.”
Shield laws exist in 34 states and the District of Columbia, but there is no national shield. In its absence, judges have increasingly forced journalists to disclose their anonymous sources.
“If allowed to continue, this trend could frighten potential sources who might otherwise provide reporters with critical information the entire society needs to know,” Leinwand said.
Once again, I do not think obtaining a long form birth certificate for the resident is actually going to help, rather obtaining his college records will tell the tale of who and what he is.