President Obama promised us Hope, but I don’t think this is what he meant.
As in: I hope our soon-to-be-newest Supreme Court Justice isn’t the anti-Second Amendment radical that I’m afraid she is.
In 2004, she joined an opinion that claimed “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
And while a graduate student, she:
…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.
Those are some pretty strong statements. I’d be willing to bet that a large majority of Americans will disagree. A large majority.
And yet, Senate Republicans haven’t been able to nail her on it, or even wring an explanation out of her.
Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) tries his hardest to pin Sotomayor down on whether or not she sees the right to bear arms as a “fundamental right” — which would presumably make it harder for states to restrict it.
“I understand the importance of the right as defined in Heller that was all I can say is that I keep an open mind on the incorporation clause,” she concludes.
And, from Yahoo News:
Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma pressed Sotomayor for the second day in a row to say under what circumstances she might accept — or rule — that there is a “fundamental” right to bear arms, as opposed to an “individual,” or less pervasive, right.
As she had earlier, Sotomayor declined to answer the question directly. Instead, she asked Coburn if he would want a justice to agree with him without hearing arguments or listening to the parties to a case. Sotomayor said, “I don’t know that that’s a justice that I can be.”
I can appreciate a judge not wanting to give opinions on specific hypotheticals, since doing so may compromise that judge’s appearance of objectivity when dealing with an actual, similar case.
But, Judge Sotomayor, the Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
And the Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Judge Sotomayor, what does that mean? Don’t tell me you can’t answer that question, because I don’t believe it.
Regardless, looks like she’ll be very easily confirmed. So. Let’s just hope.
UPDATE – via Memeorandum, the NRA weighs in. Too little, too late.
Comments are closed.