Constitutional law advice for Sotomayor

Bitter and Sebastian has been pointing out just how bad nominee Sotomayor is on the right to keep and bear arms. This is probably the most damning.

She does not want to admit that people have a right to self-defense. She is smart enough to know it is a slippery slope to the acknowledgment of the right to keep and bear arms if she were to admit that. The British have learned that lesson sliding down the slope in the other direction–if there is no right to keep and bear arms then there is no right to self-defense.

Alan Korwin gives Sotomayor some pointers on what the U.S. Supreme Court has said about self-defense. It’s not a question mark at all. The conclusion:

The Supreme Court has recognized, addressed and answered all the most fundamental questions about self defense. The idea that they have never addressed this core American issue is completely false, as the numerous cases clearly demonstrate.


2 thoughts on “Constitutional law advice for Sotomayor

  1. I notice that you focus on weapons themselves, Joe and not on the political aspects while my blog is basically political and against the global socialists, e.g. Obama, removing the right of people to defend themselves plus all the other things he’s doing wrong.

    See this.

    There’s a definite move in all western countries to get the people unarmed. In America, with more of a tradition of arms and the constitutional provisions, you guys are a step ahead of us but you’re still losing out to these people.

  2. The Constitution is but an annoyance to some people, Sotomayor included. They’ll use it when it suits them of course, but they’d just as soon do without it for the most part.

    Part of our problem, James, is that although our politicians and police take an Oath to uphold, defend and protect our constitution, there are extremely few cases in which one of them pays any price for violating it. You cannot hold a job in law enforcement, for example, in this country without running afoul of the constitution on a regular basis. Typically, the very worst thing that happens to a legislator is their legislation is overturned at some point. Even that is rare. What the Founders left out is a reliable, criminal prosecution process for those who pass (and I’d say “propose”) legislation, orders or rule-making that’s constitutionally dubious. In short; we have that Supreme Law of The Land with no predictable enforcement procedure to back it up.

    Some would say that the second amendment represents a means for that enforcement, but that would require assembling posses of what would be considered vigilantes. Others would say that the impeachment process represents enforcement of the Oath, but these vermin tend to support each other’s power base even when they disagree vehemently on how to use it. Even then the worst that happens is the guilty party loses his position. No criminal charges, even though said vermin has, by definition, launched an assault upon the rights and well-being of potentially everyone in the country. Terrorists, by contrast, have no such sweeping power to harm the country’s foundation.

    We’re left with a condition of near total lawlessness with regard to our constitution.

Comments are closed.