|
Post by spy1 on May 28, 2009 12:05:36 GMT -5
www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420LAW OF THE LAND Sonia Sotomayor 'La Raza member' American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group Posted: May 27, 2009 11:20 pm Eastern By Joe Kovacs © 2009 WorldNetDaily As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S. Meaning "the Race," La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America. Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. Could Mexico retake the southwestern United States? Get the DVD that says the invasion is already happening! The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right. "I'm not saying she's a racist, but the statement sure is," columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC's "Good Morning America." "Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw." Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..." But others are suggesting Sotomayor's racial views will have little impact on her confirmation to the bench. "She's gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck," political analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." Host Bill O'Reilly responded, "The core conservative person ... does not understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand." The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor. "Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land," said Janet Murguia, NCLR's president and CEO. La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general. As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland." Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas." =========================== Yes, on all fronts, having Sotomayor as our next S.C judge would be a disaster (re: both States' gun rights and immigration). One possible avenue of attack to head off the nomination itself is described like this (from ResistNet - www.resistnet.com/forum/topics/sonia-sotomayor-will-have-to-1 ): "The Republicans in the senate have a way to stop her, according to Karl Rove. In order for her to be confirmed, at least one Republican has to vote for her in committee. If no Republicans vote for her in committee, then the confirmation can not go to the floor of the senate for confirmation. These are the Republicans on the Judicial Committee: Jeff Sessions, R-Alabama Phone: (202) 224-4124 FAX: (202) 224-3149 Contact form: sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.ContactMeOrrin G. Hatch, R-Utah Phone: (202) 224-5251 FAX: (202) 224-6331 Contact Form: hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.ContactCharles E. Grassley, R-Iowa Phone: (202) 224-3744 FAX: (202) 224-6020 Contact Form: grassley.senate.gov/contact.cfmJon Kyl, R-Arizona Phone: (202) 224-4521 FAX: (202) 224-2207 Contact Form: kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfmLindsey Graham, R-South Carolina Phone:(202) 224-5972 FAX: 202-224-3808 Contact Form: lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.EmailSenatorGrahamJohn Cornyn, R-Texas Phone: (202) 224-2934 FAX: (202) 228-2856 Contact Form: cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactFormTom Coburn, R-Oklahoma Phone: (202) 224-5754 FAX: (202) 224-6008 Contact Form: coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenatorCoburn.Home============================= We must ALL emai/FAX or PHONE these Senator's. Here's my sample letter: =========================== ATTN. Republican Judiciary Committee Member!
Sonia Sotomayor is TOTALLY UN-suitable for the Supreme Court!
You've seen by now the YouTube clip ( www.youtube.com/watch?v=ug-qUvI6WFo&feature=PlayList&p=3717A962664A99A4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=10 ) where she openly stated that judges should MAKE law from the bench. This is the complete antithesis of a Supreme Court Judge role. You have read her record on 2nd Amendment issues: reason.com/news/show/133722.htmlShe will subvert our 2nd Amendment right at the State and local level every chance she gets! You are aware that she's a member of LaRaza - a group whose only aim is to subvert our immigration laws and annex our SouthWest back to Mexico: www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99420You have seen that her judgements have been reversed ( www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/ ) 60% of the time by higher courts. Simply put, this woman is the worst possible choice for a Supreme Court nominee I've ever seen in my life.As a Republican - as an American - you must vote NO on her nomination to BLOCK it! We - the voting American public - are watching your action on this very carefully indeed. (Signed) =================================== This same FAX/email/letter must also be sent to our own Senator : www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmAND THIS MUST BE DONE A.S.A.P! Pete
|
|
|
Post by jerome on May 28, 2009 12:56:31 GMT -5
I haven't seen any polls on La Raza but as far as i'm concerned everyone who is a member of that group is a racist. If you know of any polls out there dealing with them let me know. Also, how does Obama think that a member of a group who seeks to subvert our laws will perform on the high court? We already know she's willing to break laws to help "The Race", what's going to stop her from ruining every law we have through judical activism? Also, when i first read that article on WND i had to do some research to make sure it was legit. You can look her up on the American bar assocation website. Here's the link to her bio: www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html It's either the 3rd or 4th paragraph from the bottom that mentions La Raza.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on May 28, 2009 19:14:12 GMT -5
Done.
|
|
hal
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by hal on May 28, 2009 19:27:07 GMT -5
Here is the letter I sent to the two Florida Senators. (We being my wife and I)
HAL
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Jun 18, 2009 21:40:40 GMT -5
Here are a few I just received from Hagan, as I imagine many of you did also. I'll just post them all here.
(She's going to vote for her. BT) June 18, 2009
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important nomination.
On May 26, 2009, President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David Souter. The Senate will now have an opportunity to review Judge Sotomayor and her judicial record, and I look forward to learning more about her views and experience.
I want to make my position on Supreme Court nominees clear -- I believe a Justice's duty is to uphold the law, not make law. In analyzing a nominee's record, I will not impose any litmus test, but I will pay particular attention to where he or she stands on privacy, civil rights and liberties granted to us through the Constitution.
Judge Sotomayor began her career in the federal courts in 1992, when she was nominated to a position on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush and confirmed by the Senate. Then, in 1998, she was nominated by President Clinton to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and again confirmed by the Senate. In addition to her service in the federal court system, Judge Sotomayor has worked as an assistant district attorney and has taught at Columbia University Law School and New York University Law School. She is a graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, where she served as the editor of the Yale Law Journal.
Judge Sotomayor would replace Justice Souter as the only Justice on the Supreme Court with experience as a trial judge. This, along with her work at almost every level of the judicial system, would give her a unique and important perspective on the Court. Given Judge Sotomayor's record of service, I am pleased with President Obama's selection. I was honored to meet with Judge Sotomayor recently and I appreciated the chance to discuss some of her background and rulings directly with her. I look forward to delving further into Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and reviewing her nomination with my colleagues in the Senate. I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate considers this important matter.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kay R. Hagan United States Senator, North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I'm going to have to read this a few more times before I can delve into her mind.BT) June 18, 2009
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services Program as it relates to illegal immigration. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on this important issue.
The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program was established in 1994 within the Department of Justice. In an effort to promote and expand community policing, the COPS office awards grants to state and local government agencies to help them utilize new technologies, implement more effective policing methods, and train new staff.
On January 6, 2009, S. 95 was introduced and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This legislation would prohibit COPS Program funding from going to government entities that do not comply with section 642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-208). This provision states that, not withstanding other legal provisions, no federal, state, or local government entity may withhold Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the immigration status of any individual from another government entity.
Like you, I believe illegal immigration is a significant problem in America, impacting both our economy and our national security. I have said time and again that the United States must fix the way it handles the issue of illegal immigration, and I strongly oppose amnesty. While we must, first and foremost, strengthen our borders, I also believe we need to hold employers accountable for their hiring practices and crack down on entities that knowingly employ illegal workers. This is why I support the E-Verify program as a tool to help employers ensure they are hiring legal workers. I am committed to achieving practical, bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform that will protect taxpayers and address the problem of illegal immigration at its core.
In the spirit of S. 95, I strongly support enforcing our current immigration laws, and I pledge to take your concerns into account as I review this and other important immigration-related proposals.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kay R. Hagan United States Senator, North Carolina
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (She voted for it, because she stuck her wet finger into the wind. She's doesn't like my AK, so screw her. BT)
June 18, 2009
Dear Friend,
Thank you for contacting me regarding the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 and the right to bear arms in national parks. I greatly appreciate hearing your thoughts on these important issues.
The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 was introduced on January 7, 2009. Following negotiations with the House of Representatives, the Senate passed a virtually identical bill on March 19, which was signed into law by President Obama on March 30.
The Omnibus Public Lands Act was a package of over 160 individual bills that had previously been approved by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In general, the packaged legislation dealt with public land, national park, and water development issues. The committee held over 40 public hearings on the bills included in the package, and the vast majority received unanimous committee approval. This package and the individuals bills it included were supported by a broad bipartisan coalition of Senators.
I voted for the Omnibus Public Lands Act because it was an important, necessary step toward protecting America's beautiful wilderness. The legislation will protect two million acres of wilderness and thousands of miles of scenic trails, preserve historic battlefields, and safeguard 1,000 miles of our nation's rivers. These provisions will benefit Americans from all walks of life who treasure our country's wilderness for hunting, fishing, hiking, tourism, or simply appreciating the landscape.
I understand concerns regarding the restricted use of public lands, and have been a strong supporter of the responsible use of motorized vehicles on North Carolina's beaches. While I recognize the value of these and other activities, I believe this legislation represented a responsible balance between recreational uses and environmental stewardship.
I also agree with your support for the right to bear arms in national parks. For decades, guns were only allowed in national parks if they were dismantled, or unloaded and stored. In December 2008, the Bush Administration announced a rule removing this prohibition, but in March 2009, a U.S. District Judge blocked the rule and ordered further review. There have been a variety of efforts in Congress to act on this issue, both from individuals who support and oppose the change in regulation.
On May 12th, I voted for an expansion of Second Amendment rights in national parks by supporting Amendment 1067 to the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 (H.R. 627), also called the Credit CARD Act. This amendment, introduced by Senator Coburn, bars the Secretary of the Interior from enforcing any prohibition on the right of an individual to possess a gun in a national park, as long as that person is within the borders of a state whose laws allow them to possess that firearm. The Credit CARD Act was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009.
Like you, I have always been a strong advocate for Second Amendment rights. My family, like the great state of North Carolina, has a long tradition of hunting and gun ownership, and I take great pride in that heritage. During my tenure in the North Carolina Senate I continuously supported the responsible use of firearms, and as your United States Senator I will continue working to protect these fundamental, constitutional rights while opposing onerous restrictions on gun ownership.
Sincerely,
Signature
Kay R. Hagan United States Senator, North Carolina
|
|
|
Post by jerome on Jun 19, 2009 0:11:54 GMT -5
wow, an actual reply from one of them. None of my congress critters ever reply to what i have to say.....
|
|
|
Post by 2ncrca on Jun 19, 2009 0:52:36 GMT -5
They keep sending me form letters stating that they appreciate my concern but, ...
Thanks, but not thanks in so many words. I have the distinct misfortune of having Deborah Wasserman-Schultz for a congress critter. Hopeless Obama worshipper.
|
|
|
Post by spy1 on Jun 29, 2009 13:35:13 GMT -5
Sotomayor REVERSED - AGAIN! This is yet ANOTHER reason to contact your State Senator's and tell them NOT to confirm Sotomayor! PLEASE DO SO (use the"contact info given earlier in this thread). Pete www.alarmandmuster.com/www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/souters-day-court-rule-controversial-firefighter-case/Supreme Court Sides With White Firefighters in Discrimination Case The Supreme Court decision Monday in a controversial discrimination case could have bearing on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the high court. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a group of white firefighters in Connecticut were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision endorsed by high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The 5-4 ruling poses a potential complication to Sotomayor's nomination, with confirmation hearings set to start in July. Already, supporters and critics of Sotomayor are seizing on the decision in an effort to defend their stance. In the high-profile, controversial case, white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., argued they were discriminated against when the city tossed out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough on it. Justice Anthony Kennedy authored the opinion in favor of Frank Ricci and his fellow firefighters who sued the city of New Haven. "The city's action in discarding the tests violated (federal law)," the Supreme Court majority wrote Monday, adding that the city's "race-based rejection of the test results" could not be justified. The city argued its action was prompted by concern that disgruntled black firefighters would sue. But that reasoning didn't hold sway with the court's majority. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance of race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," the court ruled. This decision, like many of the close cases before the high court, divided along its familiar ideological lines. Kennedy was joined by the four conservatives on the court in issuing the majority decision. The court's more liberal members joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent which she read from the bench. "The white firefighters who scored high on New Haven's promotional exams understandably attract the court's sympathy," she said. "But they had no vested right to promotion." The firefighters are expected to hold a press conference Monday afternoon in New Haven. The 20 firefighters - 19 white and one Hispanic - who were denied promotions claimed city officials discriminated against them because they were more concerned about potential complaints of Civil Rights Act violations than their performance on advancement exams. The white firefighters argued discrimination is discrimination no matter what color it takes, and therefore, the city did violate the Civil Rights Act in not promoting them. Sotomayor was one of three appeals court judges who earlier ruled that New Haven officials acted properly. The reversal could be used as ammunition by some senators who don't want to see Sotomayor confirmed. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill swiftly issued statements on the ruling Monday and scheduled media appearances to discuss it. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, applauded the decision and suggested trouble ahead for Sotomayor. "The Supreme Court today reminded all courts and governments that equal justice under the law means refusing to tip the scale in favor of one race over another," he said in a written statement. "The Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully examine Judge Sotomayor's role in the Second Circuit's opinion on this case. Discrimination and racial preferences have no place in our courts, let alone on the highest court in the land." But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "it would be wrong" to use the decision to criticize Sotomayor and that her panel's decision exhibited "judicial restraint." He said the Supreme Court's ruling is "likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families." "This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement. Sotomayor's views on race have been the focal point of criticism as she seeks a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. She has also been scrutinized for her statement outside the court that a "wise, Latina woman" would come to better conclusions more often than a white man. Sotomayor's confirmation hearing is currently scheduled to begin on July 13. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told "FOX News Sunday" that her nomination must have a full airing before a vote, and that could mean delaying the hearing scheduled by Democratic senators, a scenario that is unlikely to happen. "Just a day or so ago, we discovered that there are 300 boxes of additional material that has just been discovered from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund," McConnell said. "The committee needs to have access to that material and time to work through it ... so we know all the facts before we vote on a person who's up for a lifetime job." If confirmed, Sotomayor will replace Justice David Souter, whose retirement coincides with the end of the court's session on Monday. In April's oral argument of the firefighter case, Souter described it as a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. Souter joined the minority in Monday's decision. Souter said he'd retire when the court rises for the summer recess. He was named to the court in 1990. As Souter retires to New Hampshire, four justices are heading to Europe for summer teaching jobs, including in Austria, Ireland and Italy.
|
|
|
Post by spy1 on Jul 15, 2009 10:30:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Jul 15, 2009 14:56:47 GMT -5
Sotomayor Takes Axe to Second Amendment -- Won't answer whether she believes there's a right to self-defenseGun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 www.gunowners.orgWednesday, July 15, 2009 The U.S. Senate must vote NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor! In defending her decision that the states could enact any form of gun control they wished -- with absolutely no regard to the Second Amendment -- Judge Sonya Sotomayor has developed a new love for Nineteenth Century court opinions. Demonstrating that she was programmed in her responses, Sotomayor defended one of her earlier legal opinions by citing "footnote 23" of Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in the DC v. Heller case last year. But, when pressed by questioner Orrin Hatch yesterday, Sotomayor could not recite the contents of that footnote or the holdings of the cases which it cited. As it turns out, the footnote on which Sotomayor claims to rely, cited -- without approval -- two Nineteenth Century cases which rejected the notion that the Second Amendment was 'incorporated' to apply to the states. But those were also the days when the Supreme Court held that the rights protected in the First Amendment did not apply to the states. Apparently, Sotomayor wants to base her anti-gun philosophy on antiquated decisions from an era when the U.S. Supreme Court was spitting out racist decisions. Her answers got even worse today when Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma asked her, point blank, "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?" Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question" and that she couldn't think of a Supreme Court case that addressed that issue. Coburn said he didn't want a legal treatise on what Supreme Court holdings have said, rather, he wanted her own personal opinion. Sotomayor would not answer the question, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism! Folks, do you see how important it is to stop this nomination? GOA mailed its members postcards opposing Sotomayor not too long ago. Please make sure you have mailed those in. We need a multi-pronged offensive right now where our Senators are receiving snail mail, email and phone calls. And, we need ALL PRO-GUN ORGANIZATIONS to take a stance AGAINST this nominee. Organizational spokesmen can talk a good game and say they have serious "concerns" about Sotomayor. That's all well and good. But unless those organizations (big and small) rate each Senator's vote on Sotomayor -- when she's clearly anti-gun -- then those supposed "concerns" are just meaningless. Senators have to hear from ALL the pro-gun organizations -- big and small -- that they are going to rate this vote during the 2010 election. Otherwise, those organizations are just Paper Tigers. We can't let this anti-gun judge infiltrate U.S. Supreme Court! She is dangerous on so many levels -- but, especially, on Second Amendment rights. GOA considers her nomination to be of the most important gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate. We can't think of any other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense. She says that she will follow the precedent in the DC v. Heller (2008) case. But even if she does, that only means that she will vote to apply the Second Amendment in Washington, DC. She has already ruled this year in Maloney v. Cuomo that the amendment doesn't apply to where you live. -- Tim Macy, Vice-Chairman of Gun Owners of America ACTION: We need to "pull out the stops" to defeat this nominee. Please contact your two U.S. Senators today and urge them to VOTE NO on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your Senators the pre-written e-mail message below. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator: Even though President Obama is extremely anti-gun, I still started with an open mind regarding his nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. But after her testimony these past two days, there is no way that she should be confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court. When asked by Senator Tom Coburn if there was a right to self-defense, Sotomayor said that was an "abstract question." Sotomayor would not answer directly, although when pressed, she equated self-defense with vigilantism! How can the Senate confirm a judge to the U.S. Supreme Court who does not believe in the rights that are EXPLICITLY stated in the Bill of Rights? I also want you to know that Gun Owners of America will heavily score any vote related to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- whether it's a vote on cloture or final passage -- for its rating in 2010. Moreover, GOA is going to publish its rating so that millions of Americans can see how their Senators voted on this most important vote. GOA has told me that it considers the Sotomayor nomination to be one of the most significant gun votes in the HISTORY of the US Senate, as there has been no other nominee in recent history who has taken such a horrid stand on the basic right of self-defense. Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Jul 17, 2009 10:52:34 GMT -5
Joint Statement
Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President, National Rifle Association And Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action On Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Nomination To The United States Supreme Court
Other than declaring war, neither house of Congress has a more solemn responsibility than the Senate's role in confirming justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. As the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Americans have been watching to see whether this nominee - if confirmed - would respect the Second Amendment or side with those who have declared war on the rights of America's 80 million gun owners.
From the outset, the National Rifle Association has respected the confirmation process and hoped for mainstream answers to bedrock questions. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and testimony clearly demonstrate a hostile view of the Second Amendment and the fundamental right of self-defense guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
It is only by ignoring history that any judge can say that the Second Amendment is not a fundamental right and does not apply to the states. The one part of the Bill of Rights that Congress clearly intended to apply to all Americans in passing the Fourteenth Amendment was the Second Amendment. History and congressional debate are clear on this point.
Yet Judge Sotomayor seems to believe that the Second Amendment is limited only to the residents of federal enclaves such as Washington, D.C. and does not protect all Americans living in every corner of this nation. In her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.
In last year's historic Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual's right to own firearms and recognizes the inherent right of self-defense. In addition, the Court required lower courts to apply the Twentieth Century cases it has used to incorporate a majority of the Bill of Rights to the States. Yet in her Maloney opinion, Judge Sotomayor dismissed that requirement, mistakenly relying instead on Nineteenth Century jurisprudence to hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to the States.
This nation was founded on a set of fundamental freedoms. Our Constitution does not give us those freedoms - it guarantees and protects them. The right to defend ourselves and our loved ones is one of those. The individual right to keep and bear arms is another. These truths are what define us as Americans. Yet, Judge Sotomayor takes an opposite view, contrary to the views of our Founding Fathers, the Supreme Court, and the vast majority of the American people.
We believe any individual who does not agree that the Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right and who does not respect our God-given right of self-defense should not serve on any court, much less the highest court in the land. Therefore, the National Rifle Association of America opposes the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
- NRA - Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America's oldest civil rights and sportsmen's group. Four million members strong, NRA continues its mission to uphold Second Amendment rights and to advocate enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation's leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the military.
|
|
|
Post by brocktownsend on Jul 28, 2009 18:45:17 GMT -5
Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert 8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151 Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408 www.gunowners.orgTuesday, July 28, 2009 It was nearly a party-line vote. While every Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor today, almost every Republican voted against her... all except for turncoat Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Apparently, the flighty Republican did not care that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated an extreme anti-gun bias in her private and public life. Not only that, she has expressed racist views in multiple speeches over the years, and she has proven -- in her actions and words -- that she is committed to IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION! The Sotomayor nomination now moves to the U.S. Senate floor, where gun owners definitely face an uphill battle. Press reports have indicated that Sotomayor is giving Senators private assurances that she will follow Supreme Court precedents on the Second Amendment. This is ridiculous, of course, but it doesn't help that a liberal front group claiming to support the Second Amendment -- the American Hunters and Shooters Association -- is supporting Sotomayor, giving cover to wavering Democrats. Politico.com reports that AHSA "will be highlighted as part of a rapid-fire response strategy Democrats plan to launch to respond to GOP attacks." The fact that AHSA endorsed Obama during the campaign should demonstrate that this group is nothing more than a Trojan horse. That's why we need Senators to know that gun owners consider a vote for Sotomayor to be one of the most ANTI-GUN votes they could ever cast and that front groups like AHSA don't speak for you! ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to vote NO on Judge Sotomayor. Tell them that the American Hunters and Shooters Association doesn't speak for you. Please use the Gun Owners Legislative Action Center at www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below. ----- Pre-written letter ----- Dear Senator: The confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be a horrible choice for Americans -- not to mention the gun owners of this country. Throughout her career, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has shown that she opposes the right to keep and bear arms, denies there is a constitutional right to self-defense, and frequently ignores constitutional and statutory precedents. However, I understand that a front group called the American Hunters and Shooters Association is supporting Sotomayor, giving cover to wavering Senators. Please understand that AHSA is NOT a pro-gun organization. This organization shares many of the same goals as the Brady Campaign, and it is nothing more than a Trojan horse in the gun rights community. After all, this is a group that according to records from 2005 had fewer than 150 dues paying individual members. Its founding president, Ray Schoenke, donated money to the radical Handgun Control, Inc. -- a group that argued in favor of the DC gun ban (which was struck down by the Supreme Court last year). And another of its founding members, John Rosenthal, was also the founder of Stop Handgun Violence. I am a proud supporter of Gun Owners of America, and they do speak for me and the gun rights community when they say that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is bad for the Constitution... bad for the Second Amendment... and bad for America. Sincerely,
|
|
|
Post by spy1 on Jul 30, 2009 13:18:50 GMT -5
Took awhile, but I finally had time to send it off. Thanks, Brock. Pete
|
|
|
Post by spy1 on Aug 6, 2009 23:30:23 GMT -5
|
|