Sotomayor on the Second Amendment - Evasive and Hostile

Guest post from Brian Darling Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) engaged in detailed questioning of Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor seemed hostile and evasive to the concept that the Second Amendment protects and individual right of all Americans against an action by a state to seize firearms. A senior Senate staffer concluded that “she confirmed her view that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.” Sotomayor seemed evasive when questioned by Senator Hatch whether she relied on the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois to hold that the Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Sotomayor said, "It may have. I haven't read it recently enough to remember exactly." Hatch made the case that Sotomayor in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case, Maloney v. Cuomo applied the wrong standard of review. Senator Hatch said “I believe you’ve applied the wrong line of cases in Maloney, because you were applying cases that used the privileges and immunities clause and not cases that used the 14th Amendment due process clause.” Hatch made the case that Sotomayor’s line of reasoning would allow any decision by a state or local government to pass constitutional scrutiny if merely rationally based. Sotomayor responded that “well, all standards of the court are attempting to ensure that government action has a basis.” Not much of an answer and Sotomayor seemed evasive in explaining her reasoning for the Maloney case other than that she was following a precedent. Not much analysis. Senator Kyl asked Sotomayor whether she would recuse herself from any Supreme Court decision relating to the divergent Second Amendment decisions of the 9th and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that direcly address the incorporation argument at issue in Maloney. Sotomayor refused to state that she would recuse herself from these similar cases. Kyl made the case that Sotomayor’s participation in the 9th or 7th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporation Second Amendment cases may lead to an appearance of impropriety. One could come to the conclusion that Sotomayor would be protecting her rational in Maloney if she refused to incorporate the 2nd Amendment on the states. The responses to Kyl’s line of questioning evidenced hostility to the clear reading of the words of the 2nd Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Brian Darling is Director of Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation

Al Franken, Constitutional Scholar?

Written by Richard Viguerie

Upon joining the Senate, Al Franken (whom I know and enjoy, despite our vast ideological differences) was named to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on all of President Obama’s judicial nominees. This gives Democrats a 13 – 7 edge over Republicans on that committee.

Al Franken is very intelligent, but he’s no constitutional scholar.

So what are this freshman senator’s qualifications for such a vaunted committee assignment?

He’s an intense ideologue.

This demonstrates the seriousness of the Democrats’ political agenda on judicial appointments. President Obama and the Democrats want judges who will work outside the democratic process to change laws and constitutional principles.

Democrats want to radically transform America away from democratic accountability to control by the political establishment. They have already rushed through major legislation into law before people had a chance to read it -- and object -- and now they want leftist judges who will give laws the most expansive reading in favor of the political establishment, use foreign law to interpret our Constitution, and essentially undo what our Founders created.

Senate Republicans need to clue in and get serious about fighting President Obama’s judicial nominees, starting with Sonia Sotomayor, and start using the judicial confirmation process to explain the role of judges and why judges cannot make law.

They need to begin with slowing down the process until after the congressional August recess, so Americans can learn more about who will be appointed to our 'third branch' of government.

If Republicans care about ever regaining a majority in Congress, they will use the judicial confirmation process to explain that what President Obama and the Democrats are trying to do is not merely bad policy, but dangerous to our freedoms.