PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor?



Ken Bora
05-26-2009, 09:13 AM
Sotomayor?

The great American story right?
What’s not to like? ;-)
She was good enough for George H.W. Bush.
What are our thoughts?

txbadger
05-26-2009, 09:36 AM
At a glance an activist judge, one whom thinks she, instead of Congress, should make the law.

K.Bullock
05-26-2009, 09:46 AM
If you believe that the SCOTUS should make law instead of upholding the law then Sotomayer's your girl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q

Obama has his first Hispanic woman for Supreme Court Judge that is about the only thing I find interesting about her. And to be honest I am getting bored with the first this and the first that being a qualification above everything else.


Despite her prior support from a minority of Republicans like Specter :rolleyes: I think she will just another liberal activist judge more interested in revising the constitution than defending it.

Hew
05-26-2009, 09:59 AM
All things considered, from a conservative perspective, he could have done a lot worse (i.e. picked a more liberal/activist judge). Sure she's no Antonin Scalia, but she's no wingnut like Ruth Buzzy Bader Ginsberg either. Some liberals are expressing disappointment with the nomination, so that's somewhat comforting.

Elections have consequences. I wouldn't expect Obama to pick Robert Bork and I had hoped he wouldn't pick a beyond-the-pale liberal whackanut. From what I know about her, it would seem like Obama made a pretty decent choice somewhere between the two extremes.

K.Bullock
05-26-2009, 10:16 AM
All things considered, from a conservative perspective, he could have done a lot worse (i.e. picked a more liberal/activist judge). Sure she's no Antonin Scalia, but she's no wingnut like Ruth Buzzy Bader Ginsberg either. Some liberals are expressing disappointment with the nomination, so that's somewhat comforting.

Elections have consequences. I wouldn't expect Obama to pick Robert Bork and I had hoped he wouldn't pick a beyond-the-pale liberal whackanut. From what I know about her, it would seem like Obama made a pretty decent choice somewhere between the two extremes.
Answer me this Hew. Where is the fun in being reasonable?!? huh? huh?

Just kidding, your right it could be a lot worse. I wish there was a better way of picking judges though.

dennismc115
05-26-2009, 10:18 AM
Sotomayor?

The great American story right?
What’s not to like? ;-)
She was good enough for George H.W. Bush.
What are our thoughts?

Don't confuse a seat on the SCOTUS with being a federal trial judge. One has a far greater capacity to influence the US for a long, long time and the other is subject to review and being overturned if they get too far afield. Bush 41 may or may not have considered that she might someday be nominated for the Supremes so it would be wrong to look upon his appointment as a full blown endorsement.

Eric Johnson
05-26-2009, 10:30 AM
The New Republic is a generally liberal publication. For that reason, their take on Sotomayor is very revealing.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

Eric

Bob Gutermuth
05-26-2009, 10:38 AM
A member of SCOTUS who got the nomination for being a Hispanic female instead of any concrete qualifications. Thankfully she doesn't change the balance of power on the court.

luvmylabs23139
05-26-2009, 12:02 PM
She's the appeals court judge that said you can toss a test for municiple promotions if you don't like the racial outcome. New HAven CT FD now going to the supreme court. She does not belong on the supreme court.

Goose
05-26-2009, 01:44 PM
She hates our Constitution as much as Dear Leader hates our Constitution. Her decisions are constantly being overturned because she blatantly disregards the law. Forrest Gump would have been a better choice.

We live in Cuba now.

JDogger
05-26-2009, 05:52 PM
She hates our Constitution as much as Dear Leader hates our Constitution. Her decisions are constantly being overturned because she blatantly disregards the law. Forrest Gump would have been a better choice.

We live in Cuba now.

Mr. Goose,
I like others, had never heard of Sotomayor before today. I have yet to form an opinion on her. I have been doing some research today.
Could you cite your references for her hatred of the constitution? Also, the decisions overturned because of her disregard for the law? The SCOTUS would be the court that would hear an appeal of any ruling from the US Court of appeals.


CIVIL LITIGATION
Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

Source; http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayors-appellate-opinions-in-civil-cases/

Having two rulings reversed out of some 150 is hardly constantly.

Are you making stuff up?

JD

Cody Covey
05-26-2009, 06:25 PM
look up her district court ruling which is what i believe were over turned. I only heard this on the news this morning but didn't research it so don't kill the messenger haha

moscowitz
05-26-2009, 10:07 PM
I think you have it wrong she found in favor of the white fireman in New Haven who's test were thrown out because of the low pass rate of minority fireman. She may not be as liberal as you think. Plus she will be the only one on the Supreme Court who has lenghty experience as a judge.

moscowitz
05-26-2009, 10:22 PM
No I'm wrong she found against the white fireman who's exams were thrown out.

JDogger
05-26-2009, 10:24 PM
look up her district court ruling which is what i believe were over turned. I only heard this on the news this morning but didn't research it so don't kill the messenger haha

No desire to kill the messenger here, but please if you have legitimate sources, please cite them. I am trying to formulate an opinion based on fact, not on heresay. Your input, if indeed factual, would be appreciated by all here.

'I heard it on the news', does not constitute fact, as we all know.

The 'News' as we all know is biased.

Please, if you have some link to reversals of District Court rulings, please share them.

I provided a link in my above post. Can you not do as much?

JD

Cody Covey
05-27-2009, 12:04 AM
nope don't have sources and was trying to be upfront as possible about that fact in my post i told you where i heard the information and what that info was and even said that i hadn't done any research on it. if you would like to investigate further please go ahead and find the info or prove me wrong i don't care lol.

JDogger
05-27-2009, 01:10 AM
nope don't have sources and was trying to be upfront as possible about that fact in my post i told you where i heard the information and what that info was and even said that i hadn't done any research on it. if you would like to investigate further please go ahead and find the info or prove me wrong i don't care lol.

Prove you wrong?.... bloviate much do ya eildydar...nah...nah...

"i don't care lol."

obviously!

Then, in the vernacular of the righties of RTF...shut yer pie-hole. :p

Make a statement...then back it up.:p

Truly laughing out loud regards,:p

JD

JDogger
05-27-2009, 01:28 AM
OK ... sorry, Eildydar. I take back the pie-hole remark. But, Dammit man...if you're gonna make statements... be prepared to backem up.
Nobody, except some of the other right-wing loonies here are gonna buy it.

Get it? Got it? Good.

JD

Bruce MacPherson
05-27-2009, 02:16 AM
The fact that I wasn't immediately outraged when she was announced as the pick says he could have gone a lot further left than he did.

Hoosier
05-27-2009, 07:37 AM
OK ... sorry, Eildydar. I take back the pie-hole remark. But, Dammit man...if you're gonna make statements... be prepared to backem up.
Nobody, except some of the other right-wing loonies here are gonna buy it.

Get it? Got it? Good.

JD

Not a very nice tone Jdog

road kill
05-27-2009, 07:58 AM
To "the Obama" she is to the center.
That's debatable.

To me, could have been better, could have been worse.


just sayin'

Excaliber
05-27-2009, 08:11 AM
She is one of the consequences of losing the election. Let's just pray one of the Conservative Judges doesn't have to leave the bench in the next 4 years.
That would be a dissaster.

badbullgator
05-27-2009, 08:49 AM
Undecided just yet in this one. I think the pick could have been much worse. What I will say is I think BHO is just as concerned with leaving historical marks as he is with anything else. I am still not really sure what this woman’s childhood or her mother has to do with much of anything. Would she be more or less qualified if she grew up in a rich affluent neighborhood? So far most of what I have read or seen of tv about her is her childhood and upbringing and I could not give a fat rats azz about it. Give me substance not fluff please.

road kill
05-27-2009, 09:21 AM
Undecided just yet in this one. I think the pick could have been much worse. What I will say is I think BHO is just as concerned with leaving historical marks as he is with anything else. I am still not really sure what this woman’s childhood or her mother has to do with much of anything. Would she be more or less qualified if she grew up in a rich affluent neighborhood? So far most of what I have read or seen of tv about her is her childhood and upbringing and I could not give a fat rats azz about it. Give me substance not fluff please.
When fluff is all you got, fluff is all you get!!

just sayin'

greyghost
05-27-2009, 09:58 AM
Justice is suppose to be Blind. Shouldn't matter your skin color, how much money you have, your gender, etc...Supremme Court makes rulings per the existing Laws (Constitution).

Sonia Sotomayer made a statement regarding her gender, race and position in life that she believes makes her judgement better than someone of a different gender, race and position.

As far as I'm concerned she is racist and opinionated and not suited for the Supreme Court.

Eric Johnson
05-27-2009, 10:14 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/

http://tinyurl.com/olphb2

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
By Stephen Dinan (Contact) | Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

-more-

JDogger
05-27-2009, 10:20 AM
Not a very nice tone Jdog

Well, excuuuuuse meeeee...


"I think I'd rather be water boarded, then to read anymore of Cotts posts on this issue." -Hoosier

Exactly the feeling I was having with the unsubstantiated blanket statements by Goose and eildydar.

JDogger
05-27-2009, 10:30 AM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/27/60-reversal-of-sotomayor-rulings-gives-fodder-to-f/

http://tinyurl.com/olphb2

Sotomayor reversed 60% by high court
By Stephen Dinan (Contact) | Wednesday, May 27, 2009

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

-more-

Three reversals in 380 opinions does not constitute 60%. Can you link to something more substantial than a sentence in an article in The Washington Times?

JD

Hew
05-27-2009, 10:45 AM
Three reversals in 380 opinions does not constitute 60%. Can you link to something more substantial than a sentence in an article in The Washington Times?

JD
Yeah, heaven forbid you actually read the article to determine where they derived the 60% figure.

Terry Britton
05-27-2009, 11:01 AM
Three reversals in 380 opinions does not constitute 60%. Can you link to something more substantial than a sentence in an article in The Washington Times?

JD

You are wrong!!! The Supreme Court overturned 60% of her cases that it heard.

You can't show me stats that disagree with the Supreme Court overturnning 60% of her cases that it heard.

60% is 60%.

JDogger
05-27-2009, 11:06 AM
I believe the third one is still under review.

There were dissenters on the court as well.

Don't get me wrong. I do not think she is highly qualified, but the 60% reversal rate touted by the rag washington times is inaccurate. Five cases have been heard by the court, two reversed, two upheld, one under review.

badbullgator
05-27-2009, 11:18 AM
I believe the third one is still under review.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DaGriz/thspitcoffee.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10666628#)

thanks I needed a good laugh

Bob Gutermuth
05-27-2009, 11:23 AM
Why couldn't or wouldn't Osama appoint a qualified candidate instead of someone who plays well with the women's and Hispanic lobbies? We need another activist who legislates from the bench like we need Osama in office.

JDogger
05-27-2009, 11:25 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v61/DaGriz/thspitcoffee.gif (http://outdoorsbest.zeroforum.com/post?cmd=reply&id=10666628#)

thanks I needed a good laugh

A liberal, judicial activist on the high court :p...kinda gives me a chuckle too.

Goose
05-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Sotomayor cases reviewed by the Supreme Court:

Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA - reversed 6-3

Dabis vs. Merrill Lynch - reversed 8-0 (ouch)

Empire Healthchoice Assurance vs. McVeigh - reversed 5-4

Malesko vs. Correctional Services - reversed 5-4

Tasini vs. New York Times - reversed 7-2

Also,

Knight vs. Commissioner - upheld but the Court unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted.
The Supreme Court upheld her decision but said her approach "flies in the fact of statutory language" (ouch)

Ricci vs. DeStefano - decision pending (I bet she'll lose this one, too) She was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. But the Supreme Court agreed to review the case anyway and heard oral arguments in April. This is the case where she ruled against a group of white firefighters in New Haven.

So she was reversed 5 out of 6 times...an 83% failure rate in front of the Supreme Court and in the sixth the Court disagreed with her reasoning...not what I would consider a brilliant legal mind.

JDogger
05-27-2009, 02:32 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/26/sotomayor.resume/index.html

Yeah, I found it here too. A link was all I asked for back on page two.

So now we agree on the number of cases reversed.

Did you find anything yet on her hatred of the constitution?

JD

YardleyLabs
05-27-2009, 02:39 PM
You are wrong!!! The Supreme Court overturned 60% of her cases that it heard.

You can't show me stats that disagree with the Supreme Court overturnning 60% of her cases that it heard.

60% is 60%.

You are wrong. The Supreme Court overturned three out of five cases decided by the Second Circuit where Sotomayor authorized the majority opinion. That says nothing about other cases where Sotomayor was a member of the majority on a case that was upheld on appeal but was not the author assigned to write the majority opinion (note, you don't get to pick which ones you write), or the cases where she was in the minority of a case that was subsequently overturned, thereby indicating support for her dissent. Analyzing an appellate court judge's work quality by looking at the rate of supreme court reversals is a tricky process at best. This is expecially true in a context where the SCOTUS decides to overrule precedents -- an option open to the SCOTUS but not the the appellate courts. On the face of it, 3 out of 5 appealed cases out of 380 is not a very high rate of reversal. Alito had numerous decisions overturned while he was an appellate judge. However, whether for Sotomayor, Alito, or anyone else, you would need to analyze the totality of the track record, not a cherry picked statistic, to obtain a reasonable indicator. Even then, the indicator does not necessarily tell you anything about the quality of decisions made, only about their degree of concurrence with the justices of the SCOTUS at the time an appeal is heard. Having a high degree of concurrence may be good or bad depending on your perspective.

Bob Gutermuth
05-27-2009, 02:50 PM
The media is full of stories today indicating that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot with Hispanics if they oppose her nomination. Her or anyone else's ethnicity is not a good reason to be nominated for a federal appointment.

Cody Covey
05-27-2009, 03:38 PM
Prove you wrong?.... bloviate much do ya eildydar...nah...nah...

"i don't care lol."

obviously!

Then, in the vernacular of the righties of RTF...shut yer pie-hole. :p

Make a statement...then back it up.:p

Truly laughing out loud regards,:p

JD

Dude what is your problem. I made a statement on where you might find more info about the topic that YOU asked about. I told you i didn't know where the info was or where he got it. I made a statement that I told you i wasn't going to back up just saying that the info you were referring to wasn't what he was talking about. Asking me to back up that statement is just stupid.

road kill
05-27-2009, 04:45 PM
The media is full of stories today indicating that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot with Hispanics if they oppose her nomination. Her or anyone else's ethnicity is not a good reason to be nominated for a federal appointment.

Everything in DC is about ethnicity now.


just sayin'

road kill
05-27-2009, 04:46 PM
Dude what is your problem. I made a statement on where you might find more info about the topic that YOU asked about. I told you i didn't know where the info was or where he got it. I made a statement that I told you i wasn't going to back up just saying that the info you were referring to wasn't what he was talking about. Asking me to back up that statement is just stupid.

The problem that many intelligent Leftists have right now is shame!!

just sayin'

cotts135
05-27-2009, 06:52 PM
Looks to me that we have at least one Conservative on the court who doesn't see empathy as a hindrance in making legal decisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101148.html

U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito's Nomination to the Supreme Court

U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what's important to you in life?

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

COBURN: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I think I'll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.

Just saying............

Bob Gutermuth
05-27-2009, 07:41 PM
In a recent case, [Ricci v. DeStefano[/font], Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.

Franco
05-27-2009, 08:47 PM
Sotomayor?


Pittiful!

Eric Johnson
05-27-2009, 08:47 PM
JD-

You could have read the whole article if you'd chosen to do so.

The key to the reversal rate is the number of cases she's written on that were reviewed. Merely being on the prevailing side doesn't tell us anything. How many cases did she write the opinion? How many of these were reviewed and then a writ of certiori issued by the Supremes? How many of those where a writ was issued was there an opinion. How many of these opinions reversed? The caseload at each of these levels gets smaller. Out of the 380 or so decisions that she has written or participated in the writing, 6 or 7 have made it to the stage of oral argument before the Supreme Court. Of these 6-7, she's been reversed 3 times and most observers feel there's another coming out in the next couple of weeks.

I would like to be a mouse in the corner when the Justices meet to talk over the New Haven case now. It's got to throw a new wrinkle in the discussion.

Eric

JDogger
05-27-2009, 11:45 PM
JD-

You could have read the whole article if you'd chosen to do so.

The key to the reversal rate is the number of cases she's written on that were reviewed. Merely being on the prevailing side doesn't tell us anything. How many cases did she write the opinion? How many of these were reviewed and then a writ of certiori issued by the Supremes? How many of those where a writ was issued was there an opinion. How many of these opinions reversed? The caseload at each of these levels gets smaller. Out of the 380 or so decisions that she has written or participated in the writing, 6 or 7 have made it to the stage of oral argument before the Supreme Court. Of these 6-7, she's been reversed 3 times and most observers feel there's another coming out in the next couple of weeks.

I would like to be a mouse in the corner when the Justices meet to talk over the New Haven case now. It's got to throw a new wrinkle in the discussion.

Eric

I did read the article, Eric, and every link provided in this thread. I just don't agree with it.
Is it 3 out of 5? 5 out of 6? The internet does not always provide us with accurate representations.
In any event, while I do not believe that Sotomayor may be the best candidate, the outcome appears to be a slamdunk for the nominee at this point. Unless of course, she to has tax problems yet to come to light.
We can argue these points on an obscure sub-forum of an obscure doggy-forum, but truly, our opinions matter little.
The decisions will be made.
Good hunting, testing, trialing, to us all.
As Mongo said, "we're all just pawns."

G'nite,

JD

John Kelder
05-28-2009, 05:22 AM
The media is full of stories today indicating that the GOP will shoot itself in the foot with Hispanics if they oppose her nomination. Her or anyone else's ethnicity is not a good reason to be nominated for a federal appointment.

You are right Bob ,but BHO figured that logic got him elected , so it will get her appointed .

Ken Bora
05-28-2009, 08:17 AM
In a recent case, [Ricci v. DeStefano[/font], Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black.
What bugs me most about the Ct. case is I feel the wrong question is before the court.
The white fellows who scored highest but were not hired would be a moot point if
I say IF
The question of race was not even on the job application form!!!!!!!!
If I were a member of that particular community and for some bizarre reason doing the hiring of new fire fighters I would ask. “Are you strong enough to lug my fat butt out of a building and down a ladder?”
And “Do you want to run into a burning building to lug my fat butt down a ladder?” What else matters?

road kill
05-29-2009, 07:58 AM
Here is another "GLOWING" endorsement.
Sounds like a pleasure to work with!!

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/lawyers-tag-sotomayor-as-terror-on-the-bench/

luvmylabs23139
05-29-2009, 08:17 AM
The woman is a racist and does not belong on the supreme court or any other court for that matter!!!!!!!

Ken Bora
05-29-2009, 09:16 PM
GUNS!!! HUNTING!!!!!
3 days of vetting, I want to know about guns and hunting, anything?

Bob Gutermuth
05-29-2009, 09:48 PM
She ain't a big supporter of the 2nd Amendment:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/28/sotomayors-gun-control-positions-prompt-conservative-backlash/

luvmylabs23139
05-30-2009, 08:47 AM
GUNS!!! HUNTING!!!!!
3 days of vetting, I want to know about guns and hunting, anything?
AS far as she is concerned throw the 2nd ammendment in the trash! She ruled that states can over rule the 2nd ammendment even after the DC Supreme court ruling.
She does not believe in the constitution!!!!! Just like BUMMFACE OBUMMA!!

Uncle Bill
05-31-2009, 02:11 PM
No desire to kill the messenger here, but please if you have legitimate sources, please cite them. I am trying to formulate an opinion based on fact, not on heresay. Your input, if indeed factual, would be appreciated by all here.

'I heard it on the news', does not constitute fact, as we all know.

The 'News' as we all know is biased.

Please, if you have some link to reversals of District Court rulings, please share them.

I provided a link in my above post. Can you not do as much?

JD


IF you are indeed interested in where she stands, Hugh, why do you not believe what she has said, or are they ALL outa context?

UB

Uncle Bill
05-31-2009, 02:21 PM
GUNS!!! HUNTING!!!!!
3 days of vetting, I want to know about guns and hunting, anything?

Is this any help, Ken?

UB


"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."


-- Opinion of the court, including Judge
Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)

YardleyLabs
05-31-2009, 02:51 PM
Is this any help, Ken?

UB


"The Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right."


-- Opinion of the court, including Judge
Sotomayor, Maloney v. Cuomo (2009)

Not trying to argue the point, but this one has an interesting legal background. The Bill of Rights generally was only applied to Federal government actions. In the case pf the First Amendment, for example, the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law....". Subsequent court decisions ruled that the same limitation applied to the Federal government as a whole, not just Congress. However, the First Amendment was not deemed to limit State action until passage of the 14th Amendment following the Civil War. With respect to the Second Amendment, the Courts have never ruled on whether or not States may regulate or restrict the right the bear arms. The Heller case had limited applicability since Washington DC is under Federal jurisdiction. If a case is ever brought based on a State legislated restriction, the Court will have to determine if the 14th Amendment extends the Federal limitation to States.

Effectively, the referenced opinion is consistent with established law in that it does not assume a limitation on State government that has never been ruled on by the Supreme Court. A ruling that the Second Amendment does in fact limit State action, in the absence of a Supreme Court decision to that effect, would have been judicial activism in that it would mean over-ruling the Legislature without established legal foundation.

Bob Gutermuth
05-31-2009, 03:19 PM
Seems to me it is stare decisis that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. As I recall it was a case about the Exclusionary Rule that did it.

YardleyLabs
05-31-2009, 04:09 PM
Seems to me it is stare decisis that the 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. As I recall it was a case about the Exclusionary Rule that did it.

Actually not. It has been handled with separate decisions on each affected amendment and the decisions have not always gone the same way. As it happens, there has never been a case addressing the applicability of the Second Amendment to State actions and the pre-Heller decisions regarding the Second Amendment generally were inconclusive. Fortunately for all of us, there have been few State laws that had the effect of limiting gun ownership to the point of exclusion, which was the actual standard used in the Heller decision. In that context, I'm not sure either side in the gun control debate has wanted to accept the risks in pushing for a broad-ranging SCOTUS decision, particularly since many of the most conservative judges have opposed the application of the 14th Amendment to First Amendment cases, among others, as a violation of States' rights.