This is from Sonia Sotomayor, responding to a question about her stance on 2nd amendment rights during the Senate confirmation hearings for her appointment to the Supreme Court:
I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.
She’s referring to the DC vs. Heller case which recognized gun rights as individual rights and declared unconstitutional the federal ban on firearms in Washington DC. But in the McDonald vs. Chicago case, which extended Heller to a state-level gun ban, Sotomayor joined the dissent saying:
In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense.
I think the framers themselves, per their writings contemporaneous to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, would disagree with Sotomayor.
But then, Sotomayor disagrees with herself. Yet, she’ll be on the Supreme Court for at least the next couple of decades.
Which makes me wonder why we even have nomination hearings for these appointments. The nominee is almost never denied approval. The nominee’s usually misrepresent themselves, their politics, their judicial philosophy and their backgrounds.
It seems as though there’s no point, other than to provide a stage for more of the ceaseless political theater we get out of Washington DC.
Our president looks like a total dork in that picture.
ReplyDeleteLat