Sotomayor twists the law to suit her agenda!

[Bob the Builder]

I've been reviewing the cases of Sotomayor, and time and time again she has demonstrated that she has no compunction whatever of trashing the constitution to suit her agendas. What is even worse is the fact that even when she does reach the correct judgement, she does so by citing the WRONG CASE LAW!! She's an example of a kid who passed High School Biology by GUESSING.

We all know about the Ricci case where the Supreme Court ruled that "equal protection under the law" applies to ALL Americans (even white men), regardless of Sotomayors penchant for giving special dispensations to anyone based on race, creed, sex, or national origin as long as they're NOT white.

But then there's the case of Maloney v Cuomo in which she and the majority of the 2nd Circus ruled that it is illegal for someone to "...keep and bear" nunchuku in NY City pursuant to NY City law. While the ruling is perfectly in keeping with Supreme Court precedent, where she and the rest of the Court erred is in their "interpretation" (which is what happens when you fail to comprehend that words really do have meaning) when they cited Presser v Illinois (1886) as supporting their decision, when the fact is that Presser v Illinois specifically REFUTES their position!

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.

The issue in Presser was not whether We The People had the Right to keep and bear arms, it was whether the people had the Right to assemble, parade, and drill with those arms, in the streets, as a military force, at the peril of the public, when they were not a part of the official State Militia, and were not acting in any official capacity as an authorized militia, and it is THIS point on which the Supreme Court ruled against Presser. Since Mr. Maloney was not parading, or drilling in public with the nunchuku, Presser simply doesn't apply.

NOW, if she and the 2nd had been intellectually honest (or even bothered to do basic research, or for that matter called the NRA for guidance), they would have applied the ruling in US v Miller (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled a double barreled sawed off shotgun could be restricted because such a weapon is not, as pointed out in Aymette v State (1840), "any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense ." Given the ruling in Miller, Mr. Maloney's nunchuku could be declared illegal, because like the sawed off shotgun in Miller, they are NOT a part of the "ordinary military equipment", nor can their use "contribute to the common defense."

As was pointed out in Aymette,

"If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."

Even if we look to District of Columbia v Heller (2008), the Court specifically reiterated their previous ruling in Miller, meaning that ONLY those "arms" that are NOT a part of the "ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense" may be restricted.

So, are there "arms" that may be restricted by the States, or for that matter by the federal government? Of course, but ONLY those arms that fall outside the "normal military equipment"! The so called "saturday night special" for instance has never been used as any part of the "normal military equipment", or could it's use "contribute to the common defense", and therefore it's possession may be restricted.

Conversely, the K-Bar knife/bayonet/folding pocket knife or similar weapon, .38 special revolver/M-1911A1/M-9 (or similar handguns), 12 gauge shotguns (whether pump or automatic, with 'normal' length barrels) M-4/M-16/AR-15 (or their clones), M-2,M-60/M-240/M-249/M-134 machine/mini guns, M-203 grenade launcher, mortars, howitzers, tanks, APC's, or any other weapon or weapons system that IS part of the "ordinary military equipment" or could "contribute to the common defense" CANNOT be restricted, or in any way limited by the States, OR the federal government.

 

[Andy]

Hey, what do you expect from her? She's clearly a perfect example of "a product of affirmative action"! You can't really expect high quality rulings from someone who only got their position based on quotas and skin color, do you?

She's an awful judge, and shouldn't be sent to the supreme court. I want people who get to their position based on merit, not affirmative action.

Would you want a doctor who didn't get good grades, but happen to be a minority?

Why do you want the highest judicial branch filled with equally bad judges?

 

[Little-Acorn]

US v Miller (1939) in which the Supreme Court ruled a double barreled sawed off shotgun could be restricted because such a weapon is not, as pointed out in Aymette v State (1840), "any part of the ordinary military equipment,

Your post is doubly ironic in that, while the Miller court did indeed rule that short-barrelled shotguns were not part of ordinary military equipment, the fact is that that ruling was a lie. In the most recent major conflict before that case (WWI), short-barrelled shotguns were issued by govenments and used extensively by both sides during the war. They were known as "trench guns".

The US v. Miller case in the Supreme Court was unusual, in that the defense never showed up for the trial. Miller's lawyer had argued the case in District Court on a Pro Bono basis (he worked for free), and won handily as the Court declared the 1934 National Fireams Act an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment. But the government appealed directly to the Supremes, and Miller's lawyer couldn't find his client when the time came (Miller was found a few weeks after the trial, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest).

The lawyer didn't want to go to the extreme preparation necessary for a Supreme Court hearing for an uninterested client, so booted the whole thing. The govt lawyers took advantage of this windfall, and read several lies into the record, including:

1.) The 2nd protects only military-style weapons;
2.) Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't a military-style weapon;
3.) The 1934 NFA was only a revenue-raising law.

The justices basically rubber-stamped these fibs into an Opinion. The opinion is loaded with phrases like, "It is not within judicial notice that" and "no evidence has been presented to refute", meaning that no one had refuted the statements of the prosecution. Hardly surprising since no one from the defense even showed up.

And every major Federal gun-control law since, has cited the Miller case as a precedent.

IMHO there's a very good reason Sotomayor didn't mention the Miller case. The leftists want as little atention paifd to that case as possible... because any review of it in a subsequent case by the Supreme Court, would inevitably see it overturned. And the entire house of cards that is Federal "gun control", would come tumbling down, once the Supremes started ruling the laws unconstitutional, as they should have long ago.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Oh trust me Andy, it gets worse.

In the case of Hayden v. Pataki in which a convicted felon challenged the law barring felons from voting until their suffrage was reinstated by the State, she dissented from the majority ruling, but not because VRA '65 is patently unconstitutional on it's face, but because of some perceived "conflict" within VRA '65 that she hoped Congress would correct rather than having the court do it for them.

Since she missed it, and in case anyone is wondering "WTF is he talking about now?", it's called the 14th Amendment.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Now, given that the 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments have subsequently altered the "male" and "twenty-one years of age" specifications of the 14th, the rest of the text still applies, in that it is up to the States to decide which of their residents they will allow to vote, and if for any reason, they decide to not allow an otherwise eligible voter from voting, the ONLY recourse is that the number of voters so disenfranchised my not be counted as part of the population of the State towards representation in Congress.

VRA '65 attempts to supercede the 14th Amendment by imposing laws, rules, and regulations that are totally unsupported by the Constitution, and therefore VRA '65, and any laws made subsequent to it are therefore unconstitutional.

Sotomayor herself is a primary example that " a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would" NOT COME CLOSE, "more often than not" to reaching "a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." because when it comes to understanding the relationship between the Constitution, the law, and the courts, she's a *****!

Or as my wife put it a couple of hours ago, "she's a primary example of a woman that should stay home and bake cookies, because she's too stupid to be a judge!"

 

[Bob the Builder]

Your post is doubly ironic in that, while the Miller court did indeed rule that short-barrelled shotguns were not part of ordinary military equipment, the fact is that that ruling was a lie. In the most recent major conflict before that case (WWI), short-barrelled shotguns were issued by govenments and used extensively by both sides during the war. They were known as "trench guns".

I was hoping someone would bring that up. You are absolutely correct that short barreled shotguns were used, but they were pump or lever action shotguns (at least on our side), not double barrels, and they weren't 'issued' that way, they were cut down 'in the field'.

The US v. Miller case in the Supreme Court was unusual, in that the defense never showed up for the trial. Miller's lawyer had argued the case in District Court on a Pro Bono basis (he worked for free), and won handily as the Court declared the 1934 National Fireams Act an unconstitutional violation of the 2nd amendment. But the government appealed directly to the Supremes, and Miller's lawyer couldn't find his client when the time came (Miller was found a few weeks after the trial, dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest).

The lawyer didn't want to go to the extreme preparation necessary for a Supreme Court hearing for an uninterested client, so booted the whole thing. The govt lawyers took advantage of this windfall, and read several lies into the record, including:

1.) The 2nd protects only military-style weapons;
2.) Miller's short-barrelled shotgun wasn't a military-style weapon;
3.) The 1934 NFA was only a revenue-raising law.

The justices basically rubber-stamped these fibs into an Opinion. The opinion is loaded with phrases like, "It is not within judicial notice that" and "no evidence has been presented to refute", meaning that no one had refuted the statements of the prosecution. Hardly surprising since no one from the defense even showed up.

And every major Federal gun-control law since, has cited the Miller case as a precedent.

IMHO there's a very good reason Sotomayor didn't mention the Miller case. The leftists want as little atention paifd to that case as possible... because any review of it in a subsequent case by the Supreme Court, would inevitably see it overturned. And the entire house of cards that is Federal "gun control", would come tumbling down, once the Supremes started ruling the laws unconstitutional, as they should have long ago.

You also bring up the rest of the VERY salient points about Miller, and the 2nd Amendment in general. You also correctly point out that almost every case since has cited Miller, yet as I'm sure you're aware, the courts which are populated with "activist" Judges like Sotomayor have consistantly mis-cited the salient parts of the decision.

The only 'exception' that I would take to what you've said relates to your note that Miller protects only military style weapons.

While the court did specifically note weapons that were part of the "normal military equipment", they also were quite clear to note those arms that "could contribute to the common defense", and as such, nearly ANY civilian firearm, whether it be a handgun of suitable caliber, a shotgun of suitable gauge, or damned near any hunting rifle fits nicely into that catagory, and therefore my not be restricted.

I'm glad to see that there's at least one other 2nd Amendment scholar here on the forum. Perhaps between the two of us we can educate some of the lesser educated members.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Hey, what do you expect from her? She's clearly a perfect example of "a product of affirmative action"!

Yeah....I'm sure Jeff Sessions supports that message.....being the average, ordinary, garden-variety white-trash he is.

​