Will Sonia Sotomayor be an activist judge, or, not?

I just dug up this bit about Sotomayor. I'm not too big on guns. But I've been hearing some things about Sotomayor so I decided to give it a look at it myself.

Could conservatives be right?

Or, are they simply just talking trash, about a liberal Democrat?

Could there be truth to all of this? Or is it partisan bickering?

It turns out that Sonia Sotomayor doesn't think that the right to own guns applies to State or Local governments. As I did some research this is what I found:

Equally troubling is Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments. At issue was a New York ban on various weapons, including nunchucks. After last year's District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down DC's handgun ban, attention turned to whether state and local gun control laws might violate the Second Amendment as well.

"It is settled law," Sotomayor and the Second Circuit held, "that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right." But contrast that with the Ninth Circuit's decision last month in Nordyke v. King, which reached a very different conclusion, one that matches the Second Amendment's text, original meaning, and history:

We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the "true palladium of liberty." Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.

www.reason.com...

So she thinks that the government can control the second amendment to bend it any way they want to. Is this right? Can they do this?

I don't know what to say about this one.

So, I ask will she be an activist judge or not? I'm kind of concerned about this.

I don't like having people in our office who have an agenda of limiting rights.

[edit on 23-7-2009 by Frankidealist35]

Yes, she is an activist judge and will legislate from the bench. Major win for the progressives.

Her entire history reeks of her being a legislator judge and it's a shame she's even being considered, not because of her ideas (it wouldn't matter if she was more conservative than Anne Colture) but because it's simply wrong.

I really would like to know how many democrats support her. I have faith in the general intelligence of the individuals who make up the voting population, so how do people like this keep rising to the top? Is it that people don't realize that it's wrong to make laws from a judges bench? Or because people are so caught up with advancing their own ideas that they are willing to sacrifice the checks and balances that are essential to preserving our government? And I know you may be scoffing at that last one, but it's true. Every time a judge does anything but interpret the law, they are trampling the Constitution and making a mockery of the general public who are being deprived of their right to have their laws made by elected representatives.

reply to post by avingard


Almost every judge makes new laws from the bench. Please take a civics class.

Btw, what is an "activist judge," anyways?

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by avingard

 

Almost every judge makes new laws from the bench. Please take a civics class.

Btw, what is an "activist judge," anyways?

Just because almost every judge makes laws from the bench (not true, but alright) doesn't make it right. The judicial branch interprets the law, that's it.

Article I, Section I of the Constitution:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

An "activist judge" is one who rules based on their own politics rather than an unbiased interpretation of the law in order to further their own agenda.

I don't understand why I need to take a civics class. If you really think judges make new laws, then it's more understandable why people think activist judges are acceptable (assuming you represent an average citizen, which I suppose you do).

Originally posted by avingard

Originally posted by Kaytagg
reply to post by avingard

 

Almost every judge makes new laws from the bench. Please take a civics class.

Btw, what is an "activist judge," anyways?

Just because almost every judge makes laws from the bench (not true, but alright)

I don't understand why I need to take a civics class. If you really think judges make new laws, then it's more understandable why people think activist judges are acceptable (assuming you represent an average citizen, which I suppose you do).

every lawyer knows that judges make law — it's their job. In fact, law students learn in the first semester that almost all tort law (governing accidental injuries), contract law and property law are made by judges. Legislatures did not create these rules; judges did, and they continue to do so when they revise the rules over time.

www.usatoday.com...


You should take a civics class, or perhaps better yet, a law class, so you know these things. It's common knowledge (at least, it should be).

Unfortunately, some people don't know this, and get all huffy puffy when they hear the MSM use scare tactics on the bewildered ignorant herd of Americans that spend their time watching football games, keeping up with fashion trends, and buying useless items from walmart to keep themselves happy.

Please don't be one of these people.

reply to post by Kaytagg


I reiterate, just because it is common does not make it right. Your quote is from an editorial from a MSM source, and while I don't deny it, I insist that it is wrong. I would refer you again to Article I, Section I.

But I know where you're coming from, and maybe I should clarify. I understand that judges do make precedent and it is impossible to deny that, to a certain extent, interpretation must cause some degree of subtle legislation to take place, but there is a distinct and important difference between setting precedent based on a strict interpretation and actively steering based on personal politics.

Also, I am not so concerned with civil law, which is by it's very nature highly variable simply because each and every incident is distinct. I'm speaking of substantial issues where a judgement can be just as good as legislature.

And please don't assume that I'm ignorant. Unless you're a lawyer or otherwise uniquely qualified, I am certain that you aren't better educated on the role of the judicial branch than I am (not to imply that I know more than you). I have taken both civics and law classes; just because my opinion doesn't align with yours doesn't make me ignorant, or part of any given herd, or more likely to believe any given news story, or a football fan, or any more or less fashionable than you, or a Walmart shopper.

There are reasons for legitimate concern over Sotomayor's appointment and so I reserve the right to be concerned.

Back on the issue, would you like to defend Sotomayor? I would be eager to hear (really I would) as I've yet to hear a really convincing argument in her favor.