Another Judge Without A Clue
May 19, 2014 Second Amendment
Imagine if a judge declared that you were only allowed to buy one book a month and that 12 books a year is more than enough. Also imagine that in addition to the limit on the number of books the judge allowed to stand a rule that some books were banned and in order to buy your books you had to go through an extensive and expensive background check and obtain a license to buy the books. Now imagine that once you satisfied these demands you had to (re)register your books every three years.
Sounds like an infringement on your right to participate in free speech. The government is not allowed to ban books or require you to register to buy them. The First Amendment allows people to sell even the vilest pornography and allows you to buy them (reasonable age restrictions aside).
A federal judge upheld a D.C. law requiring guns to be registered every three years, the requirement for fingerprints and photographs of the purchasers/owners and the limit of one handgun purchase per month.
Judge James Boasberg dismissed the challenge to these Draconian (and unconstitutional) laws. It seems that this judge feels it is his duty to decide what protects society and then rule based on his opinion. I am no legal scholar but it seems to me that a judge is required to rule based on the Constitutionality of the issue in question.
People in D.C live in one of the strictest places with regard to gun laws and, like their restrictive allies in places like Chicago, suffer the highest rates of crimes committed with guns. D.C. is not safer because of these gun laws and the way this judge handled the case shows not only he is a disgrace to the bench but he also has no concept of reality.
I am pretty sure how he would have ruled had the case been the scenario I described above and I am absolutely certain how he would have ruled if this case were about restrictions on abortions instead of guns.
The Second Amendment is part of the Constitution and the history regarding the inclusion of that Amendment leaves no doubt what the Founders wanted when they included it.
Unfortunately, we now live in a society where people like this judge dishonor our Founders by violating their oath in the name of feel good (though ineffective) laws that infringe on our very rights.
My advice to people in D.C is to move outside the city limits (but not to Maryland, another Socialist nightmare) to escape the tyranny.
Escape the tax burden and unchain the shackles of tyranny and be free.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: court, DC, gun control, judge, lies, oath breaker
Did Scalia Makes Sotomayor’s Case For Her?
Jun 5, 2009 Political
Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:
“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”
I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.
The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.
One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.
There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.
One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:
I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.
I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?
Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.
But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia
This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?
I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.
Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.
If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.
Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: judge, Obama, scalia, sotomayor, supreme court