Yet another troubling decision....

For those of you who think that the Second Amendment protects your right to own a weapon, think again. If you think that last year's Supreme Court decision upholding the Second Amendment as an individual right cemented your right to own a weapon, think again. President Barack Obama and prospective Surpeme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor have another idea.

For years, gun control advocates have argued that the 2nd Amendment only protects the rights of militias to own and bear arms, not individuals. However, last year the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the right to own a gun is an individual right an struck down D.C.'s carpet restriction on handguns.

But this decision has not touched the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun ownership rights. You see, according to the judiciary the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states. So while the federal government has a hard time passing strict gun laws, individual states could actually outlaw weapons altogether. Several cases have upheld this precedent - Presser v. Illinois, United States v. Cruikshank, and now Maloney v. Cuomo, a recent decision joined by Sotomayor.

President Obama has made it very public that he wanted his nominee to use "common sense." But could someone please explain to me how applying some parts of the Constitution to the states and not others uses "common sense?" Even without common sense, Article IV of the Constitution states that "this Constitution...shall be the law of the land...and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby." It's known as the supremacy clause. But apparently the Supreme Court thinks state judges are only bound by part of the Constitution.

Now isn't that scary?

Blatant racism from the next Supreme Court Justice

In a 2001 speech entitled "A Latina Judge's Voice," Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said she hopes that "a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs adhered us to read the entire speech in order to get the "full context" of what she was trying to say. Let me just thank Secretary Gibbs for the suggestion, because after reading the speech (click here to read it in its entirety), I am even more outraged that she is even being considered for a life-long appointment to the highest court in the land.

The funniest thing is that a full reading does not make her statement any less offensive. Rather, it makes it worse. She meant it exactly how it reads - that women brought up in Latino families are better judges than their white male counterparts. Late in the speech she appeals to the male students in the audience: "For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach." Read it again. She said that men need to work on their attitudes in order to make themselves capabale of being enlightened. Seriously, those are her words. I'm not distorting, taking them out of context, or leaving anything out.

Need I even ask what would happen if Samuel Alito would have admonished women to work on their attitudes in order to make them capable of enlightenment? Or that white male judges come to better conclusions than female hispanic ones? He would likely be arrested in his first confirmation hearing. But unfortunately Obama and Sotomayor will likely get a pass.

A new justice is nominated...

In looking at President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, let's get a few facts out of the way so we can really get to the heart of the matter. First, I think that the vast majority of people can agree that her education at Princeton and Yale, along with her experience as a prosecutor, US District Court Judge, and federal appellate judge give her the background and experience needed to take her nomination seriously (as opposed to, say, Harriet Meyers). Second, no Democrat will ever nominate a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun judge to the land's highest court, so let's keep the debate away from those issues. Besides, her record (as far as I can tell) is paper-thin on these hot topic issues and nothing has sprouted up (yet) to infer that she is a bleeding-heart liberal.

So, if it is pointless to debate about hot topic issues and qualifications, what is left on which to oppose her appointment to the Supreme Court? Judicial philosophy. What exactly does that mean? It means, simply put, what is her view the role of the Court and its powers? President Obama claimed that he wanted "empathy" in his nominee, “somebody who has common sense and somebody who has a sense of how American society works and how the American people live.” These criterion show Obama's, and presumably Sotomayor's, judicial philosophy. According to them, the Constitution should not be the sole source of reasoning in decisions, but also life experience and empathy. Is this the type of outlook Supreme Court Justices ought to have? Is the Constitution important, or just a document that can be strayed from if "common sense" or "empathy" can be invoked?

Second, Sotomayor's judicial philosophy came to the light of day in a conference in 2005. Sotomayor stated to a group of students that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." (Click here to see it on YouTube). Notice that she says it with a laugh, sarcastically adding that she shouldn't say it on tape because "we don't make law," as if those that believe that judges should not be legislating from the bench are ridiculous. Is there any room to doubt that she has no qualms about ruling as she sees fit, not necessarily as the law and/or Constitution mandate?

How does the Constitution erode? Slowly, piece by piece. One decision at a time. One justice at a time. Sotomayor's confirmation would be one more step towards abandoning the Constitution for the sake of "empathy," "life experience," and "common sense," and put us on the course towards a Supreme Court where policy is made, not interpreted.

In my book, nine unelected policy-makers serving life terms with little adherence to a constitution is not a democracy.

So I just set up my email account to blog from...this is a test...