Conservative judges agree with Sotomayor on gun ruling, but Fox's Bream doesn't tell you that
SUMMARY: Shannon Bream reported that "gun rights advocates have major concerns" about a ruling in which Sonia Sotomayor held that "states can ban gun ownership." But Bream did not note that conservative judges have also held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.
During the July 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Supreme Court correspondent Shannon Bream reported that "gun rights advocates have major concerns, given a ruling from [Judge Sonia] Sotomayor earlier this year in which she held that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states, meaning states can ban gun ownership." But Bream did not note that the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- in a decision written by Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and joined by Judge Richard Posner, both conservatives appointed by President Reagan -- also held that the Second Amendment did not apply to the states.
As a June 16 New York Times article reported:
On June 2, a three-judge panel of the court, led by Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook, a well-known conservative, ruled that there was no basis for the court to apply the Second Amendment to the states. Such a decision, Judge Easterbrook wrote, should be made only by the Supreme Court, not at the appellate level.
The right of states to make their own decisions on such matters, Judge Easterbrook wrote, "is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon."
Bream and Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace have previously distorted Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment.
From the July 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BREAM: Senators on both sides of the aisle wanted to know just where Sotomayor stands on gun rights and the Second Amendment. Today she tried to reassure her critics.
SOTOMAYOR [video clip]: Like you, I understand that -- how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans. In fact, one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA, and I have friends who hunt.
BREAM: But gun rights advocates have major concerns, given a ruling from Sotomayor earlier this year in which she held that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states, meaning states can ban gun ownership. In that decision, Sotomayor says she relied on precedent -- the same principle that guided Sotomayor and her fellow judges on the circuit court when they decided against a group of white firefighters from Connecticut.
The second amendment prevents Congress from banning guns, but not the individual states. There are several towns in Illinois where handguns are banned, for instance, like Winnetka. For the record, my personal belief is that there are plenty of gun laws on the books, and most of our problems stem from a lack of enforcement of existing statutes.
I like how she called us (Americans) "common people" who don't know the definition of FUNDAMENTAL! Condescending and elitist.
She's the perfect reflection of Barry Obama.
see, you only think that her responses are muttering and rambling, thats because your first language is wingnuttery. in oder to understand judge Sotomayor's answers you must speak the common english. thats a language where logic and truth are key components. try any local community college and i think that can help you out with an english as a second language course.
which includes this terrifying line in a pitch to separate frightened people from their money (towards an NRA membership);
Thank you to all that have joined because every member counts. Soon the Wise Latina will be packing to head to the Supreme Court. You know she is not a friend of the 2nd Amendment
The offer includes a newsletter from the U.S. Concealed carry Association. I'm not too comfortable with the idea of the Human Events base, most of whom probably aren't allowed to operate an automobile, carrying concealed weapons.
but just in case the above threat of the anti-gun Wise Latina doesn't work, here's a little bonus pavlovian pablum;
It is simple: Join if you like guns and you want to keep them. Join or become like Chicago, New York, Detroit, Los Angles, and Boston where the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been destroyed.
THose look like a buncha liberal hell holes. I'd think the red states would have taken over those unarmed and un-American bastions of bolshevikism, if they weren't so busy waiting on hold for hours to talk to am radio hosts and trying to make the early-bird dinner in the same day.
Your dittoborg retorts are moldy and you're in dire need of some new material. Maybe less time on this forum and more logged on the Letterman show will freshen you up a bit.
Are you really the same guy that used to post enlightened thought provoking posts?
Well, it's clear they weren't from you. The tip off was "enlightened".
Conservatives think that the Second Amendment right to bear arms should apply to the states as it does the federal government. This is a sensible and meritorious argument. But whatever conservatives wish the law should be or think is politically the best result doesn't comport with the present state of the law. The doctrine of incorporation has been used by the Supreme Court to gradually extend individual provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. (Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court regularly held that the Bill of Rights only served to restrict the federal government, not the states.)
To date, the Supreme Court has not overturned prior rulings that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Sotomayor acknowledged this in her ruling. For her or any other judge to rule otherwise would be a shining, clear-cut case of judicial activism. Yet conservatives claim she is an activist by not ruling against Supreme Court precedent.
It's becoming increasingly clear that the real meaning of "judicial activism" is judicial rulings that aren't Conservatively Correct.