Sotomayor and Oregon...

[jeddedia]

So I know this may not be directly related to firearms, but seeing as how Sonia Sotomayor is a huge gun-ban advocate I had to post this.
Recently I sent an email to our state senators, and Mr. Jeff Merkley wrote me back an email this morning. I seem to have lost the original mail to him, but I basically urged to not to vote for Sotomayor's election into the Supreme Court.

Dear Chris,

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

After careful evaluation, I have decided to support the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is called upon to decide cases which weigh competing public priorities and resolve conflicting democratic values. To handle such cases properly, justices not only must be intelligent, learned, and experienced, but should also be sensitive to the practical effects that their rulings have on average people. In speaking with Judge Sotomayor and again in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I was struck by her attention to detail, breadth of understanding, and respect for precedent. Through her long service on the bench, she has demonstrated a firm commitment to the Constitution and its abiding principles. For these reasons, I believe that she will be well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. While we may disagree about this nomination, Oregonians can always expect me to listen to their concerns and to be honest and straightforward with my answers. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

All my best,
Jeff Merkley
United States Senate


Just thought I'd put this out there, we need folks to start writing and calling, flood his office with emails and letters.

Read More

 

[hapuna]

Well I thought it was good that he didn't pander to you and imply that he would give your letter a lot of thought blah blah blah. He was clear on what he was going to do and why(though you may disagree). I like that in a politician.

 

[Weathermaker]

Hmmm. Politician yada, yada, yada. He's also voted against National Reciprocity.

 

[61henry]

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. While we may disagree about this nomination, Oregonians can always expect me to listen to their concerns and to be honest and straightforward with my answers. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

We will continue to keep him in mind so when the next election rolls around we'll remember these times and vote his butt out of office and elect some one into his office that really will "listen to our concerns".

 

[jeddedia]

We will continue to keep him in mind so when the next election rolls around we'll remember these times and vote his butt out of office and elect some one into his office that really will "listen to our concerns".

Oh I agree!

 

[61henry]

Hey Jeddedia,
I see that you are in McMinnville, I guess we are neighbors.

 

[jeddedia]

Hey Jeddedia,
I see that you are in McMinnville, I guess we are neighbors.

My friend's farm is out in Sheridan not far from the FCI, sighted in my 300 Win Mag last week out there so if you hear the crack of a Gentry muzzle breaked Ruger 77 that was me!

 

[61henry]

I'm on Cherry Hill rd a few miles out of Sheridan, I have a .300 Weatherby mag but don't shoot it here at home, not enough room.

 

[capdek]

Here's the email I sent to Merkley and Wyden (a slightly modified form email suggested by GOA) on the same topic and Merkley's exact same response:

If you honor your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and you respect the view of both the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Americans that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, then you must vote against confirming Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court!

This choice for the Supreme Court is totally unacceptable! Consider a partial rendering of her anti-gun record:

* Judge Sotomayor ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right."

* Judge Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which stated in April that the Second Amendment does apply to the states. Moreover, she indirectly references two 19th century Supreme Court precedents for reaching this decision, but fails to acknowledge that the Supreme Court of that time also ruled that the First Amendment didn't apply to the states either!

* Judge Sotomayor has held very anti-gun views, even as far back as the 1970s. Fox Cable News reported on May 28 that in her senior thesis at Princeton University, she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

The current Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does imply an individual right, and this decision is consistent with the view of over 75% of Americans. It is quite clear Judge Sotomayor disagrees with both the Supreme Court and the vast majority of Americans. To appoint such a person to the Supreme Court would be an insult to the Constitution and to democracy itself!

We will consider a vote in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the most anti-gun vote a Senator could cast. To send such an anti-gun judge to the Supreme Court for the rest of her life is to establish "legislation without representation." After all, she has implied that the courts are where policy is made, and once she's there, we'll never be able to vote her out.

Again, we respectfully request that you respect both the Constitution and democracy, and vote against this dangerous nomination!

Sincerely,

David & Charlotte K.


Dear David,

Thank you for contacting me to share your concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

After careful evaluation, I have decided to support the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is called upon to decide cases which weigh competing public priorities and resolve conflicting democratic values. To handle such cases properly, justices not only must be intelligent, learned, and experienced, but should also be sensitive to the practical effects that their rulings have on average people. In speaking with Judge Sotomayor and again in her testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I was struck by her attention to detail, breadth of understanding, and respect for precedent. Through her long service on the bench, she has demonstrated a firm commitment to the Constitution and its abiding principles. For these reasons, I believe that she will be well-qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. While we may disagree about this nomination, Oregonians can always expect me to listen to their concerns and to be honest and straightforward with my answers. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

All my best,
Jeff Merkley
United States Senate


So even though Judge Sotomayor believes - and has voted to codify - that an individual does not have a right to keep and bear arms - thus violating her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, and even though this view is at odds with the vast majority of Americans in our democratic form of government, Mr. Merkley thinks it is perfectly acceptable to nominate this radical to the SCOTUS for life! What does that say about Senator Merkley's commitment to our Constitution and to our democracy?

 

[Jamie6.5]

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me. While we may disagree about this nomination, Oregonians can always expect me to listen to their concerns and to be honest and straightforward with my answers. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.

Translation:
Despite what you may think you know, I am from the Government and I know whats best for you.
We are from the Government and we know whats best,......
Because of this I will continue to do what my political party associates tell me to do.

Oh, and,.. Thanks for writing!

 

[swampertwo]

Translation:
Despite what you may think you know, I am from the Government and I know whats best for you.
We are from the Government and we know whats best,......
Because of this I will continue to do what my political party associates tell me to do.

Oh, and,.. Thanks for writing!

SIGH, sadly how true

 

[Stomper]

Well if these dopes who are "appointed for life" get so far out of hand and enrage the people to the point that they rise up (i.e. get all "ACORN" in front of their houses and families' houses), revolt, and use force, they may wind up inflicting upon themselves the "cure" for a "lifetime appointment"... not that I advocate such an event mind you.

 

[jeddedia]

Well if these dopes who are "appointed for life" get so far out of hand and enrage the people to the point that they rise up (i.e. get all "ACORN" in front of their houses and families' houses), revolt, and use force, they may wind up inflicting upon themselves the "cure" for a "lifetime appointment"... not that I advocate such an event mind you.

I talk to folks every day that are not happy with the current state of affairs and it always is evident that one thing is missing; a common goal or cause that we can fight for. American citizens want 'change' but are unwilling to fight for it, always content to rest on their laurels and let the government and media decide what's best. YES, We are all OUTRAGED! YES, we need a unifying CAUSE, with a definitive RESULT!

But realize that it won't come easy, and it won't fall in your lap. In my very humble opinion I think that by the time our nation's citizens realize we've elected cowards and criminals it will be too late to reverse the damage.

I am only stating my opinions, not trying to start a resistance or rally or get anyone's feathers in a ruffle. But why don't "We the People" wake up, why don't we fight anymore, why are we content to watch 'reality' television and idolize Hollywood? And when will it (or has it already) get out of hand?
My two sense...

 

[Stomper]

Well I share your frustration in many regards, but the reason the you don't see (perceive) more outrage is because the working citizens (the back bone of our country) are too busy trying to make a living, get their (growing) taxes paid, stay out of trouble, raise their families, and so forth. Unfortunately (yet fortunately) Americans are (generally) slow to wrath... when it gets to a point that everyone is choking on Government regulations/intrusions and they see their paychecks evaporate (almost completely) BEFORE they even get them on "net payday", you will see a FULL-ON revolt (I dare say)... hopefully by then things can be turned around barring outside/foreign invasion/interference.

 

[Trlsmn]

I talk to folks every day that are not happy with the current state of affairs and it always is evident that one thing is missing; a common goal or cause that we can fight for. American citizens want 'change' but are unwilling to fight for it, always content to rest on their laurels and let the government and media decide what's best. YES, We are all OUTRAGED! YES, we need a unifying CAUSE, with a definitive RESULT!

I've always held the belief that so long as people are eating they will not rise up, the day people go hungry we may see an uprising until then I have my doubts.

 

[tionico]

Actually, there IS precedent for removing, or threatening to remove, a dysfunctional judge. I believe it was in the rehash over Marbury vs Madison this threat was held over the head of the justices on the Supreme Court to go back and revisit their decision, and make it right. You see, the Senate has the power to approve and seat a justice. Since they have the power to put one IN, they also have the power to take one OUT.

However, one problem: can you imagine a Senate such as the one now seated actually backtracking, once having approved this woman's nomination and swearing in, and removing her from office? Not THIS Senate, no way. A goodly number of the present senators would have to be replaced by folks with backbone. Given the present political climate, not bloody likely, I should say.