search
top

Where To Stand on Sotomayor

The GOP is pissed the NRA isn’t jumping in head first battling, taking the position:

But a spokesman for the organization said it’s staying on the sidelines for now.

“Right now we have a lot of concerns and questions and we hope to have those addressed during the confirmation hearing and throughout the process,” said Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman. “As far as our actions, we reserve the right to do anything based on what we find out.

“All options are on the table,” he added. “As we speak today, we’re waiting for the confirmation process. A research team is looking into her record on our issue.”

No doubt they are also going to be taking a close look at the possible alternatives that would come behind Sotomayor if she is rejected by the Senate.  Jim Shepherd thinks she ought to be fought:

Fresh off the win for concealed carry in federal parks, it seems the pro-gun groups are content to take the short-term victory, and let what looks like a losing battle pass without any pushback whatsoever on Judge Sotomayor. This is despite the fact that she has consistently been anti-gun in her decisions. Even in a decidedly thin body of work, her position on firearms has been clear – she’s again’ em for “average folks”

I am not sure Sotomayor is the worst we could get.  She is a political choice, meaning she’s intended to please constituencies in the Democratic Party.  From the point of view of left-wing legal theory, there are greater legal minds Obama could have picked for the seat, even if it was his intention to nominate a woman.  There’s no doubt in my mind that Sotomayor will be a reliable leftist vote on the court, but I don’t think she’ll be an intellectual leader, in the way Justice Stevens has been for example.

My worry in scuttling Sotomayor is what’s behind her, waiting in the wings if she’s not confirmed.  Given that, I think caution is prudent.  The best we could hope to get out of this administration is that Obama digs up someone who hasn’t said much or anything about the Second Amendment, and they say the right things during the confirmation process.   That, however, is no guarantee they’ll be a pro-gun vote on The Court.  In the philosophy of the left-wing legal establishment, there is no room for an individual right to bear arms.  That cuts to the heart their very collectivist core.  For that reason, I don’t believe we will get a pro-gun Justice out of President Obama, no matter what we do.

The key to saving the Heller majority is ensuring that Barack Obama is a one term president, and I don’t care if that means I have to vote and volunteer for Mitt “The Sh*t” Romney.  When the greater evil is an unashamed socialist, any lesser one will do.

UPDATE: See this article by Patrick Ruffini.  I think he makes a good case for fighting her nomination, but correctly points out:

Supreme Court fights are inherently elite D.C. fights. Don’t expect voters, even Latino voters, to passionately engage. Most people correctly perceive the Court as being far removed and even irrelevant to their daily life and whether they will keep their job — and that’s as it should be. Has there ever been a mass movement for or against a Court nominee, even a Thurgood Marshall, a Sandra Day O’Connor, or a Clarence Thomas?

I think that’s actually a significant problem for the pro-gun movement, with these kinds of nomination fights.  Getting the grass roots fired up (and no, a handful of people on the Internet does not constitute the grass roots.  People who read blogs, forums, etc, actually tend to be more in the “elite” crowd discussed here.) is a particular problem.  Also keep in mind that Ruffini is speaking from a GOP point of view, and I’m speaking as a single issue activist that has to work with Democrats to survive in this Congress.  I agree with Ruffini that the GOP, and gun rights folks, can’t just roll over on Sotomayor’s record, but at the end of the day, there’s other considerations as to whether arms get twisted on the eventual vote.

19 Responses to “Where To Stand on Sotomayor”

  1. The NRA is the only organization offering competent resistance to the Marxist Messiah, any GOPer complaining about the NRA needs to STFU and worry about getting their own house in order first.

  2. NJSoldier says:

    It’s not a worthwhile fight right now. Just pray for the health of the good judges for at least 4 years – hopefully not 8.

  3. luckytexan says:

    I respectfully disagree with you on opposing Sotomayer’s nomination. If she is opposed because her judicial philosophy goes against constitutional principles (and that case is pretty easy to make), then future nominees would probably be more towards the middle, not farther left.

    If there is no opposition, then the natural thing to do in the future is to name nominees that are farther left and farther left until you find the point where people say “enough is enough.”

    There have been massive outcries against Supreme Court nominees, namely Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas, and in both cases the opposition was based on purely partisan politics. Bork’s failed nomination resulted in the Republicans nominating more middle of the road judges to the Supreme Court. There’s no reason to think the Democrats would do otherwise.

    Now, Sotomayer shouldn’t be opposed simply because she was nominated by the other side. Many pro-RTBA’s may look at her and decide they can live with her. But to say she shouldn’t be opposed because if she isn’t confirmed then the “runner-up nominee” could be worse doesn’t make any sense.

  4. Caleb says:

    Well what did the GOA think, that Obama was going to nominate John Bolton or something?

  5. Sebastian says:

    I should be clear that I’m not advocating non-opposition to Sotomayor at this point. I would note, however, the Democratic opposition to Bork saved the Second Amendment. Kennedy was eventually nominated after Bork was defeated, and Bork would have voted to gut the Second Amendment.

  6. luckytexan says:

    Thanks for clearing that up, Sebastian. I’m probably not reading your posts on this subject thoroughly enough, as I came away with the thought that you didn’t think pro-RTBA’s should oppose Sotomayer. I appreciate you setting me straight.

    You’re right about Bork, Although he is known for “original intent” in interpreting the Constitution, he somehow didn’t think that it applied to the 2nd Amendment. I was simply pointing out that opposition against him changed the type of nominees that were put forth later on.

    I enjoy your blog. Its one of the few I check in on everyday. Keep up the good work!

  7. Sebastian says:

    Thanks! I think there are a lot of good points for fighting her nomination. Tactically, I think the GOP probably should make things difficult for her.

  8. Andy says:

    You know, given the current outcry from particular corners of Washington, it may be prudent for the NRA to simply watch for a period and have their ammunition at the ready, so to speak. If she gets tossed for other reasons, there’s no reason for the NRA to be associated with it.

  9. The Packetman says:

    Just another reason I won’t join the NRA ……… they don’t want to fight all the fights for our rights, just the ones they think they can win.

    Good thing we don’t fight wars that way ……..

    pm

  10. Sebastian says:

    I just call that prudent.

  11. mike123 says:

    Don’t spit on the Latina in the corner, unless you are ready to be on her bad side forever. FOREVER! Latina’s don’t forgive or forget, ever.

    Its best we gun folk sit on the side and let the Republicans do the heavy lifting for a change. Its unlikely anyone can stop her from getting on SCOTUS, so why burn bridges.

  12. Sebastian says:

    Don’t spit on the Latina in the corner, unless you are ready to be on her bad side forever. FOREVER! Latina’s don’t forgive or forget, ever.

    Isn’t that a bit of a stereotype? You know, like we all have bad teeth and beat our wives?

  13. ATL says:

    I think the GOP has a lot of nerve getting peeved at the NRA when they were not ready to filibuster her nomination in the first place. Why is she even considered for an up or down vote when she should be kept in committee. The GOP better understand they can’t get everyone else to do their heavy lifting for them. Why not call on Colin Powell or Tom Ridge to help out? They seem to be so helpful pushing through Republican policies of late…..LOL!

  14. Mike123 says:

    You don’t beat your wife? Why not?

    Let me rephrase the statement ……… if gun owners come out and aggressively work against her and she gets on SCOTUS, do you think she will be friendly to our cause or unfriendly?

    Hint from Macavelli – Men should be either treated generously or destroyed, because they take revenge for slight injuries – for heavy ones they cannot.

    The Republicans want to damage her reputation, not stop her confirmation. The NRA would be wise not to participate in that stupid and short sighter exercise.

  15. BadIdeaGuy says:

    I think Mike123 had it about right with “…the Republicans want to damage her reputation, not stop her confirmation”.

    I tend to agree, starting with that douche Souter. He’s like Specter, wanting to fight to be the first RINO to be part of the Obama Revolution. F-him and his sorry Kelo-posterior.

    I don’t think they can stop her nomination, though I heartily disagree on the nominee.

  16. Joe D. says:

    Sebastian,

    Very good assessment of the present situation…Let’s see how the new and improved GOP reacts during the confirmation process…so far I”ve seen more opposition from the “Blue Dog” Democrats…

    Joe

  17. The Packetman says:

    I think luckytexan has it correct.
    The GOP, by virtue of their numbers, cannot stop Sotomayor’s confirmation ….. they’ll need defections from the democrats, and that’s where the NRA comes in.

    The NRA needs to make a supreme court nomination a party-level event, and let all those blue-dogs know that a Sotomayor confirmation will take EVERY democrats’ NRA rating down.

    Now, what if every member of the NRA started calling their representatives (yes, even the house) and started raising hell? You don’t think there would be some representatives calling their colleagues in the senate and letting them know ‘Hey, maybe she’s not the right choice’?

    You’re being myopic thinking that we shouldn’t fight that hard for a suprome court pick; given that the appointment is for life, we (and the NRA) need to fight even harder to try to block.
    pm

    • Bitter says:

      what if every member of the NRA started calling their representatives (yes, even the house) and started raising hell

      The staff would think gun owners were uneducated hicks who don’t understand how the system works. Perhaps not the answer you want to hear, but it’s the honest one.

  18. Brad says:

    Why the fight over the court is important.

    Even if we can’t stop Sotomayor from reaching the court, even if a stopped Sotomayor is replaced with someone even worse, it is still worth fighting to stop Sotomayor if she is anti-gun.

    Sotomayor will not be the only justice Obama will appoint to the court. So it is important to put the Senate on notice that where justices stand on gun rights is important to voters. Sotomayor must be grilled during confirmation on gun rights. Wishy washy Senators must be forced to vote and reveal their true position on gun rights.

    All of this activity will alarm the Senate, inform the voters and put a shot across the bow of the White House. Gun rights are at a crucial and fragile stage right now in the hands of the Supreme Court. D.C. v Heller was decided by a vote of 5 to 4! So the composition of our Court is vital in determining the shape of our gun rights for the future.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Brady Campaign Backs Sotomayor Nomination | Bucks Right - [...] Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell reported last week that conservatives were chafed at the NRA’s hands-off attitude toward the…
top