About Me

Name: Marked in Pgh
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Sonia Sotomayor is So Much Solid Manure

She was shoveling with both hands and kicking with both feet this week.  It was a solid broadside of crap.  Her defenders say her comments were taken out of context.  How can her "Wise Latina" comment suffer from being taken out of context when she stated it seven different times?  Of course she meant it, and that makes her a racist and a sexist.  She must have felt so humuliated being cross examined by all those white men massed before her at the hearings.  Also, who was that white man sitting next to her?  Oh, that was her father, who is white, and so is So Much Solid Manure.
 
Talk about a rebel without a cause, she's a rebel without a clue.  She is insisting on a specificity without a definition.  Latino or Hispanic are social short hand for socialist propaganda and there is no single monolithic Hispanic vote.  There are Cubans, Mexicans, Costa Rican, Columbians, Hondurans, Brazilians and Dominicans; but they are all not all one ethnic or racial group.  In fact, the Brazilians speak Portugese, not Spanish.  But let's not confuse the clueless with facts.  She is a white woman insisting on an additional groupism and has used it as the only justification for her advancement through her life.  She even associated herself with a racist organiztion, La Raza, to promote her victim status.  If you want to know my opinion on La Raza, check out my posting on this organization.
 
What was even more insulting, was her one moment of clarity and honesty; when she admitted that judges set policy (pass law) from the bench when she said "I know I'm on tape and we're not supposed to say this but..."  Now she denies it all.  She should never be confirmed for this comment alone. 
 
We have a legal system consiting of two parts, Satutory Law is passed by the Legislature of the United States and the state legislatures, while Common Law is created by court decisions.  Both are subject to the Constitution, not international law or the whims of pompous *ss legislatures or jurists. 
 
It's a way to build a wall between ourselves and our worst tendencies.  This wall consists of the bricks placed there as laws passed by our supposedly representative legislatures and the gaps between the bricks are sealed with the mortar of court decisons for specificity, of the law, not personal agendas.  How can that wall stand if it is made up of substandard mortar?  Sotomayor is an example of such substandard, watery mortar and should be rejected. 
 
P.S. to her B.S.: Manure makes a very poor mortar, but keep on shoveling Sotomayor. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Reasonableness and the Courts

The Supreme Court this week threw out the D.C. gun ban, but only by a 5 to 4 ruling.  Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said there is no ambiquity, gun ownership and thus the keeping and bearing of arms is an individual right.  Justice Scalia is right, because he and the other conservative justices are wise and learned justices who respect the Constitution, but not the four who voted for the gun band.   Justice Kenndy, again, was the swing vote, opening and closing on our rights.  The question is what took so long?  Since when can a power of a free people, as a group, a militia, not be the right of an individual militia man and be taken all the way to the Supreme Court to decide in a majority ruling?  In an Obama dominated court, will this individual right be so easily canceled by a simple majority of unelcted bureaucrats in robes?

The preamble to the Constition begins with "We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice..."  Though it does not state every person, the individual is explicit, as he is in the Second Amendment.  The people and the individual have the right to keep and bear arms in order to self-drill himself and themselves in the use of weapons as part of the militia which, as its author George Mason said, "is the whole of the people" wherein the individual is still explicitly included in a right that was first protected in the Virginia Bill of Rights.

Now the Justices say gun control may be reasonable.  But what is reasonable when it comes to the Federal government?  If it took this long to confirm the clearly stated individual right in the Second Amendment, because of a distortion of semantics, leads me to ask the following question.  How can the Federal govenment be trusted with anything reasonable?  Hamilton allowed that no one could predict how the Congress would go about such control of guns as to safety in Federalist Paper 29.  Still, he and the other founders so concerned with individual liberty would not tolerate the constant assaults on this unalienable right by Congress and the courts.  The government has proved itself untrustworthy of that stewardship.  At least the members of the House and Senate are nominally elected by us.  However, safety does not mean infringing the individual's rights to the encroaching will of the Federal government.

We, the American people, have the ongoing duty to safeguard our right to guns and to protet ourselves against our own government.  Why else would Hamilton say, in Federalist Paper 29, in regard to the proposed army "that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens (italics added)....the best possible security against it, if it should exist."   An armed citizenship is always the best counter balance to an ever expanding government.  The courts have no right, as unelected and unanswerable lawmakers, to even consider gun contol of any kind, or as arbiters of the self-evident and inalienalbe right to the keeping and bearing of arms by the individual citizens of America.  That right, the People and America all existed before the creation of the Fedral government and the Federal courts by the Constitution and will never be subsumed to them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Community Standards? In the Federal District?

The Supreme Court is hearing a case against a gun ban in the District of Columbia.  Liberals, like Obama, are now saying, though they are for people keeping arms, community standards should be considered.  What community standards are there within the Federal District of Columbia, directly administered by the Federal government?  If there is any place in America where the people have the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated (self regulated, self drilled) Militia, it is within the Federal District, as an impediment to the ever increasing power of the Federal government.
 
Sophists on the Left always try to trip us up with new variations on the same misinformation.  Perhaps they are simply conveying their own stupidity.  What exactly did Obama learn at Harvard Law School before becoming, not surprisingly, a community organizer trying to infringe on the Constitution by organizing special interest groups called communities?  It wasn't fine points of law, only the fine shading of meaning in rhetorical debate.  Or maybe he sees a difference in citizens of the various states and those within the District of Columbia?  After all, the residents of the District of Columbia can not have officers appointed by their resident state as emphasized by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper 29, because they are not residents of any of the various states.  They are still full and individual citizens.  The people (citizens) of D.C. are protected by the Second Amendment, as they are part of the Militia and the Militia is the whole of the people, according to George Mason, the author of the Virginia Bill of Rights, which was the model for the Constitution's Bill of Rights.  They are citizens of the Federal District who still have the right to keep and bear arms, even in the shadow of the Federal buildings of Washington.  That has nothing to do with simply manipulated community standards, it has everything to do with Constitutional rights.  Right now, the only people who have the right to keep and bear arms, to be secure in their homes in Washington, D.C., are criminals and some government workers and officials.  The government officials think they have the right as Federal workers.  The criminals simply ignore the laws.  Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between the two local,  privileged classes.
 
The Supreme Court, the Ninth Federal Circus Clowns of Appeal or any other federal courts have no jurisdiction relating to the possible infringement of the Second Amendment.  The First Amendment clearly forbids Congress from making any law restricting First Amendment rights.  The Second Amendment is not so limited to restricting just Congress.  The Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."  In the amendment, the people and State (states) are mentioned and are clearly not the parties to the Constitution being restricted or infringed upon.  It was supposed to restrict/constrict the whole of the prospective new Federal government, including the Executive and Judiciary branches.  All Federal regulations and all court cases infringing on the same subject are thus null and void.  This means the Supreme Court has no right to decide a case involving the Federal District, nor can the Federal government make any restrictions within the District of Columbia, as the entire Federal government is denied from making any infringement of Constitutional rights.  In this case, that is the Second Amendment right to keep and bear Arms.
 
Some will argue the Second Amendment is restricted to Congress.  There is no such impediment in the Second Amendment.  Both the First and Second Amendments are single sentences.  The subject being curtailed in the First is Congress.  The subject being curtailed in the Second is the whole of the Federal government.
 
The Second Amendment is as all restricting in regard to the entire Federal government as the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are and can never be violated.  It can certainly not be restricted by community standards, which violates a free State from below and a free people  and Militia from above.  Nor can it be infringed by the Federal government, including the Supreme Court and any other Federal courts, only protected.  Better yet, it should be left alone. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »