There's a meme wending its way around internet forums and the like that she'll recuse herself, since she already ruled at the circuit court level that the Second Amendment does not restrict the power of states to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Some seem to be under the impression that she ruled on McDonald, which she did not (she ruled on Maloney v. Rice), and because of that, the prospect of overruling herself will present a judicial ethics conflict. [More]Today's Gun Rights Examiner column does not place great stock in Ms. Sotomayor's judicial ethics.
Also get an update on the documentary about gun rights activists, get a reminder on this weekend's WorldNetDaily article, and access the latest from my fellow GREs.
Tell a friend?
When she made that "wise latina" comment, and I found out that she ruled against the 2A, I knew that she had no judicial ethics, and that was exactly what Obama and Congress wanted.
ReplyDeleteMarkie Marxist sez: "Ethics? What's that? Oh yeah, that's the thing that non-Marxists trip themselves up with. We Marxists don't bother with that nonsense. Sotomayor should have no problem installing herself on the case. Marxism means never having to say we're sorry, because we never are."
ReplyDeleteTechnically, Sotomayor is under no obligation to recuse herself in this case, since the one she decided isn't on appeal.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the result, this case is going to be very interesting, and will have implications far beyond gun rights, possibly bringing the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities clause back from the dead.
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/10/02/supreme-court-considering-landmark-2nd-amendment-gun-case/
I'd say the odds are better that the world explodes due to asteroid strike within the next 3 days.
ReplyDelete