Connect with us

Featured

Gun Grabber Sotomayor Admits to Crying Over Cases 

washington-july-13-us-supreme-court

In a startling revelation, Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor admitted to being overwhelmed by her emotions in her chambers following some of the court’s decisions. During a talk at Harvard University’s Radcliffe Institute, where she was receiving an award, Sotomayor, 69, disclosed that she has been brought to tears by the outcomes of certain cases.

“There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried,” Sotomayor confessed. This admission raises serious questions about her emotional stability and her fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court.

Sotomayor refrained from specifying which cases had driven her to tears, but her record of emotional vulnerability is troubling, especially given her track record of opposing Second Amendment rights. For instance, the landmark 2022 Dobbs abortion decision and the striking down of New York’s restrictive concealed carry law were major conservative victories that might have contributed to her emotional distress.

Her evident despair about potential future decisions suggests more conservative victories could be on the horizon, including rulings on former President Donald Trump’s immunity case, two abortion cases, and the use of a federal obstruction statute to charge January 6 rioters.

“There are moments when I’m deeply, deeply sad,” Sotomayor continued. “There are moments when, yes, even I feel desperation.” Such statements from a Supreme Court Justice are alarming, given the importance of impartiality and emotional fortitude in the role.

Justice Sotomayor, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2008, has consistently demonstrated a strong anti-gun stance. Her opposition to the Second Amendment was evident in her disapproval of the Court’s decision to strike down New York’s prior concealed carry law. This law required individuals to prove “proper cause” before being issued a license, a clear infringement on the constitutional right to bear arms.

Her recent comments were made during a discussion with Martha Minow, a former dean of Harvard Law School and human rights scholar. The talk highlighted the ideological shift of the Supreme Court following former President Trump’s appointment of three conservative justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

Sotomayor, the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court and one of the three Democrat-appointed judges alongside Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, urged a focus on future generations. However, her emotional outbursts and steadfast opposition to gun rights raise concerns about her ability to uphold the Constitution impartially.

The Court’s rightward shift has been underscored by unanimous decisions that align with conservative principles, including a recent ruling that the 14th Amendment does not allow states to strip presidential candidates from the ballot. This decision rejected Colorado’s attempt to keep former President Trump off the 2024 presidential ballot.

Justice Sotomayor’s fragile emotional state and her clear bias against Second Amendment rights have prompted calls for her retirement. Pundits and academics argue that President Biden, supported by a Democrat-controlled Senate, should appoint a replacement before the next presidential election.

Sotomayor, born in the same year as the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, grew up in a housing project in the Bronx and was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes at age 8. Despite her personal challenges and significant achievements, her current emotional instability and consistent opposition to constitutional gun rights make her a contentious figure on the Supreme Court.

As America continues to grapple with issues of gun rights and judicial impartiality, Justice Sotomayor’s revelations highlight the need for a steady and constitutionally faithful judiciary. Her emotional vulnerability and anti-Second Amendment stance call into question her ability to serve effectively on the Supreme Court, suggesting it may be time for new leadership that better reflects the foundational principles of the nation.

Is Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fit for service on the Supreme Court? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

(Visited 4 times, 1 visits today)

Featured

Biden’s America: The FBI’s ‘Terror Watch List’ Keeps Growing

Bidens-America-The-FBIs

(GunCountry.com) – The world watched in horror as terrorists from Hamas surged into Israel’s border with Gaza, raping and killing civilians, setting homes on fire, fighting back against Israeli resistance that had been quickly assembled, and capturing hostages. 

For good cause, the tragic events of that day have taken up most of the media attention in the world. We have once more witnessed the ugly realities of an ideology come to light. But in the meantime, a more covert invasion is happening nearer to home.

The FBI’s Terror Screening Database, also known as the “terror watch list,” contains a record number of individuals who have been encountered “between ports of entry” at the southern and northern borders of the United States, according to Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 

As of mid-October, U.S. officials had apprehended 169 individuals on the terror watch list while attempting to enter the country illegally. 

At U.S. ports of entry, there were also 564 interactions with individuals suspected of being terrorists. These numbers do not account for the unidentified number of people who successfully entered our country; they only reflect those who were identified.

Most interactions at ports of entry occurred at the northern border, where encounters on land have increased by over 20,000 percent since President Biden assumed office. 

There are thousands of “special interest aliens” from Middle Eastern countries among that startling number. 

According to CBP data, agents have interacted with 6,386 citizens of Afghanistan, 3,153 from Egypt, 1,613 from Pakistan, 659 from Iran, 538 from Syria, and 123 from Iraq over the previous two years. Once more, these are the people of whom we are aware.

Following the Hamas assault on Israel, we heard incredible tales of bravery in which armed Israelis fought back against their invaders and saved their country. 

In response, the Israeli government, realizing that its citizens are the country’s first line of defense, ordered thousands of rifles to arm them. 

You would think that after witnessing those acts of individual bravery, our own officials would come to the conclusion that it might not be a good idea to try to disarm our populace following a large-scale movement of people suspected of being terrorists. 

Regretfully, the opposite is accurate. President Biden recently restated his well-known soundbite, calling for the outlawing of the most widely used firearms in America.

Due to the President’s actions failing to shut the border, an unprecedented influx of foreign nationals has entered our country. For their families, many, if not most, of these folks merely want a better life. 

However, some can be acting with darker motives. Suppose there is one thing we can learn from the recent events in Israel. 

In that case, there is a real threat from terrorism, and it is our responsibility as citizens to be ready to take action when necessary. 

Robbing us of the appropriate means to defend ourselves is not leadership.

Copyright 2024. GunCountry.com

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Bump Stocks Sparks Debate Over Second Amendment

us-supreme-court-gavel-on-book

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a federal ban on bump stocks, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy expressed concerns that the high court is preparing to fundamentally alter the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Murphy warned that recent gun-related rulings suggest the court might restrict Congress’s ability to implement measures such as background checks or bans on specific firearms like AR-15s.

Murphy’s comments come after the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate similar to a fully automatic weapon. This ruling represents another instance of the conservative-majority court rolling back firearm regulations.

The ban on bump stocks was initially pushed by former President Donald Trump following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a gunman used the devices to kill 58 people at an outdoor music festival. A Texas gun store owner challenged the ban after surrendering two bump stocks to the government, eventually suing to reclaim them.

Murphy criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, suggesting that it aligns with broader efforts to erode gun control measures. He argued that the decision undermines previous bipartisan support for the bump stock ban and positions the court to dismantle key components of gun regulation, thus jeopardizing community safety.

The ruling has sparked a divide between gun control advocates and supporters of gun rights. Gun control groups contend that the court’s decision will exacerbate gun violence in a country already plagued by frequent shootings. They argue that the ban was a necessary regulation to prevent high-casualty incidents facilitated by rapid-fire capabilities.

Conversely, many Republicans have praised the court’s decision, maintaining that the bump stock ban was unconstitutional from the outset. GOP Sen. Tom Cotton remarked that the ban approached an infringement on the Second Amendment and emphasized the need to focus on tackling violent and gang-related crime rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The Supreme Court’s decision, although not based directly on the Second Amendment, has brought the debate over gun rights back to the forefront. This ruling is part of a trend where the high court has sided with gun rights groups, reflecting a broader judicial philosophy that may limit legislative and executive efforts to regulate firearms.

Despite the contentious ruling, Murphy highlighted some positive trends, noting a decline in urban gun homicide rates. He emphasized the ongoing need for effective legislation to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting while acknowledging recent legislative changes that he believes have contributed to enhanced public safety.

As the nation grapples with the implications of this decision, the divide between those advocating for stricter gun control and those championing gun rights continues to shape the legal and political landscape surrounding the Second Amendment.

What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling?

Continue Reading

Featured

Federal Appeals Court Upholds California Laws Banning Gun Shows on Public Property

woman-holding-sign-attends-news-conference-

In a 3-0 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California laws that ban gun shows at county fairs and other public properties. This ruling overturned a previous decision by a federal judge in October that had blocked the enforcement of these laws.

The laws in question were introduced by Democratic State Senator Dave Min. The first law, which went into effect in January 2022, specifically prohibited gun shows at the Orange County Fair. The second law, effective last year, extended this ban to county fairgrounds on state-owned land throughout California.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Mark Holcomb ruled that these laws violated the rights of gun sellers and potential buyers. He argued that preventing the purchase of firearms at these events infringed upon commercial speech protected by the First Amendment, as lawful gun sales involve such speech.

However, the appeals court took a different view, stating that the laws do not violate the First Amendment. Judge Richard Clifton wrote that the bans simply prohibit sales agreements on public property and do not limit discussions, advertisements, or other speech related to firearms. Clifton noted that a separate, unchallenged state law mandates that the actual purchase of a firearm at a gun show be completed at a licensed gun store, following a 10-day waiting period and a background check.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the ruling, calling it a victory in the fight against gun violence. Bonta emphasized that firearms should not be sold on state-owned property and lauded the decision as a step towards greater public safety.

Gun-control advocates argue that gun shows can make firearms more attractive to children and facilitate “straw purchases,” where individuals buy guns for those who are legally prohibited from owning them.

The case originated from a lawsuit by B&L Productions, a gun show company, which claimed that the ban on fairgrounds sales infringed upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The appeals court countered this claim, pointing out that there were six licensed firearms dealers in the same ZIP code as the Orange County Fairgrounds, indicating that the law did not restrict access to firearms.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association and attorney for the plaintiffs, expressed intent to appeal the ruling. Michel criticized the decision, asserting that it discriminates against gun culture and infringes on fundamental rights.

As this legal battle continues, the tension between gun rights advocates and those pushing for stricter gun control measures remains high. This case highlights the ongoing debate over how best to balance public safety concerns with constitutional rights in the United States.

What do you think of the recent appeals court hearing?

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved