Libertarians: Sotomayor confirmation a defeat for individual, property, gun rights

Libertarian National Committee Communications Director Donny Ferguson released the following statement Thursday, after the Senate’s 68-31 vote to confirm Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by retiring Justice David Souter:

“Today’s confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a significant defeat for individual, property and gun rights. The Libertarian Party was the first political party to announce its opposition to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, after reviewing her history on the bench.

“Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, overturned by the Supreme Court, violates the Libertarian belief in equality under the law. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in cases such as Maloney v New York and United States v Sanchez-Villar violated basic rights protected under the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor’s ruling in Didden v. Village of Port Chester violated personal property rights and affirmed the power of government to confiscate property for purposes beyond public use. Judge Sotomayor also has a long and troubling history of ruling on cases based on personal feelings and prejudices, rather than the letter of the law.

“Libertarians are joined by millions of Americans in their beliefs in equality under the law and the protection of individual, property and gun rights. Libertarians hope President Obama will work harder in the future to appoint justices who uphold our constitutionally-protected rights, not someone else’s narrow political agenda.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Libertarians warn Judiciary vote may have consequences

America’s third largest party Wednesday reminded members of the Senate Judiciary Committee their vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a vote against constitutionally-guaranteed gun rights and those who vote to confirm in the full Senate next week can expect to be held accountable at the polls.

Libertarians announced their opposition to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation early, after reviewing her troubling record on individual, property and gun rights. The Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to send the nomination to the full Senate. South Carolina Republican Lindsay Graham joined the committee’s 12 Democrats.

“A judge’s record is the best indicator of what they will do on the Court, and Judge Sotomayor’s record is one of opposition to the individual right to keep and bear arms. Libertarians, and all of America’s 90 million gun owners, will remember how you voted,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director. “Your vote on Judge Sotomayor may come back to haunt you one November.”

“And if you think you can’t lose your seat over the gun issue, I suggest you speak with Harris Wofford,” said Ferguson, referring to the incumbent Democratic Pennsylvania senator who lost his seat to Republican Rick Santorum in 1994 by a 49 to 47 percent margin, after supporting the Clinton gun ban. “If I’m a senator who could lose if a small percentage of my pro-gun base votes for another candidate, I’d be worried.”

“History shows, whether it’s a grassroots conservative activist, a blue-collar union member or a libertarian, the base of every party is made up of people who value their gun rights and will not support someone who votes against their constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America that never compromises on gun rights, and one way or another we will hold those voting to confirm accountable on Election Day.”

In the New York v Maloney case earlier this year, Sotomayor affirmed a lower court ruling that the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to the states.

Sotomayor also ruled against gun rights in a 2004 case, United States
v Sanchez-Villar, citing as precedent the statement “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

The Supreme Court will likely rule next year on the NRA v Chicago case, a case critical to restoring the individual right to keep and bear arms.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Libertarians take aim at Sotomayor’s anti-gun stance

America’s third largest party reiterated its opposition Wednesday to the Supreme Court nomination of federal judge Sonia Sotomayor after the nominee refused to give a firm answer on whether individuals have the right of self-defense.

“Is there a constitutional right to self-defense?” Sotomayor asked when questioned by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) whether or not the Constitution guaranteed him the right of self-defense. “ I can’t think of one. I could be wrong.”

“Whether you agree with her position or not, Judge Sotomayor has had no problem stating that things not directly found in the Constitution are ‘settled law.’ That’s why it’s troubling that when confronted with a constitutionally-enshrined principle she disagrees with, the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of one’s rights, things are suddenly muddled and up for debate,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.

“The Libertarian Party is the only party that never compromises in its defense of our Second Amendment-guaranteed rights. That’s why we have opposed Judge Sotomayor’s nomination from the moment we reviewed her troubling anti-gun record. Judge Sotomayor’s answers Wednesday further show she believes the law should flow from her own personal biases and not the literal wording of the Constitution,” said Ferguson.

Judge Sotomayor is the latest in a long line of hardline anti-gun activists nominated by President Obama to government positions where they would have the power to infringe on gun rights. Libertarians also opposed the nominations of anti-gun Attorney General Eric Holder and anti-gun State Department legal adviser Harold Koh.

“The Libertarian Party will hold accountable at the ballot box any senator who votes to confirm Judge Sotomayor. America’s nearly 90 million gun owners come from all walks of life and political beliefs – and they decide their vote on this issue. Libertarians look forward to speaking with them about the LP’s fundamental belief in gun rights, and their senator’s voting record on it,” said Ferguson.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor Prejudicial Statements, Discriminatory Affiliation and Improper Political Activities

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter of complaint on July 7 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressing concern that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct through her statements and behavior and
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.

According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:

· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.

· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.

· Improper political activity.

The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."

Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:

Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."

Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.

Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."

Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Judicial Watch Statement on the Ricci Reversal

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today in response to the reversal of a decision that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge:

The Ricci decision today is further confirmation that Judge Sotomayor should not be confirmed for the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Judge Sotomayor helped uphold an action that was in violation of our nation's anti-discrimination laws. The question for the United States Senate is whether to confirm someone who thinks it is appropriate to discriminate based on race simply to protect oneself from a lawsuit. Justice Alito, in a concurring opinion, noted that New Haven firefighters have "a right to demand...evenhanded enforcement of the law--of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them." Judge Sotomayor did not apply our nation's anti-discrimination laws in an evenhanded way and her confirmation should be
rejected.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Sotomayor Served as the "Top Policy Maker" on the Board of Directors of the Leftist PRLDEF for 12 Years

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released a new special report on Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her connection to the leftist Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). Sotomayor served as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDEF's Board of Directors for twelve years, 1980-1992, until she became a federal judge.

According to the Special Report: "The PRLDEF bills itself as an organization that provides legal services to the Latino community. However, the organization's activities reflect a commitment to the worst aspects of liberal judicial activism: identity politics, race baiting, and ethnic favoritism."

The following is a partial list of the PRLDEF's activities during Judge Sotomayor's tenure as described in Judicial Watch's Special Report:

· In 1990, the PRLDF attacked then-New York Mayor David Dinkins after the mayor labeled three Puerto Rican "nationalists" who shot five members of Congress in 1954 "assassins." The radicals were members of a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional). The PRLDF said the mayor's comments "lacked sensitivity." Reuben Franco, President of the PRLDF said: "[Mayor Dinkins] doesn't recognize that to many
people in Puerto Rico, these are fighters for freedom and justice..."

· In 1988, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund engaged in a battle with the New York City Police Department over its "racist" promotion exam, ultimately presiding over a radical redesign to allow more minorities to achieve a passing grade. According to The New York Times: "The new test, a four-part exam prepared with the help of an expert designated by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund... involved changes in format, including the addition of open-book questions and a video portion."

· In 1981, the PRLDEF filed a complaint against Elizabeth, New Jersey Mayor Thomas Dunn following a City Hall directive requiring staff to speak English while on the job. In 1990, the organization also opposed a law to require merchants to post an English sign in the storefront explaining the nature of business.

· In a March 1981 memo to the directors of the PRLDEF, Sotomayor and two colleagues argued
against the death penalty because it is, "associated with evident racism in our society" and because it "creates inhuman psychological burdens for the offender." The memo, which Sotomayor initially failed to turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee, argued that the PRLDEF should oppose the restoration of the death penalty in New York State.

· In 1981, the PRLDEF applauded a decision by a federal judge forced teachers at an Ann Arbor
Michigan elementary school to undergo "consciousness raising" about a dialect spoken by young black children called "Black English." The training program cost taxpayers $44,000.

During her 12-year tenure, according to one former staff lawyer, "Sonia [Sotomayor] displayed an increasing amount of leadership on the board." The New York Times, meanwhile, characterized Sotomayor as the "top policy maker" on the PRLDEF Board of Directors, who "was an involved and ardent supporter of [the PRLDEF's] various legal efforts during her time with the group."

"In Judge Sotomayor, Obama offers the personal embodiment of his liberal judicial activist philosophy that places 'empathy' above the rule of law. Judge Sotomayor's leadership positions with the PRLDEF suggest she is more than willing to advance a liberal, race-based agenda through the court system. And for this Judge Sotomayor owes an explanation to the American people," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Libertarians urge Supreme Court to overturn anti-gun Illinois ordinances

America’s third largest party Wednesday urged the Supreme Court to hear an appeal challenging handgun bans in Chicago and the Illinois village of Oak Park, and to rule such gun bans violate the Second Amendment. A U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday that it could not hear challenges to the anti-gun ordinances filed by both the National Rifle Association and attorney Alan Gura after the Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that a handgun ban in the District of Columbia was unconstitutional.

In a 3-0 decision, the panel ruled it was bound by past rulings claiming the Second Amendment does not necessarily apply to states, and only the Supreme Court could overturn the handgun bans. That precedent has since been put into question by its 2008 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia ruling handgun bans were unconstitutional in that federal district. Gura was lead attorney in the Heller case and filed a similar suit in Illinois.

“The court simply ruled it cannot overturn precedent, not that gun control is a mythical right held by government as anti-gun radicals now claim. Libertarians urge the Supreme Court to hear this case and uphold the clear language of the Second Amendment by overturning gun bans in states and municipalities as it did in the District of Columbia,” said Donny Ferguson, Libertarian National Committee Communications Director.

The panel heard a combined appeal from the NRA and Gura challenging a Dec. 4, 2008 decision by the Seventh Circuit to throw out their three lawsuits against the cities of Chicago and Oak Park challenging the constitutionality of their anti-gun ordinances. The three suits, McDonald v. City of Chicago, National Rifle Association of America v. City of Chicago and National Rifle Association v. Village of Oak Park were consolidated by the court for the appeal.

“The intent of the Second Amendment is clear. Allowing citizens to keep and bear arms is critical to the defense of an entire nation, and therefore cannot be infringed. We urge the Supreme Court to make the Second Amendment one of those constitutional guarantees of freedom that comes without asterisks or disclaimers,” said Ferguson.

Ferguson also urged members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to have Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor clarify her position on gun rights, as she will likely hear the Illinois case should she be confirmed.

“Considering the fact Sonia Sotomayor will likely hear this case should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court, senators have an obligation to ask her if she agrees with the plain text of the Second Amendment that it confers individual rights, and whether she believes states are bound by it,” said Ferguson.

“I would hope they would refuse to confirm a judge who thinks the Second Amendment somehow gives government rights, or that states are free to ignore it,” said Ferguson. “The Libertarian Party has already announced its opposition to Sotomayor and her history of ruling against individual and property rights in favor of her personal agenda of identity politics and more powerful government.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Black Leader Urges Senate Scrutiny for Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination - No Rubber Stamp for Controversial Nominee

With President Obama's nomination of U.S. Circuit Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the vacancy being created by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter's impending retirement, Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is urging senators to take a very close look at her record before commenting on her fitness for the job.

"Of all the possible nominees suggested over the past few weeks, it appears Obama selected the most radical one," said Massie. "The U.S. Senate has a duty to scrutinize Judge Sotomayor's record to ensure she has the demeanor and aptitude to be elevated to such a solemn post."

Massie continued: "During the Bush Administration, it was common for liberal senators to demand a consensus nominee with broad political appeal. By selecting an avowed liberal in Sotomayor, it would appear Obama is not following the stipulation he and his former colleagues sought to impose upon his predecessor. This should open up the nomination to the scrutiny it justly deserves."

The Sotomayor nomination, Massie notes, is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of "judicial activism" - when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench. For example, in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor said it was appropriate for a judge such as herself to use her "experiences as women and people of color" to "affect our decisions." In 2005, she told a crowd at the Duke University Law School that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made" - rather than by lawmakers beholden to voters.

Massie commented: "Considering Justice Souter's record, Sotomayor will not change the balance of the Supreme Court. But she will likely dramatically alter the temperament of the Court and the way in which it operates. Senators must keep this in mind as they take on the very solemn process of vetting her fitness."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Libertarians blast Sotomayor pick

America’s third largest party Tuesday criticized President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, citing past rulings that public employers should discriminate in hiring based on race.

“While Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair and impartial hearing, Supreme Court justices should be nominated for their thorough knowledge of and adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law,” said William Redpath, Libertarian National Committee Chairman.

“By nominating Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama has made it clear he prefers an activist for his personal causes over a rational interpreter of law,” said Redpath.

According to Cato Institute Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon, Sotomayor is “the most radical of all the frequently mentioned candidates before him.”

Sotomayor is best known for the Ricci v. DeStafano case, in which the New Haven, Conn. fire department decided it didn’t like the results of an officers promotion exam in which whites and Hispanic firefighters outperformed black firefighters. The city threw out the results of the exam, denying several firefighters promotions solely because of their race. The firefighters sued the city, claiming racial discrimination under Title VVI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Cato Institute, Reason Foundation and the Individual Rights Foundations filed briefs on behalf of the firefighters, citing the absurdity of allowing public employers to throw out the results of valid, race-neutral exams that produce racial disparity because the racial disparity produced wasn’t politically correct. The firefighters and the libertarian foundations filing briefs argued that public employment practices should be color-blind.

Sotomayor disagreed, ruling the city has a right to discriminate against white and Hispanic public employees to construct a politically correct racial mix in hiring, even if it goes against the results of a racially-neutral competency exam.

The case is now before the Supreme Court. Sotomayor has had her rulings thrown out by the court a troubling four times. In three of those cases, the Court ruled Sotomayor had incorrectly interpreted the law.

“It is troubling that Obama, who won the highest elected office in the world without racial preferences, would nominate someone who openly admits the government should racially discriminate against its own citizens to serve the needs of political correctness,” said Redpath.

“Libertarians believe that, while the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of association allows private parties to hire whomever they please, government has no right to discriminate. Public employers should treat all citizens of all colors, races and ethnicities with equal respect and value and Sotomayor’s radical rulings are a jarring departure from that principle.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use