Anti-gun Sotomayor catching grief
As you read in Wednesday Feel Good Stories, armed U.S. Marshals on bodyguard duty for Justice Sotomayor of the Supreme Court opened fire on a would-be carjacker Tuesday night.
Kentrell Flowers, 18, was shot Friday after he approached an unmarked Marshals vehicle near Sotomayor’s home. Flowers pointed a handgun at one of the two Marshals on duty through the driver-side window in an apparent attempt to carjack him, according to a police report.
Well, right there it’s apparent that young Mr. Flower’s victim selection skills are somewhat deficient. Two adult males sitting in a car on a Washington street at 1AM and he thought they would be unarmed? Really?
Flowers was arrested at the hospital and faces charges of armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license and possession of a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
Uh oh, homey didn’t check that magazine capacity when he picked up his Nine. Silly boy.
The incident sparked criticism of Sotomayor’s Second Amendment positions during her tenure on the high court, including one decision where she co-signed a dissent that said the Constitution does not protect “a private right of armed self-defense.”
In that case, McDonald v. Chicago, decided in 2010, then-Justice Steven Breyer dissented from the majority which ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to own a gun against the regulations of state and local governments.
“In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense,” Breyer wrote.
Except, of course, for her. Gotta have guards on the aristocrat class, right?
Justice Sotomayor has aggressively opposed the individual right to self-defense in her dissenting opinions on several major Second Amendment cases over the years,” Erich Pratt, senior vice president for Gun Owners of America, told Fox News Digital.
“So it is incredibly ironic, even hypocritical, that her own private protective detail was forced to exercise this basic and universal right to protect themselves in a very dangerous situation. Hopefully, this incident will open her eyes, but we won’t hold our breath,” he said.
Never having seen an anti-gun case she didn’t like the sound of, one might even use the term ‘two-faced’ in addition to hypocritical.
In 2004, she joined an opinion that cited as precedent “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
REALLY think that morally and ethically she should give up her armed bodyguards.
Category: "Teh Stoopid", Supreme Court
A wise Latinaaaaaa woman
Don’t you mean Latinex, a brand of tissue sold in South America?
Obviously I don’t agree with her, but I don’t see the hypocrisy here. Some people believe that only the state, that is police and military, should have guns. That appears to be her belief. US Marshals are indeed part of the state security apparatus. Protecting a Supreme Court Justice might be considered in the interest of the state.
The courts have long ruled, that the state has no interest or duty to protect any one specific person or even a specific group of people. If she were not a Supreme Court justice, and just ordinary citizen, then the Marshals would have no duty protect her.
While I strongly disagree with the first idea due to the second Amendment of the Constitution, I do agree with the second part. That is, the state really can’t afford to have a duty to protect every single person. Essentially everybody that is killed during a crime could be considered a failure by the state and it would be open to liability. The same would hold true for example for firemen who failed to rescue people from a fire, or put the fire out fast enough.
So while it’s fair to say she is wrong, I don’t see this as hypocrisy.
The state has no interest or duty to protect one specific person or specific group of people. Isn’t a Supreme Court Judge one or both of those cited?
By that ruling by the courts, wouldn’t a Supreme Court Justice be required to pay for their own security, if they felt it was needed?
They protect the office holder not the individual person. The state would have to have an interest in it. If she were say an arbitrator for Miles or Henning, The state would probably have no interest in it. Very seldom do we ever protect a former office holder such as former presidents.
It is possible, that if the state did not find a compelling interest in protecting a particular office holder, then that person would be responsible for paying for their own security. However
Ironically, this all came about because of the attempted assassination of Justice Kavanaugh by the left for his rulings on gun control and Roe v Wade. I’m sure just like the ball field shooting the FBI said it was all non-political workplace violence. Since then of course, the left has increased and do nothing but attack, attack, attack any of the right leaning judges, including the attempts to impeach lately. Inflamed by the media it’s bringing the nutcases out.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/28/garland-marshals-security-supreme-court-justices-00089329
Former Presidents get USSS protection for life (as does their spouse).
As we learned from Hunter Biden, even the adult sons of former VPs get some level of protection from USSS and FBI well after his father has left office (and held no office).
I don’t really agree with that either. While they are in office, they could be subject to extortion efforts due to the safety of their kids. Once they leave this is no longer viable.
“They protect the office holder not the individual person.“
And exactly how do we draw the line between the two? I don’t believe it’s possible. It would probably be more accurate to say “They protect the person holding the office”. Far less ambiguous.
She was not even home, so we the people were guarding her “stuff”. She could get a $10 an hour rent a cop for that. She hates guns so much let her be guarded by social workers.
Not necessarily. Somebody could break into her house and wait to kill her when she gets home. A More in-depth plot would involve poisoning her food or her medications. In any case it isn’t a good idea to leave it unguarded if you’re guarding the person.
But again, reference the above article, she had nothing to do with the security being put in place.
And an asteroid could land on her house so let’s build an impenetrable dome over it. A rent a cop out front in a 20 year old Hyundai is as effective as a g-man in a high dollar SUV. Since we are doing whataboutisms and movie plots, a 5th degree black belt Shoalin monk as a housekeeper who guards the pantry and medicine cabinet at the same time could spoil the well laid out plans of Dr Evil to poison her empanadas and Midol. Unless he uses chihuahuas with laser beams on their heads, then all bets are off, not even Chuck Norris could save her then. The point is if she dislikes guns so much remove them from the equation and let her be guarded by less than lethal means. Let her not sleep well at night knowing her 24-7 security could be thwarted by a couple crackheads with a zip gun. Put it on her to protect herself just like the rest of us serfs. I see your point but again let her worry about her own self and not do it for her ass. So I do see hypocracy in her non actions on self preservation.
You clearly didn’t read the article so Im not even gonna bother.
Can you send over to her the contact information for Thomas “Turd” Bolling of Ambassador Worldwide Protection Agency?
https://awpa1.com/
The average citizen deserves the same security that our government officials receive. But in the average citizen’s case, it’s up to them to protect themselves. Often with a firearm. The wise Latina doesn’t agree with that. There’s the hypocrisy.
I don’t know about “deserves the same security”. Most citizens don’t get hundreds of death threats in a day because they hold opinions other people disagree with. Nobody’s going to break into my house and try to kill me because I don’t like the Roe V Wade decision.
Besides, if the leaders and officials of a state have no security, then that state is completely vulnerable and subject to coercion or the whims of crazy people and wanna be dictators. I personally could put us together a posse, go string up the mayor and declare myself the local Warlord and place myself in charge. Until the next strong man comes around and takes my place. Less you think this is rhetoric, this is exactly what happens in failed states.
The threat may be different but the right to defense remains the same. I am my own first line of defense, a Supreme Court justice has federal marshals as her first line. She wants to remove my ability to defend myself. Extreme hypocrisy. I’m not questioning her need for security, I’m questioning her need to remove mine.
The stupid bitch does not care. We don’t matter to her, she is a libtard. Her mental processes don’t flow.
A DEI quota nominated by B. Hussein 0bama IIRC who got it because they knew she would be a loyal rubber stamp to whatever the party wants.
First of all, fuck her and that ugly face of hers. Press that ghastly mug in dough and make gorilla cookies. She a party operative that votes STRICTLY along party lines based on Ideology. She knows the 2A is the only standing between The Left’s dreams of a submissive citizenry and freedom. The fact her life may have been saved by the same guns she hates is irrelevant in her mind. Her life is more that you “peasants” that love God & guns.
Mmmmm… gorilla cookies ( in my best cookie monster impression).
Kurt Russel: “No boss! I said GUERilla, not GOrilla.”
I never understood anyone who could not see that the Bill of Rights was nothing but protection of a person’s rights. They are pretty much all protections of individual rights not collective / group rights.
That would be the correct reading. They only state right is the 9th Amendment.
Reading is fundamental. The people running this country are like most of us assembling something at home. Directions? We don’t need no stinking Directions.
“Reading for comprehension is fundamental.”
FIFY
Thank you.
“…shall NOT be infringed.” Doesn’t get any plainer than that. The 2nd A was put in there to protect We, The People from the very type of despotic grubermint that we have today. It was not designed so much to give us the right to “bear arms” but more so to prevent the grubermint from keeping unarmed and unable to defend ourselves…from a despotic grubermint.
There should not be a “left” or a “right” leaning Judge, especially on SCOTUS. And they cannot left their “personal beliefs” cloud the interpretation of The Constitution. It is that simple.
Whatcha wanna bet the Judge has at least one (1) firearm herself. More “Rules for thee, but not for me!”
It’s also important to remember that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not, and were never intended to “give” us rights, but rather to delineate and protect God given rights from an overreaching / despotic government. There were many Founding Fathers that thought the Bill of Rights was redundant and unnecessary.. ooh how they underestimated the modern left..
Sotomayor is fully on the side of tyranny, believing herself to be superior to the unwashed masses.
While I wish she would change her views, there is no hypocrisy because all interpretations of the 2nd Amendment allow for police and the State to own weapons.
Further, this is a feel good story because armed carjacking defenses are low probability events like successful flying roundhouse kicks in UFC.
Yhe hypocrisy is her stance that ONLY state officers should have firearms, not you. She , like everyone, has a divine right to self-defense, but she feels YOU should not be allowed the means to it. She, however, should have access to those means. If that ain’t hypocrisy, I’m not sure what is.
“Armed protection for me, but not for thee!” is her motto, typical of leftist shits once they get something or somewhere, they then want to shut the door and control everyone else. I still say she is a DEI quota.
She definitely is a DEI hire, as is Kagan and the newest justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who doesn’t know what a woman is.
He definitely got shot in the ear. If that bullet had been a couple inches to the right, Washington would probably be in flames right now.
The right’s new rallying cry is 7-13, to counter the leftards and their January 6th battle cry.
Only ours is legit. Theirs is not.
Clown.