Sotomayor Exposed II

A fifth reason to oppose Ms Sotomayor has surfaced. It has now come to light that even post-Heller as a card-carrying liberal she continues to fight the plain reading of the 2nd Amendment:

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

Her logic in this is quite convoluted, reflecting her "considerable" jurisprudential skills. She claims:

that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.

Yet the Supreme Court itself in the landmark Heller case said the 1886 Presser case does not apply:

“Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”

Even the 9th Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal in the land, gets this right:

Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.

We continue to see how this "wise Latina woman", now nominated to sit on the highest court of the land, clings to her discredited and unconstitutional views, disregards current law, and pushes her liberal, activist agenda from the bench. Send her back to NY, now.