Skip to main content

Gun Owners Not Surpised by Sotomayor's Radical Views

The U.S. Senate is now commencing its hearings on Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by President Obama to replace the retiring Judge David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

In many ways, Sotomayor’s views are out-of-step with our American heritage and with the views of Americans in general. For example, Sotomayor believes that our fundamental law is constantly evolving and that rights are constantly changing with the times.

But a majority of Americans disagree. Multiple polls have found that almost three-fourths of all Americans believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of “individuals” to own guns.

Not so for Judge Sotomayor. She ruled in United States v. Sanchez-Villar (2004) that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

And earlier this year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. This makes her more liberal than the Ninth Circuit, which stated in the Nordyke case in April that the Second Amendment does apply to the states.

But should we be surprised? The President who nominated her holds some of the most radical views ever held by a resident of the White House. His take on the Constitution -- and the Second Amendment in particular -- has stationed him to the far left on the political spectrum.

Consider just a small snapshot of his record over the years:

  • As President, Obama has nationalized much of the car and banking industry and is now looking to do the same with health care. Even the Marxist President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, joked on live television last month that he and Fidel Castro need to be careful or else “we are going to end up to [Obama’s] right.”
  • As a U.S. Senator, Obama was ranked by the National Journal in 2007 as the most liberal legislator in that chamber. Realize that such a ranking put Obama to the left of 99 other Senators -- including an open, self-avowed socialist, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
  • As a candidate for state office, Obama was endorsed by the radical New Party and the Democratic Socialists of America -- organizations which support a massive expansion of government power at the federal level, leading to the overthrow of the capitalist system in the United States. Obama was actually a member of the New Party, which was “self-described [as] ‘socialist democratic’” according to USA Today (November 16, 1992).
  • Like many socialists, Obama has supported some of the most extreme positions on gun control: supporting a ban on handguns, opposing the repeal of the draconian DC gun ban, opposing the right of self-defense for residents in the Chicago suburbs, and much more.

Obama’s smiling face and good charm masks the fact that this radical agenda has been part of his intellect for quite some time.

Obama’s father was himself a Marxist who advocated the redistribution of wealth in Kenya. “Theoretically,” said Barack Obama, Sr. in a report published by Investor’s Business Daily, “there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”

In Obama’s first book, Dreams From My Father, he admits that his father’s influence on him has continued throughout his life. And in the same book, Obama admitted that his mentor in high school was Frank Marshall Davis, a Marxist poet and journalist from Chicago.

It is not surprising then that, as a young adult, Obama sought out membership in a church that espoused black liberation theology -- an interpretation of the Bible which combines Marxism with Christianity.

Nor was it surprising for the nation to learn about the Obama-Ayers connection. Obama’s relationship with William Ayers at least dates back to 1995 when Ayers -- a former terrorist for the Weather Underground -- hosted a campaign event for Obama.

Obama’s brand of far-left politics sees the Constitution as moldable as a ball of wax. In a 2001 interview, he criticized earlier Supreme Courts for “never ventur[ing] into the issues of redistribution of wealth…. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

Sotomayor appears to have the same view of our highest document, as she stated in 1996 that law is not “static and predictable,” but “constantly overhaul[ed] and adapt[ed] [by lawyers and courts] to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”

It will be interesting to see what else Senators find during the upcoming hearings. There’s already enough evidence to give Senators pause and to make sure that Sotomayor gets a full investigation into her views.

Let the hearings begin!


Popular Video