Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: G.O.A anti-Sotomayor Activism Alert

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    G.O.A Activism Alert: http://capwiz.com/gunowners/home/

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Charlotte, North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    242

    Post imported post

    You know, someone really needs to explain to me why in the HELL the N.R.A hasn't jumped into this yet.

    I even asked them about it myself:

    ==============

    Dear Mr. Yevchak,

    Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA.

    NRA has reviewed Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment record and, like you, we have serious concerns about her views. Out of respect for the confirmation process, NRA has not yet announced an official position on Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

    On Tuesday, July 7, NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox sent a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing NRA's strong concerns over Sotomayor's dismissive record on the Second Amendment (to read the letter in full, please click here: http://www.nraila.org/media/PDFs/nrasotomayorltr709.pdf).

    We expect that the Senate Judiciary Committee will aggressively question Judge Sotomayor on her past rulings and judicial philosophy. Rest assured, should her answers regarding our Right to Keep and Bear Arms at the upcoming hearings be hostile or evasive, we will oppose her nomination to the Court.

    Again, thank you for your inquiry.
    Michael Land
    NRA-ILA Grassroots Division

    -----Original Message-----
    From: NRA Auto Responder [mailto:nra.auto-responder@nrahq.org]
    Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 10:49 AM
    To: ILA-Contact
    Subject: Contact from NRAHQ web site: Legislative and Legal Action Information

    Contact type: Legislative and Legal Action Information

    Name: Steven P Yevchak, Sr.
    Address:
    City: Charlotte
    State: NC
    Zip: 28273
    Phone:
    Email:
    Membership Number:
    IP Address:
    Message: Dear Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Cox:

    I was so excited to see that past NRA President Sandy Froman -- in coalition with several other past and present NRA leaders -- came out in opposition the nomination of Judge Sotomayor.

    In a letter dated July 7, the coalition stated that "we strongly oppose this nominee, and urge the Senate not to confirm Judge Sotomayor."

    This is Froman's second communication in this regard, as she stepped up to the plate on June 24 with a call to arms for all NRA members to vigorously oppose the Sotomayor nomination.

    "Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association," Froman said, "must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation to the Supreme Court."

    I couldn't agree more with Mrs. Froman.

    I hope that the NRA will officially tell Senators now -- and not wait until after the hearings -- that a vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor is an anti-gun vote. Please let me know what you intend to do.

    Thank you.

    Sincerely,



    __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4232 (20090710) __________

    The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

    http://www.eset.com


    =======================

    I think that they're totally wrong in their approach - waiting until the fat lady sings is not thye time to join the battle.

    Are they scared they don't actually have the political "clout" to accomplish anything with this? Are they looking for some kind of down-the-road compromise with Sotomayor after she's nominated?

    This is no time to sit on the fence!

    Maybe all you other N.R.A members should contact them and ask the same question: https://www.nrahq.org/contact.asp Pete

    http://www.alarmandmuster.com/


  3. #3
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    Post imported post

    JMHO, they are probably waiting to see what she says in the hearings. If you oppose someone before they have presented their case, you sound like you have predetermined that you will oppose no matter what.

    While that may be the case, if you at least give her the opportunity to speak, you can appear to have a less biased position.

    And who knows, she just might slip up and say something stupid, saving you the clout for some other battle.

    She is almost certainly going to make it out of the Judiciary Committee no matter what, so they are probably saving the battle for the individual Senators' votes.

    TFred


  4. #4
    Regular Member SAvage410's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Falls Church, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    176

    Post imported post

    Already sent my letter before GOA sent the alert:

    July 6th 2009


    The Honorable Mark Warner
    United States Senate
    459A Russell Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510


    Dear Senator Warner:

    I've just received a letter from your office (addressed to “Resident”) in response to a postcard that I sent to you regarding the unfitness of Justice Sotomayor for elevation to the US Supreme court. Sadly, your response is somewhat lacking. You note that Justice Sotomayor has “an extraordinary personal story and very impressive legal credentials”. I'm certain that that is correct. However, extraordinary personal stories and impressive legal credentials in and of themselves in no way qualify one to sit on the highest court in the country.

    I would direct your attention to the fact that Justice Sotomayor does not appear to support either the first or second amendments to the US Constitution (and in fact appears to hold negative views of each), and appears to be lukewarm at best to the fourth, fifth, and, perhaps, tenth amendment as well.


    In particular, her antipathy to the first amendment is demonstrated when she participated in a unanimous decision entitled “DONINGER -v.- NIEHOFF and SCHWARTZ”. In this case the court declared that a student, Avery Doninger, could be sanctioned for speech occurring outside the bounds of the school – in this case, a blog posting . I've read the alleged contents of the blog post as presented in the court's decision. Frankly, the comments are unsavory at best. The court's reasoning seems to me to be equally unsavory. In essence, the court sanctioned Avery Doninger's punishment by her school to teach her “citizenship”; completely failing to understand that, in allowing sanctions to proceed, the court was in fact teaching a far more valuable lesson: that attempting to express oneself as, guaranteed by the US Constitution, was a sure path to punishment as such expression led to “disruption” of the school. Heavens!

    Justice Sotomayor's many negative references with regard to the second amendment are widespread and a matter of public record, so I do not feel the need to repeat any examples here.

    Regardless of either her personal story or her legal credentials, I do not feel that Justice Sotomayor gives proper deference to the US Constitution. I believe that failure to give such deference disqualifies her for further consideration and should prevent her from becoming a sitting Supreme Court justice. Accordingly, when the time comes for you to cast your vote, I strongly urge you to vote against this nominee.

    Sincerely,


  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Fallon, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    5,580

    Post imported post

    TFred wrote:
    JMHO, they are probably waiting to see what she says in the hearings. If you oppose someone before they have presented their case, you sound like you have predetermined that you will oppose no matter what.

    While that may be the case, if you at least give her the opportunity to speak, you can appear to have a less biased position.

    And who knows, she just might slip up and say something stupid, saving you the clout for some other battle.

    She is almost certainly going to make it out of the Judiciary Committee no matter what, so they are probably saving the battle for the individual Senators' votes.

    TFred
    That appears to be the case.

    NRA Opposes Sotomayor
    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •