"GOP to press Sotomayor on gun rights"
Republicans say they will question the Supreme Court nominee on the divisive issue at her confirmation hearings in hopes of weakening her support among moderate Democrats.
Reporting from Washington — Senate Republicans said Wednesday they would press Judge Sonia Sotomayor on gun rights, a politically divisive issue that they hope could weaken Democratic support for the Supreme Court nominee.
Though Republicans are a pronounced minority in both the House and Senate, they have used the gun issue to their advantage to divert the legislative agenda, forcing Democrats from moderate and conservative states to take politically risky votes on gun provisions.
Sotomayor's judicial record appears to provide the GOP with another opportunity to bring the issue to light. Since the Supreme Court decided in a landmark case last year that restrictive laws in Washington, D.C. -- a federal entity -- infringed on a constitutionally protected right to own a handgun, the debate has shifted to whether that ruling also affected handgun control laws in individual states.
This year, Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York that held the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states. At a news conference Wednesday, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and other senators said they were concerned about the decision and pledged to grill Sotomayor about it at her confirmation hearings, which begin July 13.
The panel's reasoning, Sessions said, "would eviscerate the 2nd Amendment in many parts of the country." . . . .
The WSJ has this:
Senate Republicans took aim Wednesday at Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s views on gun rights, saying that as a federal appeals court judge in New York, she had dismissed the right to bear arms as not “fundamental” and complaining that she had ruled that only the federal government, not the states, can enforce the Second Amendment. . . . .
Labels: GunControl, SecondAmendment, Sotomayor, SupremeCourt
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home