| Executive Session |
August 6, 2009 |
|
Patrick Leahy, D-VT
|
|
"Dear Messrs. LaPierre and Cox: As Members of Congress whose strong support for the rights of gun owners has earned us consistently high ratings from the NRA, we are disappointed by the NRA’s opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not merited by either Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record or hearing testimony. Even more troubling, it appears that you are holding Judge Sotomayor to a different standard than you held Judges Roberts and Alito when they were nominated to the Court, or for that matter, any previous nominee to the Court. The double standard you have set for Judge Sotomayor is a disservice to all members of the NRA, particularly those who are Hispanic. We support the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor. She is eminently qualified by her experience as a prosecutor, district judge and 12 years on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Her judicial record is one marked by modesty and restraint, prompting the New York Times to write that her “judicial opinions are marked by diligence, depth and unflashy competence” and are “models of modern judicial craftsmanship, which prizes careful attention to the facts in the record and a methodical application of layers of legal principles.” (Adam Liptak, “Nominee’s Rulings Are Exhaustive But Often Narrow,” May 26, 2009). And we believe that the historic act of putting the first Hispanic Justice on the Court, particularly one so well qualified for the job, is an important step for our country. Judge Sotomayor has said more than either of the two previous Supreme Court nominees about the Second Amendment— specifically, she said that it confers an individual right, as recognized by the Supreme Court in its Heller decision. Judge Sotomayor was then asked repeatedly to discuss her position on incorporation, even though there is now a circuit split on the issue and there are petitions pending asking the Supreme Court to take the issue. Judges are prohibited by ABA rules from commenting on pending cases, making it inappropriate for Judge Sotomayor to state a definitive view. Nonetheless, at the hearing on her nomination, she emphasized that she has an “open mind” on the question of incorporation and has “not prejudged” the issue. Conversely, when now-Chief Justice Roberts testified at his confirmation hearing facing a similar circuit split prior to the Heller decision on the issue of the individual right to bear arms, he declined to discuss the issue at all, saying only: “That’s sort of the issue that’s likely to come before the Supreme Court when you have conflicting views.” And now- Justice Alito was not even asked a question about the subject. Yet the NRA voiced no opposition to these candidates who were less forthcoming on issues of importance to us. Your letter cites two cases as evidence that Judge Sotomayor is hostile to the Second Amendment. Your analysis of those cases is either mistaken or deliberately misleading. United States v. Sanchez-Villar, on which Judge Sotomayor was a member of the panel, was decided in 2004, four years before the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That decision was consistent not just with 2nd Circuit precedent, but with the weight of authority at the time; in 2004, every circuit but the Fifth that had considered the question had similarly concluded that the Second Amendment did not protect an individual right. Your letter fails to mention either fact. Your characterization of Maloney v. Cuomo is similarly erroneous. First, Maloney did not involve firearms at all. The degree to which it was not considered an important case at the time can be gleaned from the fact that no outside entity or organization, including the NRA, filed an amicus brief in that case, in contrast to the multiple amici filed in National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago. Second, the Maloney court did not reject the concept of incorporation; it recognized the prerogative of the Supreme Court, which in Heller explicitly did not overrule prior precedent on incorporation. The panel wrote, “[w]here, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Two of the most renowned conservative jurists in the country, Judges Posner and Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, recently endorsed the Second Circuit panel opinion in Maloney. In National Rifle Association v. City of Chicago, Judge Easterbrook’s opinion explicitly stated that the court “agree[d] with Maloney.” Even Mr. Maloney himself said the decision in this case was appropriate: “I did not expect to win … it was clear to me that they had a very solid basis for saying that the Second Amendment is not incorporated and that essentially they are powerless to do anything about it, they had a defensible position there.” Mike Pesca, “High Court May Review Personal Weapons Ruling,” NPR Legals Affairs, June 1, "
|
|
| Nomination Of Sonia Sotomayor To Be An Associate Justice Of The Supreme Court Of The United States—Continued |
August 5, 2009 |
|
John Ensign, R-NV
|
|
"This is further supported by a 2004 decision in U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar in which she also joined a decision that flatly denied gun possession as a fundamental right. While that decision pre-dated Heller, the Maloney decision occurred more than six months after the Heller decision, and yet Sotomayor again dismissed the possibility that the second amendment protects a “fundamental right.” Once again in the decision, no analysis was given as to why. Her conclusion was that, one, the Second Amendment does not apply to the States and, two, the Second Amendment does not protect a fundamental right."
|
|
| Executive Session |
August 4, 2009 |
|
Dianne FEINSTEIN, Democrat-CA
|
|
"The NRA says Judge Sotomayor erred in the case of United States v. Sanchez-Villar, a 2004 case. In this case, an illegal immigrant named Jose Sanchez-Villar was caught dealing crack cocaine and carrying a gun in New York City. This is United States v. Sanchez-Villar, 99 Fed. Appx. 256, 2d Cir. 2004."
|
|
| Honoring The Bell Buckle Volunteer Fire Department |
November 15, 2007 |
|
Bart Gordon, D-TN
|
|
"For their willingness to serve, the following members of the Bell Buckle Volunteer Fire Department deserve recognition: Chief Mary Lokey, Deputy Chief Ronnie Lokey, Deputy Chief Dave Fisher, Richard Miller, Brian Wafford, Brian Lokey, John Crosslin, Jenna Gragg, Matthew Joseph, Nathan Gragg, Jason Rieben, Matthew Gragg, Travis Miller, Robert Gown, Leo Wilcox, Whitt Ross, Ken Del Villar, Adam Prince, Cain Owens and Daniel Gragg. Also listed on the training roster are retired Chief James Elkin and Phillip Daniel, Gone But Not Forgotten."
|
|
| Tribute To William Christopher Villar |
June 27, 2006 |
|
Mel Martinez, R-FL
|
|
"Mr. President, today I wish to share with you the story of a remarkable young man from Milton, FL. William Christopher Villar, by all surface accounts, was your typical 22-year-old. He was attending community college with the hopes of one day obtaining a degree in business. He was working at a job that he loved, and he had recently gotten engaged to his long time sweetheart, Heather Dieterich. His life was unfolding the way we hope that all of our children’s lives will eventually unfold."
|
|