Watching the Kagan hearings and reading about the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the 2nd Amendment (there really should be no need for this) it made me think about the most recent Supreme Court nominee hearings.

Sonia Sotomayor at her hearing in 2009:

The committee’s chairman, Patrick Leahy, first told Sotomayor that he enjoys target shooting on a regular basis back home in Vermont and then asked, referring to Heller, “Is it safe to say you accept the Second Amendment is an individual right?”

Sotomayor answered plainly, “Yes sir,” and added, “I understand how important the right to keep and bear arms is to many people; one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA.”

Fast forward to this week and read for yourself Sotomayor’s opinion:

JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting.
In my view, JUSTICE STEVENS has demonstrated that the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “substantive due process” does not include a general right to keep and bear firearms for purposes of private self-defense. As he argues, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment with this objective in view. See ante, at 41–44 (dissenting opinion). Unlike other forms of substantive liberty, the carrying of arms for that purpose often puts others’ lives at risk. See ante, at 35–37. And the use of arms for private self-defense does not warrant federal constitutional protection from state regulation. See ante, at 44–51.

The Court, however, does not expressly rest its opinion upon “substantive due process” concerns. Rather, it directs its attention to this Court’s “incorporation” precedents and asks whether the Second Amendment right to private self-defense is “fundamental” so that it applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See ante, at 11–19.

Liberals are chipping away at our rights and freedoms, remember this as you watch the Kagan hearings.

Elections have consequences…