Question for Nominee Sotomayor: I’ll go first.

The study of law is heavy on the substantive law and case study method. The idea is not to memorize things, but to understand things. Who the sovereign in this country is must be very clear in the mind of every Justice on the Supreme Court, and such is not the case at this time. This is not because they differ with John Longenecker, but because they seem to differ with the Founders. Kelo v.City Of New London (a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment) would be one such recent example. Sovereignty of the citizen isn’t absolute, but the court is not to be a device for social justice or social change, it is to be a device for justice, something which must never change.

Americans differ with courts a great deal, but this is not the criteria: the criteria for confirmation of someone to become a Justice of the Supreme Court is how they understand the original intent of the Founding Fathers of the framing era.

Love of freedom, love of Independence from abuses of powers not granted, and the exercise of Citizen Authority as the sovereign in this country is what the Founders expressed when they put limits on government in the Constitution of the United States of America. The job of the Supremes is to interpret that Constitution, mindful of limits on government. This includes all governments here. Though the First Amendment addresses the Federal Government, as in Congress shall make no law…, the rest of the document plainly limits what the feds also may not do. Understanding this cannot be done without first understanding not necessarily the cases of con law since, but the intent of the founders then.

In learning just who Judge Sonia Sotomayor really is in confirming her for Supreme Court Justice or not, America might suggest certain areas to probe. I’ll go first.

Is the Nominee aware that police in America have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others?

Liberty writers have been educating the electorate on this truth for decades. In the cases of restraining orders, which many believe are protection against violent persons, the order is made out to the respondent and not the police. No special relationship exists there; they are merely notified with a file copy. If the respondent violates that protective order, he can be arrested, but when? After he’s killed his target? (See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Supreme Court, 2005)

Courts have ruled again and again that there is no constitutional right to police protection, and further, Americans have sadly discovered that protection orders have no real weight on the more dangerous. The idea for layman has been that a protection order will, well… protect them. It might work for a reasonable person, but the expectations for the violent respondent are unreasonable.

The societal impact is this is that people make decisions in reliance on the myth that police will protect them. They are not aware of their own authority to act, nor of duties of police in general. Gun control and rulings against gun rights obfuscate the fact that police have no duty to protect them. Consequently, too many citizens do little in the knowledge that they are on their own in the first moments of a violent crime.

The nominee’s answer to this question should be probed for further details and understanding; Judge Sotomayor’s elaboration of her understanding of this would also reflect clues and perceptions about gun owners and who is the sovereign in this country. Leftist thinkers do not recognize sovereignty of the individual, and steal the brand of the People as mandate where there would never be one under our system and our way of life of independence. This is how it happens in the People’s Democratic Republic of such-and-such, where the people, there, too, never granted such a mandate. They never do.

It is known to millions of courts, police officers, attorneys and gun owners across the nation that police have no duty to protect individuals, unless special circumstances exist, such as being in custody or specific relationships. It would be important for any nominee to understand before being seated on the Supreme Court what reasonable expectations citizens may have of their law enforcement when it comes to violent crime. This would play a vital part in how armed citizens are viewed when any such cases may come before the court.

Understanding original intent of the Founders cannot be done necessarily by knowing the findings and decisions of con law cases since, but the intent of the founders then.

Well, I went first. Questions for the Nominee should center around how she understands the power and authority of the people not to utilize government for change, but to resist abusive government change and to respect it not as any single law, but as law everywhere.

Judge Sotomayor is in our court for hearing for the time being, and for the duration, Congress must rise to its duty to determine if she understands sovereignty of the people over our servants. It is not to subject the Court to the will of the people, but to make Congress subject to the will of the people in who is seated. It is the test we should insist on for all nominees, is it not?

John Longenecker is an Examiner from Los Angeles.

Copyright 2009 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.