Awkward: Justice Sotomayor’s Bodyguard Shoots Would-Be Carjacker Outside Her DC Residence

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor  (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

In writing his dissent to the Supreme Court’s McDonald decision, Justice Steven Breyer opined that “…the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined in Breyer’s dissent.

Of course, Justice Sotomayor lives in an ivory tower protected by armed bodyguards. She doesn’t have to worry about defending herself from the city’s predators…the kind of predator that two US Marshals who were guarding her home recently encountered. A member of Washington, D.C.’s feral criminal class made the mistake of trying to carjack one of the Marshals’ vehicles early on the morning after July 4th.

As you might imagine, it didn’t go so well for the aspiring physicist carjacker. Instead of getting away with a nice new ride, the carjacker was driven away in an ambulance after being shot.

Also in the “as you might imagine” category, we’ve heard nary a peep from Justice Sotomayor about the incident. If a Supreme Court Justice can’t find a decent neighborhood that’s safe from carjackers in our nation’s capital, what does that say about the dangers the average DC resident faces on a daily basis, living in working class neighborhoods?

From the New York Post . . .

A deputy US Marshal shot a would-be carjacker who pulled a gun on him while he was guarding Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s home in Washington, DC, authorities said.

Two deputies were parked outside Sotomayor’s home in northwest DC on July 5 when Kentrell Flowers, 18, allegedly walked up to one of their cars around 1:15 a.m. and pointed a gun at the bodyguard, the US Marshals Service told The Post.

One of the federal agents drew his weapon and fired several shots at the suspect, with the second officer also firing his weapon at Flowers. …

The teenage suspect was charged with armed carjacking, carrying a pistol without a license, and possession of a large capacity magazine.

The US Marshals office and Metropolitan Police Department declined to elaborate further on the case, which remains under investigation.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor doesn’t think you have any right to armed self-defense against the kind of thugs who are more than willing to kill in order to steal what’s yours. Yet she’s more than happy to sleep soundly behind the protection of men with guns.

And so it goes.

7 Responses

  1. I hope SNW will call her office to see if her opinion on armed self-defense has changed since the incident…

  2. “…the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense. There has been, and is, no consensus that the right is, or was, ‘fundamental.’ No broader constitutional interest or principle supports legal treatment of that right as fundamental.”

    That’s a lie.

    There is nothing in the constitution or Bill of Rights that says civilian (or federal) ‘law enforcement’ has a ‘fundamental’ ‘right to self-defense’.

    Its derived from the very principal of ‘private rights’…that an individual has certain fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held – one of which is ‘self defense…. be they federal/civilian law enforcement OR a individual citizen not law enforcement, has an inheret natural, private, and personal ‘right to self-defense’.

    If its not true that individuals have fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held, then why, for example, was slavery abolished ?

    SCOTUS has for 200 years established an underlying theme that fundamental inherent rights privately and personally held exist and are a thing intended by the founders.

  3. Sotomayor and those like her twist and attempt to redefine the clear text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights while tromping the rights of We the People underfoot. She and others seem to think: 1- they know better, 2 – their views are correct just because they say so. Something is missing in their education when they cannot read and comprehend what We the People have no problem understanding. They are hypocrites. Their disdain for the Constitution, they swore to protect, should be sufficient grounds for their immediate dismissal.

  4. So, according to Breyer, the “People” as written in the 2nd Amendment are NOT the same “People” as in the First and Fourth???
    The very fact that he wrote that bunch of nonsense should discount his status as a Judge as well as his Law Degree.
    It is an INHERENT part of Law that that which is referenced in one Law as established Law is in ALL Laws.
    One can argue nonsense in many matters, but NOT in Law. In Law, words and definitions MEAN just that, otherwise we would have a bunch of willy nilly garbage in our Justice system. Had he said that in an actual Court as an Attorney, the Judge would have his fanny for such a preposterous claim.
    As for the rest of it, the Federalist Papers are chock full of the Founding Fathers thoughts on that subject, and ONLY a fool would argue otherwise. Which is why I believe MOST Democrats are fools.
    The man is a Buffoon, plain and simple.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *