What’s UP, Senator Ernie Lopez!

I remember campaigning in the same territory as you Senator Lopez in the 2012 general election. Lopez running for the State Senate Seat and I was running for the County Council Seat. I remember considering Ernie a very good friend (and still do) and thought, “if this guy gets in the senate, we’ve got a good man in there. After his votes on SB 19 and HB 35, I’m not sure that I made the right decision in endorsing him for the senate position. Ernie, we elected you because you said you were a conservative republican, but your recent actions in the general assembly absolutely prove that this is not the case. Senator Lopez, you were the deciding vote in the Senate Bill 19 to repeal Delaware’s death penalty law and you voted yes on House Bill 35, to further infringe on our Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Did you forget who elected you senator. If you did, please RESIGN your seat, that we might elect someone who will represent the constituency who elected them.

51 thoughts on “What’s UP, Senator Ernie Lopez!”

  1. Senator Lopez, you were the deciding vote in the Senate Bill 35 to repeal Delaware’s death penalty law and you voted yes on SB 19, to further infringe on our Second amendment rights to bear arms. Did you forget who elected you senator. If you did, please RESIGN your seat, that we might elect someone who will represent the constituency who elected them.

    HB 35 was the gun check bill, SB 19 was the death penalty repeal bill.

    I voted for Senator Lopez, both in the primary and the general and I am fine with both of his votes. As a man who is very Christian and pro-life, I would expect him to vote to repeal the death penalty. As a Christian yourself, Don, you should be able to understand that Ernie voted his conscience. His statement on why he voted for HB 35 is correct, it does not prevent one law abiding citizen from getting a gun, but if it prevents one criminal from killing one innocent person with a gun, it’s worth it.

    Maybe you need to look around the 6th Senate District, he did vote his constituency, there are more people in the 6th than you and Christian Hudson.

  2. BTW, Ernie won in the District, you lost. That should tell you who the constituents are.

  3. Thanks anon but I disagree with both of his votes and BTW, I’ve corrected the misprints. Many people have expressed outraged to me about his vote via phone and quite frankly, I agree with them.

  4. “Many people” have expressed their support of both of his votes to me. Those people were all Republicans, unlike you.

  5. You and your clowns rail against the programmable robots elected in Delaware and in DC and when you get a conscientious lawmaker that nobody can put a bs label on they need to “resign” their seat. You are a complete idiot and one who is gratefully gone from the GOP.

    Lopez will be around a while Don but thanks again for proving that I made the correct vote when i voted Lopez.

  6. QueenB

    People like you are one of the reasons I left the GOP but certainly not the only reason.

  7. Considering he won against a Democrat by 3251 votes and you lost to a Democrat by 2218 votes in the same overlapping territory… I would have to agree with the above commentator that he is a little smarter than you with it comes to math.

    I would also have to agree he is a little more moral than you for thinking for himself and his children, and his constituents instead of following lock-step behind Pigeon Killer…

    You are of course free to criticize him, but be advised. Each time you do you will lose a little bit more of your stature…

    In fact. It appears he isn’t wrong. You and the Christian Hudson sign…. are.

  8. Don,
    I understand why you would want to leave the GOP. It eats it’s own, doesn’t support candidates that stand on principles, but supports those who ‘play’ the game. I applaud your character in standing for what you believe in and are willing to take the heat for being true to yourself. Look in the mirror and be proud of your new found friends and supporters with the IPOD. Good Luck.

  9. Come on boobaloobs.

    A Republican should NEVER vote for gun control. Of any kind.

    Those of you espousing it, go join the Democrats.

    You too Ernie Lopez, you traitor.

    Those of you defending him, if he is NOT your state senator, did YOUR guy vote for it?

    If not, whose wrong here…those who voted against it or the two dumbbell Republicans who voted for it?

    Ernie Lopez should become a Democrat. He’s a nice enough guy but he’d make a much better Democrat.

  10. Count me in as another Republican in the 6th district proud of Ernie Lopez for his votes these last few weeks. And I can’t wait to vigorously defend him with my time and my money in the next election.

    You and Christian Hudson will beat him………when pigs fly.

  11. Also worth noting that nearly everyone crying about Lopez disappointing them (Hudson, that crazy school board lady, etc.) all endorsed and worked for Ernie’s opponent in the primary — and lost.

    The risk here for the radicals at the fringe is that someone like Lopez takes back the ability to govern from them, does what he thinks is right and best represents the district, and wins re-election anyway. The end is near for the radicals who would scare legislators into hard-line votes simply by being loud.

  12. questionfordavid on April 19, 2013 at 14:16 said: “Don Ayotte insists on making the same mistakes over and over again. Lopez isn’t conservative enough for him, so he wants to get rid of him”

    But Ernie Lopez’s supporters were insisting during the election that Ernie Lopez WAS conservative enough for someone like Don Ayotte.

    The point is — you lied. If you bought a product that was advertised as one thing and what you bought was something different, we would call that FRAUD.

    The issue isn’t how conservative Ernie Lopez may or may not be.

    The issue is FRAUD by FALSE PRETENSES. When people vote they have a right to know what they are getting when they vote.

    If you vote for a conservative and instead you get a moderate or a liberal your vote has been ROBBED from you. You have been defrauded and stolen from.

    anon on April 19, 2013 at 11:42 said: “I voted for Senator Lopez, both in the primary and the general and I am fine with both of his votes.”

    But, anon, you kept telling us Ernie Lopez was a conservative. So you lied to us.

    Anon also wrote: ” As a man who is very Christian and pro-life, I would expect him to vote to repeal the death penalty.”

    No Christian can oppose the death penalty, unless they have never read the Bible and are ignorant of Christianity.

  13. questionfordavid on April 19, 2013 at 14:16 said: “Just like getting rid of Mike Castle led to Chris Coons, not what’s her name.”

    We ll, we have a real world experiment to test your theory: In 2012, Christine O’Donnell did not run. Kevin Wade ran instead.

    So how did Kevin Wade do? In 2006, Jan Ting got 28.7% of the vote. In 2012, Kevin Wade got 29% of the vote. In 2010, under betrayal and attack by Republicans, Christine O’Donnell got 40% of the vote.

    So it looks like Christine O’Donnell did better than any other Republican US Senate candidate in recent elections, and Mike Castle would also have gotten 29% of the vote. Conservatives would have stayed home. Mike Castle got only 57% of the vote against a nothing candidate who spent only $22,000 for a Federal campaign. So Mike Castle would have pulled 29% like Kevin Wade and Jan Ting.

  14. Ernie, we elected you because you said you were a conservative republican, but your recent actions in the general assembly absolutely prove that this is not the case…

    If you had heard him on WGMD during the campaign, you’d have known that he’s a pathetic, whining crybaby who can’t be trusted.

  15. Any fool that thinks HB35 will keep one single gun out of the hands of people who are disqualified are as moronic as those who believed the Federal Gun Act of 1968 would prevent the same people from getting guns. Forty five years later that law is still as ridiculous as the new ones being passed, and will be just as ineffective.

  16. HB 35 is a useless law and a waste of legislative time and money. But that’s alright, we taxpayers have deep pockets. You guys don’t mind chipping in with more taxes, do you?

  17. Why have any background checks at all. It won’t prevent one single shooting. Just let anybody that wants a gun, buy one. Right?

  18. QueenB

    The criminals will always find ways to get a gun and now law-abiding citizens will have to jump through more hoops, so a few legislators can feel that they’ve done something to improve their chances for reelection.
    This legislation does nothing but make it more difficult for honest citizens to exercise their right to bear arms. This legislation does in fact infringe our Second Amendment rights and is unconstitutional.

  19. Just a quick look around, it appears that five people in Sussex County do not approve of HB35 being passed… since nationally that level is at 10% who are not in favor of tighter gun control, those 5 inside of Sussex County need still to find….20,334 more Sussex Countians just to meet that very low bar set by the national level of 10 percent….

    If you can’t muster more than 5 people to your side,…. good luck winning any election… no matter what party you choose to run for… Lol… …

  20. anon on April 19, 2013 at 15:45 said: “Count me in as another Republican in the 6th district proud of Ernie Lopez for his votes these last few weeks”

    Then why didn’t Ernie Lopez run by honestly telling the voters how he was going to vote if elected?

    How can you be proud of someone who lies to get elected?

  21. Kavips

    One thing that is obviously noticeable is the people that don’t agree with Lopez’s vote, readily identify themselves by using their given names, while the supporters of Lopez’s vote are the attackers who use pseudonyms like cowards.
    Kavips, that tells me a lot about human behavior. These are also the types that are guilty of ad homenim attacks in some comments on blogs.

    What do they have to hide?

  22. “No Christian can oppose the death penalty, unless they have never read the Bible and are ignorant of Christianity.”

    I guess that means the Pope (and the vast majority of Christian denominations) have never read the Bible and are ignorant of Christianity? Thank God they have you to straighten them out.

  23. So, Don, Pat, Jon, following your logic you would also support eliminating background checks for teachers, coaches, etc, because, following your line of logic, background checks at school won’t prevent one pedophile from raping a child.

    So step up, folks, which one of you is going to come out in support of eliminating background checks for school employees?

  24. boring
    “So, Don, Pat, Jon, following your logic you would also support eliminating background checks for teachers, coaches, etc, because, following your line of logic, background checks at school won’t prevent one pedophile from raping a child. ”

    Talk about putting words in people’s mouths, your comment takes the cake. With firearms and weapons, were talking about an infringement of citizens Second Amendment rights.
    With the garbage you are spewing like raw sewage, we are talking about hiring employees. Yours’ is a false analogy

  25. boring on April 20, 2013 at 08:32 said: “So, Don, Pat, Jon, following your logic you would also support eliminating background checks for teachers, coaches, etc, because, following your line of logic, background checks at school won’t prevent one pedophile from raping a child.”

    Flawed reasoning:

    Your analogy is like doing a background check on everyone in the entire city to keep a pedophile from being employed at the school.

    Indeed, isn’t that the reason why we have sex offender registries, so that only those who are actually guilty are suspect, and we don’t burden everyone else who is innocent?

    Criminals will get guns and ammunition regardless of background checks. It will accomplish nothing.

    For one thing, the borders are not secure. The pot many liberals smoke makes it across the border with little difficulty. What makes you think that guns, even military style machine guns, can’t also be smuggled across the borders to criminals? So criminals can always get guns, even if they have to import them across the border.

    However, if a school employee is not hired because their background is not suitable, then they will not be in the school.

    There is no guarantee that someone who is not employed by the school will not rape a child. In fact, to follow your reasoning, if a pedophile cannot get hired in a school, do you think that they won’t ever commit another crime simply because they are not employed by a school?

    So the question is not whether a criminal will never commit another crime.

    A background check for employment will only affect who is employed by the school. It will not stop crime.

  26. The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not the process for obtaining one. Background checks have already passed SCOTUS review. This law simply applies that requirement fairly to all transactions. It does not infringe on the protected right.

    And the reason I remain anonymous on the Internet is to prevent people like you from your favorite pastime — attacking the messenger because you can’t win the debate.

  27. And for everyone saying it won’t work, there are volumes and volumes of criminology and psychology studies that show even the smallest hurdle serves as an outsized deterrent. You make it a little harder for a prohibited person to get a gun, and many won’t even bother. A nuisance is a proven deterrent.

  28. As for the death penalty, the Pope answers to a higher authority, God. (Indeed my Dad is just watching a movie on Luther right now.)

    Indeed, as the Apostle Paul wrote:

    ROMANS 3:
    13 For rulers are not a cause of fear for [d]good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; FOR IT DOES NOT BEAR THE SWORD FOR NOTHING ; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil

    There is no room in Christianity for opposition to the death penalty on religious grounds, unless one abandons the Bible completely.

    However there is plenty of room to oppose the incompetence of the judicial system and its inability to — or lack of interest in — arrive at a reliable result of guilt or innocence. Indeed, the Bible throughout condemns courts which are not just or accurate

  29. anon
    “The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not the process for obtaining one.”

    You are continually wrong, the Constitution states plainly,
    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be INFRINGED.”

  30. Anon on April 20, 2013 at 10:51 said: “The Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms, not the process for obtaining one.”

    The Constitutional right to keep arms includes the right to buy them.

    Imagine applying that kind of reasoning to the First Amendment instead of the second Amendment.

    You have a Constitutional right to free speech, but you cannot buy paper or pens or make copies of anything you have written without government permission.

    Would liberal journalists accept the idea that the government may regulate their newspapers on the grounds that the right to free speech does not include the right to print copies of a newspaper, buy ink, or buy paper?

  31. Indeed, the right to keep arms PRIMARILY means the right to obtain them. And as Don points out, the right to keep arms may not be INFRINGED — even remotely.

  32. If background checks for buying guns was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have said so when they had the chance. They did not. But of course you know better than them.

  33. Wolf, in his great wisdom, forgets that the bill passed by a large margin and the 6th district vote would not have affected the outcome. So it would not have fallen anywhere.

  34. To Jon’s rhetorical questions: I believe these headlines speak for themselves…

    Newspaper Kills 10, Wounds 72 in Aurora Colorado

    Pens and Pencils Kill 20 First Graders; 6 Teachers in Newtown Connecticut.

    Gabby Giffords Gunned Down By Notebook Paper! 5 Dead!

    There is a very good reason guns need to be regulated and if the NRA won’t allow that to happen normally, the Constitution needs to be amended, putting the NRA completely out of business.. I’m sure 33 states will gladly, if not be very excited to ratify the removal of the 2nd Amendment if the NRA keeps pushing its irrationality….

  35. Anon on April 20, 2013 at 11:32 said: “If background checks for buying guns was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court would have said so when they had the chance.”

    You trust any government agency — including the courts — to get everything right every time? You don’t think that is foolishly naïve? The whole concept of our American Constitutional Republic is the assumption that government officials DO NOT make the right decision all the time, and need checks and balances.

    Therefore, no matter what a flawed court may say, the legislature may not abdicate its responsibility to faithfully support and defend the US Constitution EVEN IF OTHERS FAIL TO DO SO.

    Remember, the US Supreme Court is a COMMITTEE in which 9 people VOTE — and are often horse-trading one principle for another (across different cases). To establish some other position, Justices may sacrifice the case immediately in front of them.

    Many USSC precedents clearly say that this precedent does NOT mean we would ever decide X, and then later they go ahead and decide X in a future precedent. The Justices are playing chess with each other, horse trading, and tacking back and forth like a sailboat in the wind.

  36. If Mr Lopez is not voting as he campaigned that is sad but part and parcel of Delaware Politics.
    As for expanded background checks, they are not the answer to any problem.
    http://www.policymic.com/articles/27309/6-biggest-problems-with-mandatory-gun-background-checks

    Point #1:The Obama administration’s Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009, but the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%.

    As always know it all anonymous cowards and idiots make unfounded points and lodge personal attacks. Keyboards become substitutes for testicles.

  37. “You trust any government agency — including the courts — to get everything right every time? You don’t think that is foolishly naïve? The whole concept of our American Constitutional Republic is the assumption that government officials DO NOT make the right decision all the time, and need checks and balances.”

    The Supreme Court has the authority to judge what is and is not Constitutional. It’s the original check and balance given to them by…..wait for it……wait for it……The Constitution. Whether they get it “right” or “wrong” in your eyes is irrelevant. They ruled that background checks are consistent with the Constitution. So a law applying background checks to all sales is by definition constitutional. This isn’t really up for debate. It’s settled law.

    “As always know it all anonymous cowards and idiots make unfounded points and lodge personal attacks. Keyboards become substitutes for testicles.”

    Whatever you say, Router Boy. What’ll be the fashionable color for slanderous postcards in 2014?

  38. ” I’m sure 33 states will gladly, if not be very excited to ratify the removal of the 2nd Amendment if the NRA keeps pushing its irrationality….”

    Kavips,
    Your are almost correct but it takes 34 states to convene a Constiutional Convention, and you would probably be very surprised to find that if anything , that Convention would strongly support the 2nd Amendment. The likely hood of a Convention convened to address just that one issue is a long shot at best. Once again the voters decide who represents them and how they vote is a matter of either listening to their constiuents or voting their concience. That is the way it has been and will be until term limits are in place, or our elected officials decide that they will vote for what they believe and ignore their constiuents, which result in some cases in their term limit. We have enough laws regulating guns, but it is time to start enforcing them instead of trying to create more laws that will have no more effect than the current laws on the books have if they are not enforced.

  39. The Supreme Court has the authority to judge what is and is not Constitutional. It’s the original check and balance given to them by…..wait for it……wait for it……The Constitution.

    Uh, anon, while I agree with sentence one, sentence two is factually in error.

    Judicial review is not in the US Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall created it with his ruling in Marbury v Madison and managed to make it stick, even though it was not used again for several decades.

  40. Not in plain language, no. But judicial review was heavily discussed in the Constitutional conventions, the Federalist papers, the state ratification debates, and was widely supported as part of the process. Marshall didn’t just discover judicial review in his cereal box that morning. He didn’t “create it.” What would be the purpose of having a Constitution in the first place if no one could say whether or not the laws passed met its’ standards? When Article III, Section 2 set jurisdiction, judicial review came with it.

    And that’s really beside the point. Judicial review is settled law, and therefore background checks, having survived judicial review, are settled law. Forgive me for my lack of clarity on the origins of review. You’re right that it’s not specifically mentioned in the text.

  41. anon on April 21, 2013 at 07:11 said:

    Not in plain language, no. But judicial review was heavily discussed in the Constitutional conventions, the Federalist papers, the state ratification debates, and was widely supported as part of the process

    Yes, it was “discussed” — it was overwhelmingly REJECTED by our Founding Fathers, laughed at, scoffed over, and promised that “THIS WOULD NEVER HAPPEN” if the US Constitution were ratified.

    Those who wrote the US Constitution insisted that it could never happen, would never happen, and SHOULD never happen.

  42. Progressives can’t help themselves. When a normal person hears of a tragedy, they feel the natural range of emotions – fear, anger, sympathy, etc. But progressives are not normal humans. When they hear news of a tragedy their first thought is “How can this help the cause?” There’s something oddly perverse about this mental defect that somehow overrides decency in tragedy’s aftermath, but it’s as widespread amongst the political left as freckles are on redheads.

    Harsh? Perhaps. But sometimes the truth hurts.

    In the hours after the Boston Marathon bombing, the usual suspects of progressive grave-dancers succumbed to the music of suffering and started to dance their agenda jig. Michael Moore put down his bacon-wrapped bacon and tweeted, “Tax Day. Patriots Day.” The implication being it had to be a conservative because we oppose high taxes and call ourselves patriots.

    Once it became clear the terrorists were not rednecks named Billy Bob, the effects of Moore’s psychological Viagra wore off and he tweeted, “Younger brother Jahar was captain of the wrestling team and a volunteer with “Best Buddies,” helping kids with Downs Syndrome.” Not even a beat missed in the shift from accusing his fellow Americans to sympathizing with a terrorist. Who says a fat man can’t dance?

    But Moore was not alone in his arousal over the prospect the Boston terrorists somehow could be connected to the political right. There wasn’t a mainstream news organization that didn’t have left-wing fetishists applying virtual nipple clams on themselves while all but pointing the finger at those who simply wish to have a government that pays a little more deference to the document politicians swear to preserve, protect and defend.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/derekhunter/2013/04/21/progressives-ultimate-fetish-n1573944?utm_source=thdaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

  43. Anon writes: “The Supreme Court has the authority to judge what is and is not Constitutional. It’s the original check and balance given to them by…..wait for it……wait for it……The Constitution. ”

    No, it does not. Show us where in the US Constitution it says that the US Supreme Court is the EXCLUSIVE, final, or only arbiter of what the US Constitution says.

    Nothing could be more repugnant to a constitutional Republican than the power of a committee of 9 to alter the country at will, and nothing would be more shocking to our Founders. If those who wrote the US Constitution were alive today, they would grab muskets and pitch forks, march down to the US Supreme Court, and demand that the Justices resign. That’s how the Founders viewed the idea of a Supreme Court more powerful than the other branches.

    Listen, anon, I am related to Justice Marshall. But on that point, Justice Marshall was as treasonous and wrong as Edward Moseley. Justice Marshall took the US Constitution he was charged with upholding and fed it to the goats. (They didn’t have shredders back then.)

    Now, obviously, the US Supreme Court must make an interpretation of the US Constitution while doing its job. That’s where the error creeps in.

    But the other two Branches, and the State legislatures, ALSO must follow the US Constitution, as an individual, separate responsibility.

    Just because the US Supreme Court cannot do its job without interpreting the US Constitution, does not mean the other branches and the State legislatures can abdicate their responsibility.

    it is self-evident that deciding a case or controversy includes an interpretation of the US Constitution, when the Constitution is implicated.

    But that does not mean that the other branches and legislatures are suddenly relieved of their equal obligation to interpret and follow the US Constitution for themselves.

    All of them swear an oath to defend the US Constitution — not the US Supreme Court.

  44. And do not overlook the significance of this Constitutional blasphemy:

    Progressives can hijack and take over the entire country in only 3 steps:

    1. Indoctrinate the law schools — COMPLETED

    2. Spread the myth that the US Supreme Court is the exclusive interpreter of the US Constitution — COMPLETED

    3. Get 5 of their own appointed to the US Supreme Court.

    In 3 steps, the US Constitution and the Constitutional Republic will have been swept aside in a progressive lawyers coup-d’état.

    This is why liberals (in both parties) are so adamant about this Constitutional blasphemy and so irate when it is questioned.

  45. Then why didn’t Ernie Lopez run by honestly telling the voters how he was going to vote if elected?

    Show us where Ernie said he would vote against any gun control laws. You can’t because he never said that. Maybe if you and your ilk spent less time following him around screeching for his birth certificate and more time finding out where he stood on the issues, you wouldn’t all be sitting here surprised at his gun control vote or his death penalty repeal vote.

    Ernie will vote “no” on HB75, (Don, that’s the gay marriage bill), people in his district know he’ll vote “no” on that because he campaigned on marriage being between one man and one woman and to date he has voted exactly the way he campaigned.

    Maybe you need to retract your statement about Ernie not running “honestly.” It’s not based in reality.

  46. anon
    ” You can’t because he never said that. Maybe if you and your ilk spent less time following him around screeching for his birth certificate”

    I’ve heard nobody screech about his birth certificate. Senator Lopez was born in Puerto Rico, a US territory and is an American Citizen by birth. The only reason you bring it up is to denigrate the other commenter.

  47. “The only reason you bring it up is to denigrate the other commenter.”

    Ernie Lopez was asked for his birth certificate at an event during the 2012 primary. That’s why it gets brought up, so that people clear about what the right fringe in Delaware politics stands for.

Comments are closed.