« AZ allows limited CCW in alcohol serving establishments | Main | Legal guns in DC »
Sotomayor hearings, pt. 2
Randy Barnett, at the Volokh Conspiracy, posts some of the transcripts, which I find... well, incoherent. The type of answers that would draw zero points on a first year Con Law exam.
Sen. Feingold: d like to hear your thoughts a bit on whether you see any common themes or important lessons in the Court's decisions in Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan and Boumediene. What is your general understanding of that line of cases?
Judge Sotomayor: That the Court is doing its task as judges. It's looking, in each of those cases, at what the actions are of either the military, and what Congress has done or not done, and applied constitutional review to those actions.
In other words, my understanding of those cases is that they were cases....
Sen. Feingold: But what would be the general test for incorporation?....
Judge Sotomayor: One must remember that the Supreme Court's analysis in its prior precedent predated its principles or the development of cases discussing the incorporation doctrine.
?????? Wuzzat mean?
Judge Sotomayor: No, I was just suggesting that I do recognize that the court's more recent jurisprudence in incorporation with respect to other amendments has taken -- has been more recent.
Now that's startling!
10 Comments | Leave a comment
One thing for sure, no one will ever accuse Sotomayor an intellectual heavyweight.
Kind of reminds me of Palin's interview with Couric. So terrified of saying something wrong that nothing but mush comes out.
Yes, she comes off as a dope but the dems laude her anyhow. Thomas, on the other hand, was derided by blacks as an Uncle Tom and by dems as a moron.
"Delta House has a long history of existence to itself and its members."
What do anyone expect from our affirmative action president but a pick of an affirmative action judge?
As a prof for nearly 30 yrs, I've watched these "AA babies" given everything for no work at all. Are there some that had the real qualifications? Probably but because of AA we will not easily know who they are. Every college degree granted after 1975 is tainted. White males were expected to perform at a bit of a higher level but grade inflation is at least 1 to 1 1/2 letter grades from then to now.
Beware those who wish her confirmed. I've read that she can be a real biatch about forcing HER opinion on the other judges. She'll do the "UR racist and sexist!" bit to get her way.
God help us.
Tiocfaidh ar la!
Maybe instead of asking her opinions of how these decisions should effect incorporation ... they should just ask her for a simple synopsis of these decisions.
Or ask basic Bar examination questions.
Then drop to first year student Law questions if she fails these.
Determine first if she should have ever been admitted to the bar in the first place.
The first rule in tech support is to ask the customer if the device is actually plugged in / cable are connected.
Lets see if Sotomayor's power cord is out of the wall socket before proceeding.
Kristopher:
Shes done that already, long time ago.
Shes getting confirmed whether you like it or not guys. Any Republican that votes for her, vote him out of office or have him voted out of office.
Reading Judge Sotomayor's answers these few days has elicited a Strange New Respect for her clerks. Anything coherent in her rulings is surely their work, not hers.
Still, the GOP Senators aren't showing themselves well either. The charges of "judicial activism" ring hollow because that term has been wrung dry of any useful meaning.
Randy Barnett proposed over the weekend (WSJ) how she should have been interviewed.
The Senators hostile to Sotomayor could have asked these questions without triggering the stock answer of "that case may come before me so I can't answer." They might have learned something about their own principles and legislative behavior as well. But no, another splendid opportunity to limit Federal power is once again kissed off.
Young America Foundation held a Summit on Radical Islam. View the videos via UStream
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/Young-Americas-Foundation
"more recent jurisprudence in incorporation with respect to other amendments has taken -- has been more recent."
WTFrick does that mean? I hope someone challenged her on this answer.