Tweet
With Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, now formally announced, I am hoping that someone on the Internet will compile a list of questions that need to asked by our Senators, and in this regard, I posit the first question, and those interested or of like-mindedness, should feel free to provide or add their questions, as well.
"Under the premise of ‘governmental free speech’ if Congress approved legislation that prohibited political parties from accepting a membership from either a bigot or a racist, would this legislation pass constitutional muster?"
And my rationale for this Question is that the onus would be fully placed on the Republicsns to respond accordingly and as their history dictates.
In advance, I thank all who care to participate in this endeavor.
Jaango
20 Comments
How would asking Sotomayor to answer this question place anything on the Republicans?
Asking questions can elicit less than truthful answers, tho I agree many have to be asked.
I would like to know about her (likely) Catholic upbringing. We need to know just how *Catholic* she is, since it could have a huge bearing on pro-choice. Apparently she’s divorced so that may be a hopeful sign that she’s not a strong Catholic. (no offense meant to Catholics here; just checking on those that may sit on the SCOTUS and might have private agendas built-in from birth).
Perhaps we should ask the Pope what he thinks of her. :)
Again, no offense meant.
There doesn’t seem to be any history on her in regard to her thoughts on executive privilege. That’s a bit troubling. I’d like to know if she believes in preventive detention.
Do you thinks she believes in martian law?
A case and a question for the judge:
Town offers a no-racial-bias test to determine which firefighters deserve to be promoted.
Mr. A, who belongs to Racial Group X, scores highest on the test — high enough clearly to earn a promotion.
No one from Racial Group Y scores high enough to earn a promotion.
Mayor, who’s under political pressure, throws out the test and promotes no one.
Question: If the racial groups were reversed, would it make a difference legally to the mayor’s action?
Did you mean martial law? You wrote “martian?” :)
Can you tell me why you want to ask if a nominee for the Supreme Court would belief in preventive detention before I answer your question?
I would like to know her views on presidential expansion of powers and the rule of law. She says she favors following Constitutional law. Let’s ask some particulars and get her answers on the record.
How about her views on FISA, the MCA or even if she thinks bushco should be prosecuted. I’d like to know what she thinks about issues that affect us all.
I hope that answers your question. ;)
Thanks, I didn’t have a clue why anyone would ask about preventive detention. I haven’t heard anyone raise the question of the possibility of considering preventive detention since the Nixon administration.
Answering your question to me, i meant to type martian, trying to be humorous in suggesting that preventive detention is no part of the common law.
My question to Judge Sotomayor is for after she is appointed … does Roberts sob like a baby when you win the arm-wrestling match ?
Isn’t it sexist to suggest that she is stronger than a man?
Shame on you, bro!
Amicus briefs at 30 paces…
Did you hear Obama’s national security speech when he laid out his ideas for “prolonged detention?”
When did I call Roberts a man ?
I stand corrected.
And idea when the confirmation hearing will be ? I’ll have Nachos & Beer ready for the both of us and a few hundred friends here … *g*
Hatch said today that he didn’t expect a final vote before the August break – if you can:
A) Read anything into what Orin Hatch says
B) Imagine teh Goopers letting this thing go before they have squeezed the last drop of cash out of the myriad fund raising opportunities.
Hatch is under the false impression that the Repugs still control Congress.
We’ll see if he’s right … Harry Jellyfish Reid can’t get Dawn Johnsen confirmed as yet.
No, but thanks for the clarification. I had misunderstood you entirely. Ooops.
In response to macaquerman at #1.
First, my apology for my tardiness in my response. It’s been quite busy where I’m at.
Therefore, permit me to delve a little deeper into my original post. We, Natives, here in the Sonoran Desert, have been asking Harry Reid to introduce legislation accordingly, with respect to my original Question. And should he do so, each political party would establish a PAP and which is the acronym for a Political Assessment Panel.
As such, here is my round-about explanation. Attaturk has up on his front page post, “Goon Squad” in which he quotes Charles P. Pierce:
“We moved into an era in which the reflexive instincts of the Gut were celebrated at the expense of reasoned, informed opinion. To this day, we have a political party—the Republicans—who, because it embraced a “movement of Conservatism” that celebrated anti-intellectualism is now incapable of conducting itself in any other way. That has profound political and cultural consequences, and the truly foul part about it was that so many people engaged in it knowing full well they were peddling poison.”
Now, Rush Limbaugh has taken after Judge Sotomayor, and has called her a “racist”. And given this behavior, the Republican Party and their Political Assessment Panel would be required to be convened, Limbaugh would called forth and for him having to defend his statement for having called Judge Sotomayor a “racist”. Consequently, Limbaugh would be required to defend his statement utilizing “fact”, “reason”, and “evidence”, and if he cannot sustain his statement, he would be ’sanctioned’ and this sanction would simply consist of his membership being revoked in the Republican Party.
Therefore, being publicly ’sanctioned’ and with no membership in the GOP, the impact for Limbaugh would be far more severe that what Don Imus received. And for Limbaugh, his radio audience would effectively evaporate and ultimately gravitate to Beck or some other voice on the Right. And of course, the loud voices on the Right would take far reaching notice, and thus, their nonsense, would have no further traction in the political arena. Within talk radio, having to look over your shoulder to see who is delivering the deafening foot steps that are gaining on you, would make the shock jocks feature and deliver a better radio program and where any facts just may rise to the surface and for the listener’s attention and consideration.
Jaango
Jaango, thanks for our answer. I wholeheartedly applaud the aim of eliminating racism, and would love improving the quality of discourse.
However, having Political Assessment Panels seems to be a very dubious solution.
Who has the right to call forth people to be judged before such a panel?
Who would comprise the Political Assessment panel?
Who would determine the members and how would they be determined?
What would be left of the First Amendment?