Didn't Roberts say the same at his confirmation? Calling precedence "settled law" seems redundant to me. All prior court opinions are settled law until they're overturned, aren't they? C.f. Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
you DO know the difference between a Senate confirmation hearing and a television news interview, don't you???? Multiple self-important preening pricks asking stupid questions instead of just one.
and most of those would be self- important, preening REPUBLICAN pricks. The Senate Judiciary Committee currently has 11 Democrats (including Specter) and 7 Republicans.
You can consider that amount of self-important and preening has gone down since Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden no longer sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
HTTP, it's an amusing question, but obviously not a real one. Any Republican Senator who asked it would likely get a chuckle, and might lose their next election. And obviously no Democrat will ask it.
So are you implying that Sotomayor is similar to Palin? From your point of view doesn't that make her qualified?
Everyone knew from the outset that this was a "show hearing," and nothing more. Ms. Sotomayor will be confirmed. So it was only an opportunity for nitwits like Sessions to fertilize their already happy...and clueless constituency.
Everything else is just BS.
Clyde
ps: And Republicans only make a stink about judges "legislating from the bench" when the decisions go against them. Funny about that....
The reasons Palin was asked about her sources of information -- outside the Bible -- were that she appeared shallow and incurious, and had bounced around among six colleges most people hadn't heard of. Her response to that question vindicated the hunch that prompted the question.
The reason Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor have not been asked that question is that their education, achievements and demeanor dispel doubt about their familiarity with information sources.
Yes, they all usually end up saying mostly the same thing, BUT usually there's much pussyfooting and pulling of teeth necessary to get them to answer on these question, which was not the case with Sotomayor. For example, she brought up Casey before even being asked unlike Roberts:
With the high court still closely divided on abortion issues, women's groups warned that Roberts could cast the decisive vote in narrowing or overturning those decisions. Under persistent questioning, Roberts would go only so far as to say that the later decision, Casey, is a "precedent entitled to respect" under the legal doctrine known as stare decisis. That doctrine generally calls for upholding past rulings, but it also permits decisions to be thrown out based on consideration of various factors.
Great question on Twitter
ReplyDeletehttp://twitter.com/JTlol
Hey, has anybody asked Sotomayor which newspapers she reads?
Didn't Roberts say the same at his confirmation? Calling precedence "settled law" seems redundant to me. All prior court opinions are settled law until they're overturned, aren't they? C.f. Brown v. Board of Education overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.
ReplyDeleteUh Heir, you DO know the difference between a Senate confirmation hearing and a television news interview, don't you????
ReplyDeleteIf they did ask her what newspapers she reads, I have no doubt she'd have an answer.
ReplyDeleteSeriously Heir, if someone asked you that question couldn't you answer it pretty easily?
Someone as folksy and one of the people like the soon to be ex-Governor of Alaska should be able to answer a question like that.
I agree though, it seemed like a stupid question to ask...right up until the point when she couldn't answer it.
you DO know the difference between a Senate confirmation hearing and a television news interview, don't you????
ReplyDeleteMultiple self-important preening pricks asking stupid questions instead of just one.
and most of those would be self- important, preening REPUBLICAN pricks.
ReplyDeleteand most of those would be self- important, preening REPUBLICAN pricks.
ReplyDeleteThe Senate Judiciary Committee currently has 11 Democrats (including Specter) and 7 Republicans.
You can consider that amount of self-important and preening has gone down since Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden no longer sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
HTTP, it's an amusing question, but obviously not a real one. Any Republican Senator who asked it would likely get a chuckle, and might lose their next election. And obviously no Democrat will ask it.
ReplyDeleteSo are you implying that Sotomayor is similar to Palin? From your point of view doesn't that make her qualified?
Everyone knew from the outset that this was a "show hearing," and nothing more. Ms. Sotomayor will be confirmed. So it was only an opportunity for nitwits like Sessions to fertilize their already happy...and clueless constituency.
ReplyDeleteEverything else is just BS.
Clyde
ps: And Republicans only make a stink about judges "legislating from the bench" when the decisions go against them. Funny about that....
The reasons Palin was asked about her sources of information -- outside the Bible -- were that she appeared shallow and incurious, and had bounced around among six colleges most people hadn't heard of. Her response to that question vindicated the hunch that prompted the question.
ReplyDeleteThe reason Roberts, Alito and Sotomayor have not been asked that question is that their education, achievements and demeanor dispel doubt about their familiarity with information sources.
I guess feeding the trolls takes priority over answering conscientious commenters' questions around here.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteYes, they all usually end up saying mostly the same thing, BUT usually there's much pussyfooting and pulling of teeth necessary to get them to answer on these question, which was not the case with Sotomayor. For example, she brought up Casey before even being asked unlike
Roberts:
With the high court still closely divided on abortion issues, women's groups warned that Roberts could cast the decisive vote in narrowing or overturning those decisions. Under persistent questioning, Roberts would go only so far as to say that the later decision, Casey, is a "precedent entitled to respect" under the legal doctrine known as stare decisis. That doctrine generally calls for upholding past rulings, but it also permits decisions to be thrown out based on consideration of various factors.