The NYT solicited questions to ask Judge Sotomayor from such notable legal authorities as Michael Chertoff, Alberto Gonzales, and Ann Althouse. I wish I were kidding.
Knowing that many of you never experienced the mind-sharpening effect of law school, and may not know lawyers speak their own language, we provide a translation for non-lawyers of what these fine attorneys and one historian are really getting at.
Michael Chertoff, former thug.
1. Don’t you agree everything you’ve experienced/learned in life should be ignored while the conservative justices impose their Randian views upon the federal judiciary?
2. You agree that the French are deeply uncivilized, don’t you?
3. Don’t you think that the guy who said, "if the law says that, then the law is a ass" was wrong?
Stephen Carter, Yale Law School:
1. Do you think the President or Senate should care what a Justice thinks, or should a monkey pick justices?
2. By listing Justices you admire, please identify those who are complete jerks.
3. Why do you think Justice Scalia behaves like a complete jerk?
Alberto Gonzales, unindicted co-conspirator
1. Isn’t it true that an unimaginative jurist or unprincipled Attorney General would never figure out how to interpret the law to serve justice?
2. Since only foreigners and terrorists object to our anti-terrorist policies, shouldn’t we just tell our critics to f**k off?
3. Don’t you agree that since precedent is only sacred when we conservatives want to continue an injustice, but dispensable when we overturn 40 years of humane rulings, that Plessy v. Ferguson should still be the law of the land? Wasn’t the Fourth Amendment a mistake?
Ann Althouse, idiot savant:
1. You’re proof that a wise Latina is wiser than I am, aren’t you?
2. Since you’re a Catholic and we need diversity, do you agree with me that Scalia and Alito should immediately resign as soon as you’re confirmed?
James MacGregor Burns, historian:
1. Do you agree that Justice Scalia is a moron?
2. Shouldn’t the Supreme Court overturn Marbury vs. Madison and let Congress and the President destroy the Constitution and Bill of Rights?
3. Since the Supreme Court tends to be out of touch, do you agree that the most progressive/modern justices should be forced to retire now, leaving only the conservative Justices that are still stuck in the late 19th Century?
I’d like to believe these are the stupidest questions Judge Sotomayor will be asked, but I’m afraid at least half of the Judiciary Committee’s questions will take the cake.
27 Comments
Spotlight
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About The Seminal
Advanced search
I don’t believe this or maybe I don’t want to believe it gotten this bad.
The NYT questions were easily twice as intelligent and relevant as the questions from the Committee will be.
I bet Gonzo was just surprised he even got a phone call with someone asking his opinion.
I wonder if he send a bill for answering them.
This is a ludicrous attempt by the NYT for outrage clicks; therefore, I shall not.
any plans to create a patented device, an ear-piece, say, that would allow john citizen to speak with a lawyer and get the translations in real time? Would be helpful. Entertaining too.
but the expense damnable.
I think it’s now *Professor* Albert Gonzales, unindicted co-conspirator now /s
Yeah. And actually, I thought he was “Alberto” but I’m sure that’s just a typo on Scarecrow’s part.
FunnyDiva
But, but, Scarecrow
Her hearing is going to be friendly! The AP headline that Yahoo bundled to my email said so!
FWDiva
He is an Alberto
Just watched Marcy on MSNBC….Loved the passion!
Keep on hitting hard at these oblivious Republicans!
great questions!
Friendly, with an occasional reference by Graham et al to the “R.” word.
How are you?
lmao
Doing well thanks, and you?
Didn’t Alberto say, “I was going to ask a question, but I forgot.”?
R = Repiglican?
No, no, Congress and the President should just ignore Marbury vs. Madison, since that came after the “original intent” and therefore can’t possibly be what the Constitution is supposed to mean!
Cheney gave questions too, but he ordered the New York Times to keep them secret.
Exactly what I was thinking (as I clicked, unfortunately).
There’s no such thing as bad publicity, and there’s no such thing as a bad hit. They’ll take the hits any way they can get them. It doesn’t matter whether you’re agreeing, disagreeing, or mocking.
The NYT online edition isn’t there to inform (though it sometimes does) – it’s there for the hits. Hits trump truth or integrity.
Sorry for being Captain Obvious, but people tend to lose sight of these things.
Thanks. Hope he wasn’t offended.
Saw the link on the Times home page, but hadn’t read it – didn’t expect much, but to find that they asked Chertoff, and of all people, Gonzales; I’m almost speechless.
Isn’t Gonzales, at least, thoroughly disgraced by now? The mere fact it has taken this long for him to find a job should make that pretty clear.
chertoff is equally bad, but wasn’t in quite the same position to do as much harm as Gonzales – still, surely he’s been disgraced, also?
And even worse, the Caucus blog, which asked readers to do the same thing, elicited really hostile, stupid questions from readers. I gave up reading them after the first page. Not a single one in those that wasn’t deeply hostile.
I was also shocked by the questions of James McGregor Burns – I thought he was a historian, rather than a legal expert, so I dunno, I guess I thought he’d be reasonable. Guess I should google him, huh?
Amazing.
Ok, back from the Google – interesting on Burns.
He’s 90 years old, has been both a Dem delegate to national conventions and a Dem nominee for Congress (lost), and is interested in leadership, especially Presidential leadership.
From Emily Bazelon’s review of his newest book, “Packing the Court, the Rise of Judicial Power and the coming Crisis of the Sup Ct.”:
Well, that explains his questions. But really, it’s a little late to be complaining about Marbury v. Madison.
Who chooses the folks to write these articles? Disappointing.
Burns’ definition of stealth:
1. The Constitution says it is the Supreme Law of the Land, along with Statutes enacted pursuant to its provisions.
2. The Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of . . .”
3. Article III puts the judicial powers into federal courts and the Supreme Court.
So if Congress does enact such a law in violation of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, Burns’ view is that the Supreme Court should just dismiss any suits challenging its application? The answer is not about stealth; it’s simple logic of what it means to have a Constitution creating a government of limited powers. Otherwise, it’s meaningless.
Getting by, girlfriend. Getting by.
The “R” was ambiguous. The republicans are using the r-word as in racist. Pretty ironic if you remember how all the air got sucked out of the room during the Alito nomination and Ms. Strip-search Sammy Alito broke into tears when democrats dared to question Alito about his affiliation with a racist princeton(?) alumni group, especially because Sammy proudly put that group down as one of two groups he belonged to on one of his resumes. The other group was the heritage foundation, I think.
do you agree with me that Scalia and Alito should immediately resign as soon as you’re confirmed?
Well, yes, but their religion has nothing to do with it. And while they’re at it, they should take Thomas and Roberts with them. Then we can start anew with a clean slate of human beings instead of the corporate robots we have now.