GMU law prof Neomi Rao has a list of questions she thinks Senators on the Judiciary Committee should ask Sonia Sotomayor at her confirmation hearing.
Judge Sotomayor consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation that wants to condemn private property against upholding American's individual rights to keep and bear arms or own property. If there is a case involving an employer municipality and an employee landowner and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, she'll rule in favor of the employer municipality. If there's a claim between prosecutors and defendants in a gun possession case, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then she'll rule in favor of the state.
But if she is as closed minded to the possibility that the question raises that she just assumes the questioner is crazy, and says condescendingly that she is "fairly sure" it is impossible, well, that sort of mind should not be on the Supreme Court, where decisions should not be made in closed-minded certainty of the status quo.
And why we seek well-rounded and thoughtful people who have long-term vision and concern for how a decision will effect society.
It would be manifestly improper for the Supreme Court to say anything about same sex procreation until a live case or controversy involving actual SSP came before them. They do not issue advisory opinions.
If they turn a blind eye to the way the world is changing, and just mete out ignorant rulings based on the meager scraps of evidence that other ignorant judges have limited the case to ...
Also I want a full session covering the application of the bill of rights to sentient robots and self-aware computer networks, particularly vis-a-vis whether nuclear genocide constitutes self-defense.
If an appellate court feels that the lower court has not sufficiently fleshed out the factual underpinnings of the case, they will remand with instruction to develop the factual record.
Or, they sometimes flesh out their own underpinnngs, and create trimesters.
And like abortion, the court could face a case of a couple wanting to genetically enhance their child, or a same-sex couple wanting to try to combine their genetic material, or a person that wants to clone their mother, up against a federal law or state law that prohibits doing so, like many states have in varying degrees, and the PCBE recommended Congress enact in 2004.
The question of whether there is a right to attempt those things is independent of a plaintiff or technology existing.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.