« UPDATE: Maj Gen. Taguba's Denies Statement - What About Other One? | coonsey's Blog | Gen. Sanchez: I support the formation of a truth commission »
Enough About What Entertainers Think: Let's Talk About A nation of laws and human rights.
There are four controversial issues in today's world that Americans are most interested in when it comes to the justice system. Those four issues should be front and center during Congress's questioning of President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Equal Rights
Abortion
Gun Rights
War Crimes
Equal rights has been front and center for centuries. Americans need to know how the nominee feels about affirmative action rights, woman's rights, man's rights, racial rights, sexual rights, civil rights and religious rights. The most recent rights being that of gay and lesbians. How would Ms. Solomayor go about researching this type of case?
Abortion rights even though it was decided decades ago that a woman should have the right to choose, there are millions still continuing the fight against Roe vs Wade decision. How would she approach such a case?
Gun rights is another issue that concerns millions. Many feel that if 'some' guns like assault weapons are banned, that the next item will be their shot gun. Again, how would she does she feel about the amendment allowing Americans the right to bare arms and at the same time try and yet try and control the spread of weapons in the hands of killers?
War crimes, last but in no way the least important. In fact, I would consider it top of the list because it describes who we are as Americans. Americans are currently divided on whether or not members of the previous administration should be prosecuted for possible war crimes during war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each week we have new stories from former members of the administration or from those that participated in those enhanced interrogations such as water boarding. We currently have photos that the Obama administration has decided to keep the world from seeing. We have former interrogators saying the water boarding wasn't necessary that more information was received by following conventional interrogations. We have the former investigator into the Abu Ghraib abuse, Maj. Gen. Tuguba, into the Abu Ghraib abuse saying the Bush administration committed war crimes. And now General Petraeus says that we Americans violated the Geneva Conventions. Exactly what do they mean by these statements? The only way to find out is to have an independent investigation into war crimes and if such crimes are found, prosecute those involved. How would the nominee approach this type of case?
The discussion on racial or gender comments made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are important, they aren't whatmost Americans care about. The media is once again jumping into the story about what 'Entertainers' are talking about, instead of focusing on what makes America what she is. A nation of laws and human rights.
Equal Rights
Abortion
Gun Rights
War Crimes
Equal rights has been front and center for centuries. Americans need to know how the nominee feels about affirmative action rights, woman's rights, man's rights, racial rights, sexual rights, civil rights and religious rights. The most recent rights being that of gay and lesbians. How would Ms. Solomayor go about researching this type of case?
Abortion rights even though it was decided decades ago that a woman should have the right to choose, there are millions still continuing the fight against Roe vs Wade decision. How would she approach such a case?
Gun rights is another issue that concerns millions. Many feel that if 'some' guns like assault weapons are banned, that the next item will be their shot gun. Again, how would she does she feel about the amendment allowing Americans the right to bare arms and at the same time try and yet try and control the spread of weapons in the hands of killers?
War crimes, last but in no way the least important. In fact, I would consider it top of the list because it describes who we are as Americans. Americans are currently divided on whether or not members of the previous administration should be prosecuted for possible war crimes during war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each week we have new stories from former members of the administration or from those that participated in those enhanced interrogations such as water boarding. We currently have photos that the Obama administration has decided to keep the world from seeing. We have former interrogators saying the water boarding wasn't necessary that more information was received by following conventional interrogations. We have the former investigator into the Abu Ghraib abuse, Maj. Gen. Tuguba, into the Abu Ghraib abuse saying the Bush administration committed war crimes. And now General Petraeus says that we Americans violated the Geneva Conventions. Exactly what do they mean by these statements? The only way to find out is to have an independent investigation into war crimes and if such crimes are found, prosecute those involved. How would the nominee approach this type of case?
The discussion on racial or gender comments made by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are important, they aren't whatmost Americans care about. The media is once again jumping into the story about what 'Entertainers' are talking about, instead of focusing on what makes America what she is. A nation of laws and human rights.
Advertisement
I disagree with the idea that Supreme Court nominees should be asked to testify about their opinions on issues likely to come before them.
See this op-ed piece from the NY Times, which explains the problems much better than I could.
Unfortunately, it's the decision of the Senators to call the nominee as a witness, and not the nominee, but it's still a practice that should be discouraged and not encouraged.
That said, if I were on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the question I would want to ask is a more general one, which is the role of stare decisis, the principle that past decisions should guide future decisions. There are many reasons why a Supreme Court justice might vote to ignore (overrule) a previous decision, but disagreement with the previous decision should not be one of them. We should not encourage "court packing" to change decisions already made. Rather, we should work to get the court to recognize and correct mistakes that are made.
May 31, 2009 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do not really agree, but this post is better than the spam at least :/
May 31, 2009 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what SPAM are you talking about? If you are referring to my listing my same post on other blogs, that is not what I call spam. I call it getting my message out to those that haven't heard it and need to. I'm not SELLING anything but my thoughts and opinions. That is NOT spam.
May 31, 2009 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink