New GOP tack: Will Sotomayor uphold Constitution?

AP ^ | 6/23/09 | Laurie Kellman

[dirtboy]

That could be tricky, given that Clarence Thomas is about the only one of the bunch now who regularly upholds the Constitution (sorry, Scalia showed his true stripes in Raich).

[Carl LaFong]

Yeah, that’s a ‘tack’,Laurie.What a ridiculous, partisan thing to ask a Supreme Court nominee.

[Always Right]

No, she hates everything the original intent of the Constitution stands for. She will turn it upside down every chance she gets....stupid question, next.

[P-Marlowe]

Senate Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a new narrative ahead of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, questioning her commitment to constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms and equal treatment under the law regardless of race or gender.

There is no constitutional right to equal treatment based on "gender".

[Wolfie]

She’d be the first. At any level of Federal government.

[relictele]

Only if it’s hanging from a dispenser in the ladies room.

[MrB]

“Original intent” is antithetical to liberal ideology.

Liberals believe that they, through benefit of living NOW, are indeed smarter than those who originally wrote the contract called the Constitution.

[LearsFool]

New GOP tack: Will Sotomayor uphold Constitution?

Will the GOP?

[WayneS]

Will Sotomayor uphold Constitution?

Almost certainly not.

[knarf]

I’ll just ditto all the nay’s here.

[Leg Olam]

In a word. NO!

[WayneS]

Yes there is.

The 14th Amendment’s usage of the word “person” covers it quite nicely, which is why the “ERA” was wholly unnecessary.

Unless, of course, one is a member of some bizarre religious sect that does not consider women to be persons.

[Dead Corpse]

Agreed. A little late to be worrying about it now.

Still, "half a loaf is better than no bread." I don't actually think that their whining at this late date is going to change much, but at least they are showing a semblance of a spine.

[isom35]

she hasnt bothered to read it, why uphold it?

[P-Marlowe]

The 14th Amendment’s usage of the word “person” covers it quite nicely, which is why the “ERA” was wholly unnecessary.

Sorry my FRiend, but the ORIGINAL INTENT of the 14th amendment was to prohibit discrimination by virtue of race, not gender. If, in fact, the 14th amendment was intended to prohibit all discrimination based on gender, then women would have been drafted and forced to serve in combat. Further if the 14th amendment was originally intended to prohibit discrimination based on "gender" then women would have had the right to vote and the 19th Amendment would have been wholly unnecessary.

The ERA was not passed because it would have required women to be drafted and placed in combat roles in the military.

Gender discrimination is not a constitutionally prohibited practice. It never has been.

Now are you one of these people that believes in a living-breathing and changing-with-the-times Constitution?

[danamco]

http://americangrandjury.org/

[cvq3842]

How dare the GOP ask this!

(sarcasm)

[xzins]

Now are you one of these people that believes in a living-breathing and changing-with-the-times Constitution?

Took some of that citrusy tasting liquid stuff prior to a medical test and it cleaned by constitution's riflings.

Fire-Breathing constitution..... :>)

[BlueYonder]

Raise your hand if you trust Senate Republicans to uphold the Constitution.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Just as I expected.