Comments on: Sotomayor Hearing Live-Blog, Day 3 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/ Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:06:34 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: avenir labs http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155486 avenir labs Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:23:53 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155486 how can you say that traditional celebration was not sufficiently important to Muslims??????/ how can you say that traditional celebration was not sufficiently important to Muslims??????/

]]> By: Gary Kleppe http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155454 Gary Kleppe Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:45:04 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155454 <em>"is there anything Congress can do if a Justice says one thing and then turns into something else?"</em> Yes. Impeach. “is there anything Congress can do if a Justice says one thing and then turns into something else?”

Yes. Impeach.

]]> By: rjwalker http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155437 rjwalker Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:21:58 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155437 BTW- can anyone get a message to a dem on the committee to ask her if she believes the judge-made law of marbary v madison should be followed? Or should judges stick to the original intent of the constitution which did not include such judicail reviews of constitutionality? BTW- can anyone get a message to a dem on the committee to ask her if she believes the judge-made law of marbary v madison should be followed? Or should judges stick to the original intent of the constitution which did not include such judicail reviews of constitutionality?

]]> By: rjwalker http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155436 rjwalker Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:18:42 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155436 Let's remember folks, the idea that federal judges can review laws for constitutionality was and remains judge-made law. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) Let’s remember folks, the idea that federal judges can review laws for constitutionality was and remains judge-made law.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803)

]]> By: Josh http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155432 Josh Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:41:44 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155432 Thanks for this coverage. All the background information links are incredibly helpful!! Thanks for this coverage. All the background information links are incredibly helpful!!

]]> By: EdgeOnIt http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/sotomayor-day3/comment-page-1/#comment-155431 EdgeOnIt Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:52:43 +0000 http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/?p=19353#comment-155431 <strong>The (seventies era) War Of The Sexes</strong> was never won, nor lost! Monogomy was the issue, and perhaps that is still true? Monogamy, itself, is the veritable backbone of every known society; yet, public sympathy for bigamy exists, and yet the overwhelming absence of bigamy in the world and in the history cultures, sensibly indicates a social danger accompanying any alternative to monogamy. Possibly resulting from bigamy have been: losses in warfare? Non-systematicization of social cooperation? Inflexibility in surviving the flux of natural processes? The (seventies era) War Of The Sexes was never won, nor lost! Monogomy was the issue, and perhaps that is still true? Monogamy, itself, is the veritable backbone of every known society; yet, public sympathy for bigamy exists, and yet the overwhelming absence of bigamy in the world and in the history cultures, sensibly indicates a social danger accompanying any alternative to monogamy. Possibly resulting from bigamy have been: losses in warfare? Non-systematicization of social cooperation? Inflexibility in surviving the flux of natural processes?

]]>