Republicanism

Jon Henke made a post a few days ago, that was maybe a bit short on substance, but nevertheless made his point. Republicans have not done very well in the world of public opinion concerning their criticisms of Judge Sotomayor. While I agree that Judge Sotomayor has said some unfortunate things, the way that some of the comments by Gingrich, Rush, Steele, and others have come across have not helped our case. I made some responses to Henke's post on why I thought that these individuals were being given a microphone. However, what was even worse than the failure of those perceived to be leaders on our side to effectively criticize Judge Sotomayor were the comments made in response to Henke's post. Here, I respond to Henke's call for Republicans to "grow up" in a meaningful and constructive way with how I would go about questioning Judge Sotomayor as a Republican Senator on the Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Bannon: Good morning Judge Sotomayor. Allow me to be one of the first to welcome you and you're lovely family here to the Senate. As you know from your distinguished career, but for the folks watching on CSPAN or Youtube or on the nightly news, we are here today because of the Senate's role under Article II of the Federal Constitution to give advise and consent to the President when he should have the opportunity to appoint a nominee to the Supreme Court. It is one of our many functions as a check on the two other branches of government,  the Executive, in the form of the President and the Judiciary, in the form of the Supreme Court.

As is the case with most likely all of the Supreme Court nominees that the Senate gets to question, your credentials are impeccable. So much such that I will only briefly review them to acknowledge to all paying attention that you are most definitely qualified on paper to sit on the Supreme Court. Princeton Undergrad and Harvard law,  ultimately culminating in a Judgeship on the 2nd Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and nominated by the President to sit on the highest court in the land. Your achievements stand as accomplishments to be proud of and let us hope that you are placed as a role model for those outstanding achievements in the lives of all of our young.

Judge, there is a lot going on outside right now. The newspapers and other media are paying attention. Right, left, up down, crisscross are all paying attention and have been screaming ever since you were nominated. In fact the entire world is most likely paying attention, but you know what Judge, I want to bore them to death. I want to sit here, just two people, a United States Senator and a United States Judge, and have a scholarly conversation about that great founding document of ours, the Constitution of the United States, only with the realization that the points that are made in our scholarly conversation can indeed be very exciting and have real world effects despite sounding like we are up in the clouds. Do you think we can do that Judge?

Judge Sotomayor: Of course, Senator Bannon.

Sen. Bannon: Good Judge, then lets get right to it and lets get the main thing that has been causing all of that screaming and manuevering out there, and lets get it out of the way and then lets move on to bore everyone. Judge Sotomayor, Do you believe that the Constitution of the United States is colorblind?

Judge Sotomayor will then answer the question but no matter what she answers we should just let it go. Either she will hang herself and say that the Constitution is not colorblind or else we will look like we are badgering her about a petty issue.  I say we should move on, because there are a number of other Constitutional questions that I will outline below that are much more important than whether a Judge thinks Latina women are better than White men, because Judge Sotomayor will practically speaking never be able to rule that Latina women are better than White men in any form whatsoever.

Other Questions I would ask Judge Sotomayor: (Note: It is her failure to answer these questions that I would press her on. Here we are treating her as any other normal nominee, questioning her judicial philosophy on things likely to come before the court, not getting in a battle about race with the first Latina woman every nominated to the Supreme Court).

1. Does the dormant commerce clause exist? If so, please explain how you would approach a case dealing with the dormant commerce clause.

2. Can you please discuss your take on Youngstown Sheet and Tube v. Sawyer, specifically addressing Justice Jackson's 3 part  concurring opinion?

3. Can you discuss your view of the 10th Amendment's role in the Constitution?

4. Can you please discuss your take on the caselaw leading up the decision in Kelo v. New London? (Notice that I did not ask her view on this case, because she will give the "its an issue likely to come before the court" response. But there would be no reason not to discuss the two important cases that were cited in Kelo).

5. Do you believe that Miranda rights are Constitutional rights?

6. Can you please give us your definition of Pornography? (Tie this into some statement about how more and more children are preyed upon because of online predators, etc.)

7. Could you please give us your opinion of the standards the court must look at in determining whether enough has been met under rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?

8. Can you please discuss the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and how you would have applied it if you had been on the bench when Korematsu came to the Court?

9. Ought international law be used in interpreting the Constitution of the United States?

10. Does the Constitution permit the legislature to strip the United States Supreme Court of jurisdiction over an issue?

Note: Most of these questions are not particularly hot buttoned topics and, if they are, they are certainly not framed that way. Secondly, for most of these questions, the standard "non-answer, answer" would not only be unacceptable to the right, but would likely be unacceptable to the left as well. These are the types of questions, for a myriad of reasons, a judicial nominee would have to provide some type of answer to, or else there could be a case made to the majority of the American people that there was a valid reason to vote against her/him. 

I found two sites. One that asked for John McCain's stances in 2004 and the 2008 Campaign website.

2004:

 

In 2004 The National Political Awareness Test (NPAT) asked candidates which items they would support if elected. Items included economic and policy issues, both domestic and foreign. Here are the highlights of John McCain's responses to the questions. John McCain on Abortion * Abortions should be legal when the pregnancy resulted from incest or rape, when the life of the woman is endangered. * The "partial-birth" abortion should not be permitted. * Organizations that advocate or perform abortions should not be publicly funded

 2008:

 

Overturning Roe v. Wade John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat. However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion. Once the question is returned to the states, the fight for life will be one of courage and compassion - the courage of a pregnant mother to bring her child into the world and the compassion of civil society to meet her needs and those of her newborn baby. The pro-life movement has done tremendous work in building and reinforcing the infrastructure of civil society by strengthening faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to pregnant mothers in need. This work must continue and government must find new ways to empower and strengthen these armies of compassion. These important groups can help build the consensus necessary to end abortion at the state level. As John McCain has publicly noted, "At its core, abortion is a human tragedy. To effect meaningful change, we must engage the debate at a human level."

So we see McCain is now (as opposed to 2000) committed to ending Roe V Wade but in reality we don't see John McCain as a Strong Candidate on the Pro-Life issue because he isn't.

On Gay Marriage we see a similar thing

2008:

 

Protecting Marriage As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question. The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation. As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress.

And now 2004:

John McCain on Same Sex Marriages

• Same-sex couples should be allowed to form civil unions. Marriage should be restricted to a union only between a man and a woman.

While he focuses on the core issues of politically popular irritation in the Judges we don't see at the core what John McCain thinks. We see a whole lot of platitudes. Now me personally I consider a lot of issues more important then Abortion, and I view Gay Marriage as an assault against traditional marriage and one where the end of that pardigm shift and how it would change our society is unknown. But I look at this and I don't see John McCain as a conservative like me, nor do I see him as a person who is even like me. Whereas he is running against a canidate who makes people feel rightly or wrongly like he is one of us (the Us depending on who he reaches out to). John McCain can't win if he doesn't open up and show us who he really is

One of the major problems Republicans have over Democrats is the fact we as Republicans have been united behind ideas we call “Conservative” and Democrats over ideas we call “Liberal”. If you spend time studying political science you learn that the truth is something very much different. Wikipedia provides us with some good starting points for discussion

 

Liberal conservatism is a political philosophy which generally means combining elements of "conservatism" with elements of "liberalism". As these latter two terms have had different meanings over time and across countries, liberal conservatism also has a wide variety of meanings. Historically, it often referred to the combination of economic liberalism, which champions laissez-faire markets, with the classical conservative concern for established tradition, respect for authority and religious values. In this way it contrasted itself with classical liberalism, which supported freedom for the individual in both the economic and social spheres. Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments and this sense of the term "liberal conservatism" fell out of use, and "conservatism" was simply used instead. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered "conservative". In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia, in Italy and in Spain). The liberal conservative tradition in the United States combines the economic individualism of the classical liberals with a Burkean form of conservatism (which has also become part of the American conservative tradition, for example in the writings of Russell Kirk).

And this is also important

Conservative liberals differ from social liberals for some main reasons: * First, they are more concerned with economic liberalism, adopting libertarian or neo-liberal policies, while the second ones tend to be more keen on Keynesian solutions and on higher taxes, though still supporting individual liberty as well as decentralization. Conservative liberals, in contrast, are staunch supporters of the free-market, small government, less bureaucracy, deregulation, privatizations and the lowering of taxes, often proposing the flat tax or the fair tax. * Second, they are usually socially liberal on such social issues as same-sex marriage, abortion, and euthanasia but may place less emphasis on them than do most social liberals. * Third, they are mostly strong supporters of economic globalization and tend to be more skeptical about international organizations like the United Nations or European Union[citation needed]. Most conservative liberals support the foreign policy of the United States and, in NATO-member states support that political alliance[citation needed]. * Fourth, conservative liberals are often in favor of stricter punishment of illegal immigrants and are usually tolerant but not enthusiastic about multiculturalism, of which social liberals are strong supporters. Conservative liberals often identify as law and order-parties, which are tougher on crime and support higher levels of punishment and are more committed to fighting terrorism, while social liberals tend to emphasize prevention and are more committed to civil rights. * Fifth, historically, conservative liberals tended to be more skeptical about universal suffrage than social or classical liberals[citation needed]. One should not confuse conservative liberalism with liberal conservatism; indeed, the latter is a variant of conservatism. Liberal conservatives tend to be more committed to authority, tradition and established religion, while conservative liberals are supporters of the separation between church and state. However it is possible to classify some parties as both conservative-liberal and liberal-conservative. Conservative liberalism differs from libertarianism in several ways. First it is far less radical in its economic program. Second it is supportive of an active defense policy and military interventions in contrast to the libertarian non-interventionist policy. Most conservative liberals supported the American-led interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan[citation needed]. Second conservative liberals are tough on crime and are more willing to sacrifice civil liberties to fight terrorism and crime[citation needed].

If we were to examine American Conservatism we see a fusion of both Conservative Liberals and Liberal Conservatives within the tradition of American Conservatism. As the two wikipedia articles point out while their are clear differences in both of these schools of thought they do bare a great deal of similarities. Which is why Individuals like Ronald Reagan, and Newt Gingrich were very good at leading American Conservatism forward. However in approaching Liberal Conservatism we also have a third group that is Conservative on Social issues and how the government intersects with Society. This group on the surface one could (and some are arguing this point) has no connection to the other two. But this Social Conservative group comes from an age of our culture where Christianity (their religion of choice) and Protestant Christianity (their particular Christianity of choice) is driven not around the community but around the individual. While Individuals in this Christian tradition do come togther to work on projects, they don't focus on a larger collective identity. Only with Catholicsm (where we see competition with the Democratic party) does the communal side of Christianity grow in Strength. So Individualism united all three wings of American Conservatism. Respect for the family and their ability to act unites all three wings. Though when we get into strengthening the family in areas like gay marriage some aspects of American Conservatism grow weaker. Smaller government unites two outside of the box but when linked with smaller taxes and respect for the family American Conservatism is again united.Respect for the rule of law unites two wings of the party out of the box again, and with some tweaking Conservative Liberals come to the table as they may have issues when Law and Order politics is played with what they deem unjust laws. A Foriegn policy driven on American Exceptionalism unites the Liberal Conservatices and the Conservative Liberals and depending on the mission can unite all of the wings of American Conservatism.

So the key ideas at the largest level which make the American Conservatism we know and love all still sell well today when you start to examine what American Conservatism really is, and where its ideas come from. You see big ideas which the Republican Party isn't running on and you see the Republican party being rejected by conservatives who don't vote for a Obamamination offering Free Healthcare, Free Job Training, and a Free Pony they just stay home. And instead of saying "why are we losing Republicans" we see a Republican party say "why are we losing Americans" When the ideas which made the Republican party great in 1980 and 1994 are still relevant and potent to Americans if we would simply have a party that applies them. The Libertarian Party will peal off some of the Conservative Liberals and the Liberal Conservatives in this election if the Republican party does not get on the Stage at the National Convention and be a American Conservative party.