Constitutional Law

Sotomayor hearings, pt. 2

Randy Barnett, at the Volokh Conspiracy, posts some of the transcripts, which I find... well, incoherent. The type of answers that would draw zero points on a first year Con Law exam.

Sen. Feingold: d like to hear your thoughts a bit on whether you see any common themes or important lessons in the Court's decisions in Rasul, Hamdi, Hamdan and Boumediene. What is your general understanding of that line of cases?

Judge Sotomayor: That the Court is doing its task as judges. It's looking, in each of those cases, at what the actions are of either the military, and what Congress has done or not done, and applied constitutional review to those actions.

In other words, my understanding of those cases is that they were cases....

Sen. Feingold: But what would be the general test for incorporation?....

Judge Sotomayor: One must remember that the Supreme Court's analysis in its prior precedent predated its principles or the development of cases discussing the incorporation doctrine.

?????? Wuzzat mean?

Judge Sotomayor: No, I was just suggesting that I do recognize that the court's more recent jurisprudence in incorporation with respect to other amendments has taken -- has been more recent.

Now that's startling!

Full post as published by Of Arms and the Law on July 14, 2009 (boomark / email).