Kudos to Senator Al Franken for bringing up the importance of the Internet and First Amendment today in his questions to Judge Sotomayor in her Senate confirmation hearings.
Franken asked Sotomayor if she agreed with the importance of keeping "the Internet the Internet" - or free, as it has been.
Sotomayor replied that she recognizes the crucial importance of the Internet in our society - but that the Supreme Court's role is to rule on the basis of Congressional law.
Franken pressed her, pointing out the importance of the First Amendment, as a part of the Constitution in effect superior to what Congress may do. (He could have also said, but, after all, only an Amendment to the Constitution can change the First Amendment - not a law enacted by Congress.)
Sotomayor replied that the First Amendment is not necessarily superior to "property rights" and other compelling interests.
I think Franken has the right of this. He might have further replied, if he had more time, that the Supreme Court has to follow the First Amendment, regardless of what Congress does.
Unfortunately, this is not what the Supreme Court has consistently done. The Supreme Court wisely struck down the Communications Decency Act in the late 1990s, but supported the FCC's censure of WBAI Radio in the late 1970s.
As I've indicated in my discussions of Sotomayor and the Doninger case, I'm concerned about her support - or lack of - of the First Amendment. Her response to Franken was not very reassuring.
She has comported herself very well at the hearings, however, and will likely be confirmed.
It's good to know that the First Amendment will at least have Senator Al Franken on its - and our - side.
See also The Flouting of the First Amendment.
8 comments:
It is great to see him a senator. It is evident from his work as a comedian that he is intelligent with his head in the right place, as far as I am concerned. Your analysis is right on Paul, and it helps me get a clear view and understanding. I look forward to more.
Ian
Paul, thanks for bringing this to my attention.
What really concerns me after watching the clip is Sotomayor's idea of the role of the Supreme Court. She repeatedly talks about the Court's job as one of interpreting Congress's intent in making a law, and clarifying how Congress balances opposing rights in a particular situation.
I may be wrong here, but I was taught that the Supreme Court was supposed to be one of the checks and balances to Congress, not its interpretor; that its primary role is to ensure those laws adhere to the Constitution, not to a congressional policy.
Frankly, I'm quite disturbed by this brief video and hope my fears are proven wrong.
Joan
You're completely right to be concerned, Joan - I am, too.
What we are saying here is that she thinks the job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the decision of Congress and enforce it, not check whether it is constitutional. I have to listen more carefully to the interview, I would be concerned about that too.
Paul, I really found your podcast on the Donniger case to be fascinating and disturbing at the same time. It was the first thing about Sotomayor that has given me pause about her nomination.
I really have to wonder why the Senate is virtually ignoring this case and focusing so intently on the Ricci case. Are republicans really that hung up on the plight of the aggrieved white male (As a white male, I find that a bizarre)? Or is it just that first amendment cases involving high school students aren't considered "sexy" enough for TV?
I think the Republican questioning distracted from the real issues about Sotomayor - such as the Doninger case, and, in general, not a great, trailblazing record (such as Appellate Judge Learned Hand).
The Republicans wasted America's time with inane repetition of the "wise Latina" complaint (make that point once, and move on), and with tick-like expressions of concern about "legislating from the bench".
The country has thus been deprived of an intelligent examination of the record of the next Supreme Court justice.
I did not see this reported anywhere and unfortunately I could not watch the Sotomayor hearings. Thank you for posting it. Sotomayor's answers to Franken's questions make me nervous. She gave enough of an answer to make it clear how she feels. Where as on abortion and gun ownership she beat around the bush.
On the idea of her avoiding the topics of abortion and gun ownership, I wonder why she bothered? Republicans can't block the election of Sotomayor, and most already suspect her to hold liberal views. Thus I somewhat wonder if she holds views clashing with traditional liberal values, which would explain why she chose to not answer these questions.
-W
Mostly Politics- http://bill84121.blogspot.com
The late great Paul Wellstone, much like today's Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich, believed that the "big guys" (corporate America and the wealthy and privileged) have plenty of representation in government, but the "little people" have little representation. So Wellstone vowed to work on behalf of the little people, and he also stood strongly for individual freedoms and overall fairness. Franken, a longtime admirer of Wellstone, now holds the late Senator's seat, and is committed to carrying out an agenda much like Wellstone's. Franken will emerge as a strong proponent of the First Amendment and fairness, and will never stoop to collusion with big business and the status quo. He will become a true fighter for the people and an outstanding Senator. Keep your eyes and ears on him.
Post a Comment