They’re Master Debaters

So let’s see a real debate!

HRC has agreed to a debate with Obama to be broadcast by FOX News. Apparently she feels that it is more important to get more free TV facetime than it is for her to hate the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”.

Of course, the leftosphere is wailing and gnashing their teeth about it.

I don’t know why. Even they complained that the questions at the last couple debates were pretty lame. Hell, some of them even complained that since the very last debate was monetarily sponsored by some “Clean Coal Conglomerate”, as they called it, that the hosts of the debate (CNN if I remember correctly) were embargoed from asking any enviro-questions.

So i would like to gather up a list of questions to send off to the possible FOX personalities who might be asking the questions. I’m not being malicious here, I’m wanting to let HRC and Obama get asked the questions that need to be asked so that the American public can hear them answered.

Think of it as a public service.

———-

Question #1: Currently sitting in front of the Supreme Court is a case titled Heller Vs The District of Columbia. In a large number of legal circles, it is being touted as one of the most important cases of the early 21st Century. In the first week of February, a significant number of your fellow legislators signed onto a friend of the court brief that was in support of the Heller view of the case. Neither of you signed this. Should this lead us to believe that you support the view that the Second Amendment is a collective right, and if not, exactly what is your stance on the Second Amendment as it pertains to private citizens?

Question #2: A study by the Heritage Foundation has shown the death penalty to be effective in deterring crime and saving lives. Likewise, the RAND Corporation and researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles each separately studied hundreds of death penalty cases and concluded that it was the heinousness of the crime and not the race of the murderer that led to the decision to seek the death penalty. Do you support the death penalty for heinous crimes, and why or why not?

Question #3: The citizens of two liberal or progressive states, California and Washington State, have spoken with their votes to outlaw Affirmative Action for college admissions and government contracting. In 2007, the Supreme Court said that the city of Seattle was no longer going to be able to use race as a factor in determining which students could attend which school in the city’s public school district. Do you believe that Affirmative Action is necessary in the 21st Century, and why or why not?

Question #4: Both of you have spoken in the past of your feelings on the subject of Gay Marriage. I believe that you both said you support “civil unions”, which some people on both sides of the political aisle would say is the wrong answer. My question is this: If a state were to pass legislation legalizing full marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples, and this legislation also included language that penalizes those licensed to perform marriages if they were to refuse to perform same-sex marriages, even if they’re church’s doctrine and/or their personal beliefs told them it was a sin to do so; Would you support such legislation?

Question #5: In 2007, with the Democratic Party re-taking control of both houses of Congress, the topic of re-instituting The Fairness Doctrine was brought up. The Fairness Doctrine, noted for it’s ability to silence political free-speech on the airwaves for both television and radio, has been gone for two decades. In those two decades, political speech and the emergence of numerous 24 hour news channels, including political news, has flourished. Would you sign legislation reinstitutiing of The Fairness Doctrine, and why or why not?

Question #6: Each of my last five questions have relations to either recently past or current cases before the Supreme Court. President Bush has been criticized by both of you, as well as numerous members of your party, for his appointments of both Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, the main point of contention being their supposedly “strict constructionist views” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The next President of the United States will undoubtedly have the opportunity to nominate one, or possibly even two or more Supreme Court Justices. In 2004, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that “Judges would be negligent if they disregarded the role of international law in US Courts”. Do you support the interpreting of US law as seen through the magnifying glass of other nation’s legal standards and would you appoint a Supreme Court justice who did use other nation’s laws to interpret ours such as Harold Koh?

———-

There, I believe that covers enough for now.

Feel free to leave your suggestions in the comments. Yes, I’m serious about sending these off.