(Editor’s Note:  Since Sonia Sotomayor will almost certainly NOT be answering questions next week about future cases likely to face SCOTUS, I’m leaving them out of my list of 10.  Below are a list of questions phrased softly enough and hypothetical enough that she’ll likely feel safe answering.  Hopefully, she’ll like to hear herself talk and get into enough detail to hang herself expose her judicial mindset to America.)

1. What role should public opinion play, if any, in Constitutional adjudication?  (Followup:  Why do you believe that?)
2. Thinking back about the neighborhood you grew up in, are you still proud of it even today?  (She’ll obviously answer ‘Yes’.)  Followup:  Even though its economically lacking?  (She’ll get defensive and answer ‘Yes’ again, likely more emphatically, perhaps even defending the Puerto Rican cultural background of her ‘hood.)  Followup:  Why not replace some of the more run-down, albeit cultural, areas of your neighborhood with new businesses, like a shopping center?  (It’d be nice to see if she takes the bait or not.  If she does, it’d be a great way in front of the cameras to force her to rethink Kelo vs. New London)
3. If there are minor areas of the Constitution which seem arcane, but Congress hasn’t gotten around to amending, is it OK in extraordinary instances for SCOTUS to ignore them?  (If she asks for specific examples, cite the Saxbe fix or even better, the Exceptions clause.)  (The purpose of this question is really designed to see how much of an activist she truly is.  If she actually answers “Yes” to this, alarm bells should be going off across the Fox Nation!)
4. Are Constitutional privacy rights ever absolute?   (I’d be stunned if she takes the bait here, but if she’s dumb enough to, and extreme enough to answer ‘Yes’, ask for her to cite some broad examples.  This will be an excellent way to determine if she’s gonna crush any War on Terror efforts.)
5. Is the Interstate Commerce clause being manipulated by Congress?  (She’s way too smart to answer this, I would imagine.  Nothing, though, would sink her nomination faster than for her to say ‘Yes’, but that’s why you have to ask.)
6. What are your tiebreakers?  (She’ll say ‘I don’t follow.’)  Well, certainly, there must have been times in your career when deciding on a case was extraordinarily difficult and the facts and Constitutional issues were about even for both sides, right?  (Her answer here oughta be entertaining.)  Well, in those cases, certainly you had a list of tiebreakers you used to determine your outcome?  Was public opinion one of those?
7. What does it say about America in 2009 that we’re still arguing about affirmative action?
8. Does the Court ever have a right to try to stop a war, especially if it was started on clearly false grounds?  (Again, she likely won’t take the bait, but who knows?  If she says Yes, she’s going to be a gift to Code Pink.)
9. Should the Court, in an effort to reduce itself as a lightning rod and perhaps to reduce the number of cases it faces, start getting into the business of issuing advisory opinions to let all potential parties to a case know upfron the Court’s thoughts on issues?  (If she says Yes, alarm bells.)
10. Do you find the term “activist judge” offensive?  (If she says Yes, alarm bells.)

Well, those are my 10.  I think at least 8 of them she’ll answer.  If they’re asked in a soft tone and done right, I think she’ll realise she’s not being asked to prejudge a future case.  We desperately need to know upfront, in the one democratic moment we have with her next week, to realise just how bad a justice we’re facing.

With a minority as small as ours right now, that may be the best we can do.  Expose her for the radical she is to the public, and hope that it places some pressure on Senate Dems up for election in 2010.