GIGO was responding to the OP, who never said anything about junior senators, but did say Franken was a freshman. I believe Sinijion (and I) then assumed he was under the mistaken impression that the two concepts were the same, and corrected him, saying there was in fact a “vast difference”.
Sophomore is used, with the obvious meaning, and more often in the House, but it isn’t a common term at all.
Has Franken even asked Sotomayor any questions?
(The senior senator from MN, Amy Klochubar, has, with wonderful results.)
I wanted Franken to ask her, “I’m sorry, but I don’t want to hear what you’ll do for America. I want to know what you’re going to do for me, Al Franken.”
I think he was off by 30 years. 2010 will mark the start of the Al Franken Decade.
I suppose he could ask her if she honestly believes she’s good enough, smart enough and if, doggone it, people will like her.
A guy who’s tried so hard to be taken seriously recently probably should not have asked Sotomayor what her favorite episode of “Perry Mason” was.
Just a thought, Al.
However, they do have sophomoric senators.
Yes, And by ‘vast’ I meant that a ‘Freshman’ is a senator serving the first term. ‘Junior’ is the least senior of the pair from a state. There is no overlap in the definitions, all though some people might qualify as both.
And you can be a Freshman senator without being a Junior senator.
Perhaps one of the classic examples of why “Junior Senator” is not necessarily an indication of lack of experience in the office is South Carolina through most of the 2nd half of the 20th century (and a few years into the 21st). Stron Thurmond was elected Senator on November 7, 1956 (and presumably took office the following January 3), being re-elected and holding the seat until January 3, 2003. He became the Senior Senator on the death of Sen. Olin Johnston, April 18, 1965. On November 9, 1966, Ernest Hollings won the other South Carolina Senate seat, taking office on the following January 3. So from January 3, 1967 until January 3, 2003 – 36 years – Hollings was Junior Senator from South Carolina. (The final two years of his last term, 1/3/2003-1/3/2005, he was Senior Senator.)
So what? The incredibly drawn-out legal battle preventing him from joining the Senate with everyone else was really not his fault.
So what? Being an attorney has never been a qualification to be a politician of any kind, and it’s certainly not a required qualification of a Senator.
Now THAT I don’t know and am leaving up to the other Dopers. 
I’m all for explicit citations of Gricean Maxims. When used correctly, such citations can really clear the air and ameliorate misunderstandings.
When you said “You are quite incorrect” all you had quoted was the single sentence “There is a vast difference between a freshman and a junior senator” and you went on, in your response, to cite technical definitions of the two terms. It’s pretty clear, given Grice’s maxims, that you were trying to correct a misunderstanding about how different being a freshman senator is than being a junior senator.
Yet you went on in a later post to claim that by “you are quite incorrect” you only meant to say his (gricean) implication that freshman senators can’t be on committees was incorrect.
I won’t say anything about what you were thinking. But what you wrote, given Grice’s maxims, said no such thing.
-FrL-
Yes, he questioned her yesterday afternoon. I caught the last 10 minutes or so, where he asked her thoughts on what judicial activism is, and also about what the constitution says about right to privacy and abortion. I thought he did fairly well, and so did she. There’s a full half-hour clip of his questioning here.
I thought his questioning yesterday was relatively good. He seemed like he’s still trying to process the fact that he’s a freaking Untited States Senator, and is trying to find the right kind of demeanor. During the campaign, and to some extent since he’s been sworn in, it seems like he’s really tried to keep a lid on the wise-ass/comedy writer persona in order to avoid being caricaturized as an un-serious clown, but the result is that he’s sometimes been a little TOO buttoned down and stuffy.
He asked a few good questions yesterday, and not just buttercup questions either, but stuff that put her on the spot a little bit (asking her directly if the Constitution contains a right to privacy, for instance). At the end, he lightened things up a little bit by asking her what was the only case that Perry Mason ever lost, and that little exchange showed his wit in an unobtrusive way.
He did ok. I’m not saying he was edge-of-the-chair brilliant or anything, but he didn’t embarass himself or his state, he came off as Senatorial and thoughtful, he sought out real issues to pursue, and he managed to inject his humor (which is a strong part of who he is, and not something he should ever abandon) without seeming like a buffoon. I hope he’s not afraid to let that humor out more often as he becomes more comfortable. The ability to get a laugh is an underrated ability in politics.
I didn’t see the questioning, but if he asked her about Perry Mason, good for him! The Senate could use a little deflating of those overstuffed gasbags. They’re representatives of the people, not a House of Lords.
I’d much rather have Franken ask a humorous question along with the serious stuff than listen to Joe Biden blather on for 20 minutes about himself in the guise of asking a ‘question’.
Herb Kohl is another non-lawyer on the committee. He’s been there since he was the junior senator from Wisconsin in 1989. If he wasn’t the lowest ranking member on the committee during the Thomas hearings he was pretty close. He didn’t get much TV time back then despite the wall-to-wall coverage that hearing got.
Every senator is on committees. There are, at the present time, 16 of these and over 75 subcommittees.
Here are Franken’s current committees, according to his Wikipedia page:
* Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
* Committee on the Judiciary
o Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights
o Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security
o Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
* Special Committee on Aging
* Committee on Indian Affairs
Most of these are newbie gigs with little power or prestige. (The cool kids, I’m told, are on Appropriations, Armed Services and Foreign Relations.)