Sotomayor Hearings Day 3 Open Thread
Day #2 of the hearings for confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor were interesting, mainly for Republicans embarrassing themselves. It was the first day of questioning. Below are some highlights.
Senator Jeff Sessions apparently believes that all judges of Puerto Rican descent should vote alike:
This morning, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) castigated Sotomayor for not ruling with her fellow Puerto Rican colleague, conservative Judge José A. Cabranes, when she decided to deny an en banc appeal in Ricci v. DeStefano, a process in which all judges of a court hear a case (as opposed to a three-judge panel of them). Sessions seemed to indicate that people of the same ancestry should vote the same way.
SESSIONS: You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit. And in fact your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case.
Sessions slammed Sotomayor as being “unsuitable for the bench” due to her past affiliation with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF). Apparently, Sessions didn’t realize that Judge Cabranes also served on PRLDEF’s board.
Sessions also got some serious pwnage by Sotomayor.
In a variation of the old admonition that a lawyer should never ask a question if they don’t know the answer, today Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) learned that it’s not a good idea to use someone to make an argument without making sure that the person being used isn’t in the room:
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), seeking to discredit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, cited her 2001 “wise Latina” speech, and contrasted the view that ethnicity and sex influence judging with that of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, who “believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices.”
“My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,” Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions’s apparent surprise. “We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts.”
And what does Cedarbaum think about Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy?
I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no affect on her approach to judging.”
Lindsey Graham accused Sotomayor of being a bully.
In the most aggressive questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing thus far, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) read out a laundry list of complaints about the nominee this afternoon. Graham went through insult after insult from anonymous reviews about Sotomayor’s temperament, including ones that called her “nasty,” “a terror,” “a bit of a bull,” and one that said she lacks any “judicial temperament.” Graham then asked her directly: “Do you think you have a temperament problem?”
He also harped on her “wise Latina” quote.
After voicing those complaints and telling Sotomayor that “maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection” for her, Graham became a bit of a bully himself, asking her if she remembered her “wise Latina” quote. When the judge answered in the affirmative, he asked her to recite it – twice. Sotomayor hedged a response, and Graham plowed ahead, said, “I’ve got it here,” and read the quote out himself.
During the opening day of confirmation hearings, Judge Sonia Sotomayor came under fire from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) for stating that her experiences as a Latina affects her judicial outlook. “This empathy standard is troubling to me,” Grassley said. “The Constitution requires that judges be free from personal politics … feelings and preferences.”
But Grassley never objected when Judge Samuel Alito said virtually the same thing during his confirmation hearing, when Alito testified he “can’t help but think of” his immigrant family when evaluating immigration cases:
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background, or because of religion or because of gender, and I do take that in to account.
Tags: Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
What a bunch of clowns these Senate republicans are. Rush Limbaugh honestly does rule their world.
Glenn Greenwald at Salon has some great posts about this double standard (re: the Robert Siegel NPR clip on You Tube).
These SCOTUS nominations Senate hearings are now officially a joke. The nominated judge sits there like a silent robot, recites the same shit over and over, and defends themselves against actually having a personality.
I’m not fan of Roberts and Alito but they got similar inane treatment. Oh, then yesterday they called her a “bully” because she asks the toughest questions at oral argument on the curcuit. Would they make the same accussation if it were a tough questioning man. This is so silly.
What? You mean you aren’t outraged by the indignities suffered by this country’s downtrodden white men? What you need is more empathy…uh, wait…
The dick Lindsey Graham is doing his best to fulfill his self-proclaimed criteria of a “meltdown” being the only thing that can derail her nomination. And failing a derailment, he is trying to do as much damage as possible before confirmation.
The Radical Right just upset because someone who they see as a maid will soon be telling them what to do.
The Radical Right just upset because someone who they see as a maid will soon be telling them what to do.
Exactly. By the way, how is Michael Steele doing these days?
Somewhere I read someone characterize yesterday’s hearings as Judge Sotomayor going up against the Army of the Confederacy.
There’s a great ad here that is airing in some parts of the country asking lawmakers to denounce the crap from Maximum Leader Limbaugh.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has successfully defended herself from the onslaught of the hypocrites, by constantly referring back to her record as a judge, which has essentially been unassailable by the opposition, who continue to grandstand, playing to their paltry base. The GOP continues to be deathly ill!
Cassandra great ad. Let me point out the funniness of Rush calling someone a racist and a bigot. As any eleven year-old would say, “It takes one to know one.”
I wonder if Sotomayor’s nomination could be the final nail in the coffin for the Republican Party’s hold on the Latino and Chicano vote.
One of my neighbors tells me that the coverage of the Confederates grandstanding over Sotomayor on Univision and other Spanish language TV has been pretty whithering towards the repubs. I don’t speak Spanish and nor do I have TV so I have no idea if this is true. There is still some real symmetry to the repubs actually killing themselves via their Southern Strategy….
Talk about not knowing how to pick your battles. I can’t even work up outrage over the Republicans anymore. They are simply ridiculous.
Ah, the crying from the left. Sotomayor made statements if made by a Republican nominee would have been disqualified.
Remember, the simple fact Obama voted against Roberts and Alito with the slimmest of facts. Liberals want it both ways.
Keep bringing up Limbaugh, easily the most childish argument you could make. Senators are not going to listen to Limbaugh, yet you folks do?
All of the crying seems to be wasted. Isn’t she a wise Latina woman who knows all and tells all?
Admit it, she was chosen not for her legal excellence but her gender and ethnicity.
How sad.
Mike Protack
Mike Protack, the leader of the Delaware Republican Party, knows nothing.
Okay, I know the previous statement is something we all know, but the leader of the Delaware Republican Party should learn about the history of Supreme Court nominations. It is a history of nominating people for political purposes such as geography, religion, gender, sexual preference and ethnicity.
“Sotomayor made statements if made by a Republican nominee would have been disqualified.”
Really? You mean, if Sam Alito had said “I have no doubt a wise Latina woman could render a better verdict than a white man who didn’t have those experiences,” he would have been disqualified? What a strange little world you live in.
Sen Tom Coburn is making her look like a mental midget.
The only person Tom Coburn could make look like a mental midget is you, Mr. Shallow Bench. And since you do that by just showing up, that wasn’t meant to be a compliment to Coburn.
“Sen Tom Coburn is making her look like a mental midget.”
Takes one to know one, eh?
I guess, Sotomayor looks quite small from 30,000 feet up.
Mike Protack, Leader of the Delaware GOP, don’t need no stinkin’ Chicano votes!
All of the crying seems to be wasted. Isn’t she a wise Latina woman who knows all and tells all?
Latina woman? *snicker*
LOL! Tom Coburn!
To show the total stupidity of Repubs, in Sotomayor the may well be getting a strict constructionist, yet they do their best to make fools of themselves anyway, trying unsuccessfully to make a fool of her.
They have no idea what they want.
From the Dem standpoint, they will get a fair woman who knows herself well and is very smart and focused. That suits me just fine!
Kaufman’s questions are magnificent.
Really JM? This is the HuffPo liveblog:
Apparently, the Army of the Confederacy has been whining about their Hispanic nominee and Senator Feinstein pushes back nicely.
Kendall’s Huff blog was woefully superficial on this point.
Kaufman conducted needed questioning on SS’s views on business cases, specifically probing her views on several areas where the current court has been veering off the track: Congressional authority to make economic regulations, statutory construction, judicial deference to administrative agencies, role that “economic theory” plays in Court’s analysis [Kaufman noting the recent hideous antitrust decision].
“Admit it, she was chosen not for her legal excellence but her gender and ethnicity.” – totally moronic statement from Mike Protack.
While the “Wise…etc.” comment *is* troublesome, what is more troubling is Mike Protack’s willful stupidity on this issue.
Tits or GTFO, Protack.
TPM has an Appellate Lawyer liveblogging the proceedings…
TPM’s live blogger indicates that Kaufman’s questions were about his concern for the consumer not the corporation.
hmm, Sonya sez not sure if you have right to self defense:
“Do you believe that an individual has the right to self defense?” and Sonia Sotomayer’s response to it:”I don’t believe the court has addressed that issue…. but I could be wrong.”
TPM’s take on Kaufman’s questions:
Anoni–
There is no right to self defense. Instead, it is an affirmative defense to a crime you have committed against another person. When you engage in self defense, you are protecting yourself or another from an immiment harm. However, you or the other person must be in immiment danger of physical harm or death where no retreat is possible in order to use deadly force.
Finally, there is no right to use deadly force to protect property.
The Mental Midget Coburn asks Judge Sotomayor to prejudge a case, and anoni (surprise) can’t quite communicate the complete picture:
DD
I assume you are speaking of Delaware Law in your responce. Many states dircetly acknowledge the right to self defense and several states specifically reject the “requirement” of retreat.
no cassy, he did not ask her to prejudge a case or rule on a hypothetical. He asked a straight forward question.
“do you believe … I have a right to personal self-defense?”
He could have asked:
do you believe … I have a right to free speach?
do you believe … I have a right to petition the government?
do you believe … I have a right to own property?
do you believe … I have a right to free healthcare?
C’mon, anoni — Reading Is Fundamental. She was answering about precedents and not giving away the judicial goods for free. It was a dumb ass question from Coburn and it is equally dumb of you to think that any potential judge will tell you how they’d rule anymore. Besides, DD gave you an excellent answer, which you decided to ignore.
Actually, Delaware passed a self defense law a few years ago. So, if you are inside your house, then you have a right to defend your property. Someone breaking into your home is enough justification for self defense. It used to be if you had a window in your room, you had to try to get out of it before you could shot them. How asinine is that? Someone threatens you in your own home, and you have to run away and leave it or you go to jail?
didn’t you-all use to call these Bushisms…
If Sarah Palin Had Said It . . . (Update)
Weekly Standard ^ | 7/15/09 | Ed Wheelan
Judge Sotomayor says “eminent” when she means “imminent,” “providence” instead of “province,” “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge,” and so on. Does the fact that she is a Latina immunize her from attention to that sort of (admittedly not uncommon) foible?
To answer Whelan’s question: These malapropisms would only be noteworthy and revealing if they were spoken by a certain country bumpkin Republican governor of Alaska. When a wise Latina accidentally says “vagrancies of … the moment” instead of “vagaries of … the moment” during the oral argument of the Ricci case, we’re supposed to ignore the slip-up, as the Wall Street Journal did, but make sure to inform readers that they should be impressed by the fact that “The Catholic-school-educated judge clearly knew the Latin plural of ‘forum.'”
But enough about her errors of diction. I wouldn’t want to get Sotomayor’s reputation for writing pieces “that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.”
Those are Bushisms, They are not so much words as they are sayings that he uses to identifiy himself as a moron.
Here is a whole bunch.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
(See what I just did? I put a link to a web site in my comment. That way I didn;t have to cut and paste the whole thing)
“I heard somebody say, ‘Where’s (Nelson) Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead. Because Saddam killed all the Mandelas.” –George W. Bush, on the former South African president, who is still very much alive, Washington, D.C., Sept. 20, 2007
Judge Sotomayor says “eminent” when she means “imminent,” “providence” instead of “province,” “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge,” and so on. Does the fact that she is a Latina immunize her from attention to that sort of (admittedly not uncommon) foible?
To answer Whelan’s question: These malapropisms would only be noteworthy and revealing if they were spoken by a certain country bumpkin Republican governor of Alaska. When a wise Latina accidentally says “vagrancies of … the moment” instead of “vagaries of … the moment” during the oral argument of the Ricci case, we’re supposed to ignore the slip-up, as the Wall Street Journal did, but make sure to inform readers that they should be impressed by the fact that “The Catholic-school-educated judge clearly knew the Latin plural of ‘forum.’”
Obviously, she’s an idiot…..yet clever enough to obfuscate her radical ideology. if she were a white male, she’d be applying for a position as a baggage handler at Southwest Airlines.
if she were a white male, she’d be applying for a position as a baggage handler at Southwest Airlines.
Right, because someone who finished at the top of her Ivy League class and the top of her law school class would obviously be a baggage handler if they weren’t so lucky to be Latina.
Did anyone notice anything about anoni’s post? No links to either the original source cut and pasted from AND no links to video or transcripts of the offending language.
Meaning? They made it all up. Again. And then they repeat it ad nauseum because they haven’t the presence of mind to actually check their sources. So until you see better confirmation, feel free to scroll past anoni’s posts as the lies they probably are. Because lying is apparently what is left of the party of ideas.
Notto defend anoni but as an aside, cCommenters are at a disadvantage linkwise, because we can’t put more than two links in before getting stuck in the moderation tarpit. Sometimes one link plus some mysterious other factors will cause the same thing.
I understand this is a WordPress parameter; maybe Geek can find a local override for it.
So it is usually unfair to attack a comment for not having sufficiently linked. Although you are probably correct about this particular comment from anoni.
It is not unfair. Especially for a commenter with the habit of passing off the talking points of the day as serious fact or journalism. anoni can out up or shut up and if he is stuck in moderation, we’ll fetch that post out — just like we do for everyone else caught in it.
in cassy’s world any fact that makes her uncomfortable is “made up”
when I make a statement you say prove it, what’s your source.
when I quote from a published source, you now say where’s the link.
pretty weak
What you fail to acknowledge, anoni, is that the stupidity of Bush and Palin is not to be found in misuse of a single word, but in the totality of their speech. In both cases, their verbose meanderings reveal the workings of a disorganized mind. Listening to Sotomayor, she clearly doesn’t have that problem. Even Obama’s overuse of pauses comes off as the self-editing of an overly careful speaker rather than an inability to articulate thoughts.
Even Obama’s overuse of pauses comes off as the self-editing of an overly careful speaker rather than an inability to articulate thoughts.
Unlike Joe Biden, who hasn’t paused since the 1970s.
With regard to the poll… I am hoping that Sotomayor gets 79%. It would be perfect symbolism for her to only get 21% to vote against.
LOL, LG! That would be sweet!