Playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with Sotomayor?

The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are either playing a very delicate game of good cop/bad cop with President Obama’s nominee to the nation’s highest court, Sonia Sotomayor, or they’re fracturing as a conference and a large number of Rs could end up voting for her.
 
Senator Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the panel, came out swinging in his opening statement:

“I fear that this thinking empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist, results-oriented, relativistic world, where laws lose their fixed meaning, unelected judges set policy, Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than as simply Americans, where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies,” Sessions said. “I feel we’ve reached a fork in the road, I think, and there are stark differences. I want to be clear. I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them.”

That fork in the road could have been in his own party. If Sessions went the base-pleasing route, his colleague Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, took the opposite tact. Less than an hour later, Graham predicted Sotomayor would sail through.

“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed. I do not think you will [have a meltdown],” Graham said. “My Republican colleagues who vote against you, I assure you, can vote for a Hispanic nominee; they’re just unnerved by some of your speeches.”

Graham is known, at times, for being a bit of a maverick and his comments may have offended some party conservatives but few of the Republicans on the panel seemed inclined to criticize Sotomayor head on. Republicans and Democrats alike praised her compelling personal story and, for the most part, her qualifications. What criticism arose was mostly over Sotomayor’s speeches: the now-infamous “wise Latina” and another to the Puerto Rican ACLU where she talked about the importance of foreign laws.

“The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her gender and Latina heritage and foreign legal concepts that, as she said, get her creative juices going,” said Senator Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican.

If anything the panel’s Republicans focused their fire on Obama himself and past Democratic filibusters of other judges. Many harped on Obama’s stated desire for a judge with “empathy” a trigger word implying, to them, a judge who legislates from the bench. Others, such as Utah’s Orrin Hatch, spent much of their allotted 10 minutes bitterly reliving the days when Senator Obama voted against President Bush’s nominees to the bench, John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

“Democratic senators, for example, offer us proof of Judge Sotomayor’s moderation, that she has agreed with her Republican appointed Second Circuit colleagues 95 percent of the time,” Hatch said. “Joined by then-Senator Obama, however, many of those same Democratic senators voted against Justice Samuel Alito’s confirmation, even though he had voted with his Democrat-appointed Third Circuit colleagues 99 percent of the time during a much longer Appeals Court career. And although Justice Alito also received the ABA’s highest rating, Senator Obama joined 24 other Democrats in even voting to filibuster his nomination. And when — and then he joined a total of 42 Democrats in voting against the confirmation of now-Justice Alito. In fact, Senator Obama never voted to confirm a Supreme Court justice. He even voted against a man who administered the oath of presidential office, Chief Justice John Roberts, another distinguished and well-qualified nominee.”

Tomorrow starts the questioning and we’ll see if this GOP schizophrenia continues. Will they go easy on her given the foregone nature of the proceedings thus far? Or will they risk alienating Hispanic voters and put her through the ringer? In the meantime, Salon’s Mike Madden has some fun with the day’s rather dull formalities: for all that, Sotomayor spoke less than seven minutes. And here’s some giggles with the number of times words were mentioned and by which side:

Empathy — 14 mentions all Republican
Filibuster – 3 mentions all Republican in reference to Obama’s past votes on other nominees
Racism – never uttered
Latino/Latina – 9 mentions all by Republican members usually quoting Sotomayor’s remarks back to her
Foreign – 7 mentions all Republican
Blind – 2 Democratic, 4 Republican 

Umpire –5 Democratic, 1 Republican
Ball – 6 Democratic
Strike – 5 Democratic, 1 Republican 

Alito – 2 Democratic, 4 Republican
Roberts — 4 Democratic, 3 Republican
Estrada – 1 Democratic, 3 Republican

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: confirmation, hearing, sotomayor, Congress, Senate, Supreme Court, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Secret

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty Images

    A Tale of Two Economies: Mitt Romney vs. Republican Governors

    The great recession has left the state of Ohio battered and bruised–and Mitt Romney would have you believe it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Writing in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on May 4, Romney advised Ohioans that the President has delivered them “paltry results,” and that their state is in need of “a fundamental change in direction.”

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    judge who legislates from the bench
    Again, the problem with this formulation is that every instance where the Conservatives disagree with her rulings it was for failure to legislate from the bench and to accept legislation as written instead rewriting it based on intent.

  • ohiolib

    Wow. Just when Palin exits (for the moment anyway) the Rs provide us with more popcorn-worthy entertainment. Keep it coming. Not only am I entertained, the country will be safe from your willful stupidity next election too.

  • kbanginmotown

    JNS: Good summary of today’s action. I hope that you can score interviews with key players and try not to repeat the SP debacle. Please. Also.
    .
    Just curious: hoe many mentions of “strict constructionist” and “interpretation”?

  • kbanginmotown

    hoe = how. PIMF.

  • 53_3

    “I fear that this thinking empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist, results-oriented, relativistic world…”

    AH-HAH!

    Now who wouldn’t have been able to figure this one out?

    Forgive my total drippage of snarkery, but isn’t this exactly what Republicans are about these days?

    Fock them results! Who the hell needs those…

  • http://www.twitter.com/jnsmall Jay Newton-Small

    kbanginmotown:
    zero mentions of “strict constructionist.”
    1 of interpretation.
    Kyl: “How does President Obama propose judges deal with these hard cases? Does he want them to use judicial precedent, canons of construction and other accepted tools of interpretation that judges have used for centuries? No? President Obama says, and I quote, that in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.”
    JNS

  • kattest123

    The GOP leadership isn’t going to do much of anything; many of them are completely incompetent. The only way to block her is for others to get involved, and how to do it is described here. It’s really not that difficult, it’s just that even the lower-level GOP leaders and the leaders of the opposition to BHO in general are mostly lame.

    And, if you’re perplexed why anyone would oppose her, for just one of the many reasons, here’s a quote from the person who was given an award by the group that SS was a member of for six years:

    “We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him.”

    “Liberals” defending calls for genocide begin in 3, 2, 1…

  • 53_3

    “The GOP leadership isn’t going to do much of anything; many of them are completely incompetent.

    Not to mention extinct

  • 53_3

    JNS:
    So what we* want is someone with no heart, no empathy, and absulartly, posilutely, for any reason whatsomever, never gets results.

    *Ackshually, they, but I’m busy drinking right now…

  • http://elvisberg.wordpress.com Elvis Elvisberg

    Oh, yeah, the last thing we want is results-oriented judging… [link here]

    As Sheldon Whitehouse pointed out [link here], conservatives favor judicial activism and legislating from the bench when it achieves policy goals they favor. And Cass Sunstein has noted [link here] that the conservatives on the Court are the “activists” by any neutral definition of the term. He also noted, “The Judicial Activism Award, for aggressive use of judicial power, goes to a most surprising winner: Justice Antonin Scalia.” Nope, not a surprise, if you know more than buzzwords about the Court.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    JNS- You do know, even if you can’t report it without a source to quote, that Lindsay’s olive branch to Sotomayor had nothing to do with his maverickiness. Johnny boy is up for reelection in Arizona, and he needs that Hispanic vote badly — period.
    .
    It’s funny how the Republicans keep complaining about Obama’s rejection of their far right choices for the court, but no mention from the press that Obama supports a more balanced approach for the court instead of these deep partisan divides. Do you even ask these guys if they think a deeply divided court would be bad for the country? A concern our current President clearly shares, evidenced by his own moderate pick.
    .
    I don’t ever expect the GOP to do the right thing, tell the truth, put the country first or recognize they live in an alternate universe, but at some point doesn’t journalistic balance require that you give their positions a little both sides of the coin scrutiny?

  • Art Pepper

    I wonder whether Sotomayor would make a good Supreme Court justice?

    Oh wait, I’m sorry. What I meant was:

    I’m very curious about the GOP strategy here and whether it will play to their base!

  • Art Pepper

    Does he want them to use judicial precedent

    Ha! The day that anyone in the GOP actually believes in judicial precedent is the day Justice Scalia sprouts wings and flies loop-de-loops around the Supreme Court building.

  • James, Los Angeles

    Just as we had thought. That sickly sweet sloppy wet tonguebath JNS gave Palin up in AK, euphemistically called an “interview” (cough), was for a TIME Magazine Cover: The Renegade – July 20, 2009 – Sarah Palin . Can’t do real journalism when you want to do a People Mag-type gossip spread.

    Time Mag is selling “The Renegade” like they sold “America’s Mayor” oh and don’t forget that slop job on Ann Coulter too.

    She’s an outsider!
    She has an “ingrained frontier skepticism of authority”!
    “If ever there has been a time to gamble on a flimsy résumé, ever a time for the ultimate outsider, this might be it.”!
    Born to run!

    Four pages of that kind of slurpy, star-struck garbage. It ends:

    So, bye, Alaska! She made her declaration on Independence Day weekend as a symbol, she says, of her new and exhilarating freedom. She’s headed to a bookstore, a television set, a convention hall near you, armed with an anti-résumé. Cut loose from her obligations to her huge and awesome homeland, her message remains quintessentially Alaskan. Where she comes from — the last American frontier — the past is irrelevant, the rules are suspended, and limitations are for losers.

    Not your finest piece, Jay.

  • jcapan

    GIven that all of this is kabuki …

    http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/05/supreme-court-kabuki-watch

    … can I just go on the record that there is sophisticated, engaging kabuki and there is second-rate pap: you be the judge as to which description fits the above.

  • deconstructiva

    Will Jay host a drinking game during next round of hearings? Word or phrase?

    Will this exchange occur?
    Sen Sessions: Judge Sotomayor, I’m just going to ask you one more time – not to belabor the point. The American People need to know your exact position on Roe.
    Judge Sotomayor: I think roe is absolutely delish on blini. Toast points are good with it too.

  • jcapan

    OT, but WTF! For those who’ve been following Taibbi’s war on the Goldmanites, read this:
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/13/goldman/index.html

    And I’d add this (Friedersdorf not Sully):

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/07/is-a-change-going-to-come.html

    Am I the only one seeing the dems playing with some potent combustibles here? The faux-populist wingers are monomaniacally focused on Nov 2010. All blame will fall on the folks in charge, the media will roll over for it, and too many Americans will forget about 2001-2008.

  • opensourcepundits

    JNS:

    I wouldn’t call it good cop bad cop. The fact of the matter is that Judge Sotomayor is one of the most qualified people to ever be put up for the Supreme Court, and there will be many Republicans who will vote for her for that reason.

    They will throw charges of reverse racism under the guise of “bias” or “empathy” in order to please their base, but at the end of the day the only reason to vote against her is to vote based 100% on political idealogy – and every “no” vote will be seen that way, as a purely political move disregarding all actual standards for a judiciary appointment. Some will, sure. But many won’t go that far…or at least won’t want to be viewed as going that far.

    The thing I’m curious about is when these members get back to their states. FOX News has been pushing pretty hard against her, and with the red meat being tossed out there by the Republican Senators, their base is pretty rabidly against Judge Sotomayor..so what are they going to do to Graham when he gets home if he votes FOR her?

    Recall that Sen. Cornyn actually got booed at a Tea Party because of his vote for the TARP funds. That’s the Republican base, and they won’t be too happy if he votes for a angry-latina-reverse-racist-affirmative-action-pick, which is what they are being fed by all these codewords.

    I shall wait and see…and be amused, I’m sure.

  • bobell

    “Tack,” not “tact.” Sailing metaphor. A common error, to be sure, but still an error.

  • Matt

    Even some within the caucus can no longer stand the horrific demonization process that they have put into place regarding Sotomayor.

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Tack – tact

    A common error – Not the first time it’s reared its head here at the Swamp.

    You would think that at some point ‘learning’ would come into play.

  • Joe Bftsplk

    Leaving the substantive comments to our esteemed panel of experts, I’ll just note another picky detail:
    “…put her through the ringer” should be “through the wringer“.
    The “wringer” was that cranked roller thingy on top of old washing machines, that got a lot of water out of clothes, but is widely held to be an unpleasant thing to be put through.
    Given the definitions of “ringer” that I’m familiar with, I’m not sure quite what it would mean to be put through one, and it seems I’m too cautious to let my imagination go there.

  • Friar Tuck

    Spill cheque is know substitute four actuary language skills.

  • http://www.inworldstudios.com jayackroyd

    This one has been Kabuki from the git-go. She was the obvious first appointment. She is obviously well qualified. There are plenty of Republican senators who will vote for her–at least Collins and Snowe, anybody,like McCain facing a large hispanic vote in 2010.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Owed to the Spell Checker

    I have a spelling checker –
    It came with my PC
    It plane lee marks four my revue
    Miss steaks aye can knot sea.

    Eye ran this poem threw it,
    Your sure real glad two no.
    Its very polished in it’s weigh,
    My checker tolled me sew.

    A checker is a bless sing,
    It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
    It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
    And aides me when aye rime.

    To rite with care is quite a feet
    Of witch won should be proud.
    And we mussed dew the best wee can,
    Sew flaws are knot aloud.

    And now bee cause my spelling
    Is checked with such grate flare,
    Their are know faults with in my cite,
    Of none eye am a wear.

    Each frays come posed up on my screen
    Eye trussed to bee a joule
    The checker poured o’er every word
    To Czech sum spelling rule.

    That’s why aye brake in two averse
    By righting wants to pleas,
    Sow now ewe see why eye dew prays
    Such soft wear for pea seas!

  • pafro

    Jeffrey Sessions III is now questioning Sotomayor.
    If one of the Democrats wanted to introduce the testimony from Sessions failed confirmation hearing (where it came out that he is an incredibly racist person that legislated from the bench) would that be possible? I don’t know the rules.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    I be skippin’ me trip t’ th’ theatre fer this one, mateys…she’ll be confirmed in th’ end so I don’t need t’ be wastin’ me time listenin’ t’ a bunch o’ blow-hards off-gas durin’ th’ hearin’s.

    I sure do be hopin’ though, tha’ some Democrats be takin’ notice an’ squirrelin’ away some o’ th’ video questionin’ fer th’ upcomin’ election cycle – ought t’ be ri’ itnerestin campaign material!

    Arrgh!

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    youch – “interestin’”!

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I’m watching the hearings. I knew going in that Sessions was a little light upstairs, but I was willing to suspend judgment, but now I’m sure he should be wearing a sign around his neck that says stupid. He’s arguing her point for her. She can’t help but laugh at how Sessions and other’s like him delude themselves into believing that we are not all inherently biased and must make a vigilant conscious effort to acknowledge the existence of our biases and make sure that it is not impacting our decisions. Are you kidding me, does anybody here think that Scalia doesn’t act according to his biases? Perhaps Sessions should acknowledge his inherent stupidity and ask himself if his experience of being stupid is impacting his judgment and rendering him incapable of understanding the answers to his questions. Is it any wonder that after each answer he just repeats his assertion no matter what she says.

  • kbanginmotown

    Jay: Thank you for the reply to #3.

    Interesting. I would have thought that the lack of “constructionist” references would have meant a greater ability to “interpret” the constitution….

  • 53_3

    Pirate wench:

    Given the immediately preceding rants by our local spelling nazis*, do you have a pirate-speak spellchecker?

    It might come in handy…

    *I’m joking of course a la Seinfeld. I use my spellchecker regularly thanks to them.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    53 –

    One o’ th’ beauties o’ pirate-speak is tha’ I pret’ much get t’ be makin’ it up as I be goin’ along. An’, thar don’t seem t’ be no one else sufficient’ fluent t’ be challengin’ me on me pirate grammar an’ usage :) !

    I do be havin’ t’ be climbin’ t’ th’ crows nest t’ be constant’ scannin’ th’ horizon o’ th’ preview tho’, t’ be on th’ lookout fer revertin’ t’ some o’ th’ more traditional conventions!

    Thar do be a basic-type dictionary on th’ official ITLAPD website – tha’ were me jumpin’ off point, so t’ be speakin’…

    arrgh!

  • Art Pepper

    JC: Am I the only one seeing the dems playing with some potent combustibles here?

    Damn straight.

    Case in point: Maria Cantwell is one of my Senators. She sits on the Finance Committee. On health care reform, her consituents want a public option. So naturally she … supports the co-op plan.

  • FlownOver

    The good cop-bad cop analogy leaves out a principal component: the cop on the take.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    This be one o’ th’ reasons I be so slap frustrated wi’ Maria tha’ I be writin’ ‘er near daily remindin’ ‘er tha’ if she don’t be growin’ sufficient spine t’ be representin’ th’ interests o’ ‘er constituents, I’ll be doin’ me absolute t’ be keelhaulin’ ‘er, then draggin’ ‘er back aboard an’ primary-in ‘er ass an’ sendin’ ‘er down th’ plank next time she be runnin’ fer re-election fr’m me own fair state!

    She be turnin’ out t’ be nothin’ bu’ a bloody pile o’ bilge scum!

    YARR!

  • textee

    Not only is Sotomayor an unrepentant racist and sexist, but today she has demonstrated that she is an urepentant liar.

    Sotomayor today: “What — the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey.” What a lie!

    Here is what Sotomayor said in 2001 (and on seven other documented occassions within a decade) where Sotomayor expressly DISAGREES with what O’Connor said:

    “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement.”

    I can’t wait to see how Sotomayor’s press release writers/press secretaries at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al McClatchy, Newsweek, et al., attempt (and fail) to cover Sotomayor’s flat-out lie.

  • 53_3

    I see “Group Health” written all over her forehead.

    Coops aren’t a substitute for a federal plan!

  • 53_3

    textee:

    Go wake up that Sleeping White Giant you guys keep ranting about.

  • pintortwo

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/07/13/alito/index.html

    Unasked Question about Sam Alito

    At his Senate confirmation hearing, Sam Alito used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making:

    But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country” . . . .

    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 into account.

    Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic.

    Did Alito’s Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs? Has anyone raised that question? Given that he himself said that he “do[es] take that into account” — and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent 6 straight hours today being accused by GOP Senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants — why isn’t that question being asked about Alito’s vote in Ricci?

    Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing? Since he’s obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him “sympathetic” so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor’s ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn’t everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP’s alleged judicial principles?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks
  • pintortwo

    Textee: (per my above comment)

    Is Alito an “unrepentant racist”?
    Are the Repubs making noise about the “wise Latina” comment while not taking Alito to task “unrepentant liars”?
    Have “Sotomayor’s press release writers/press secretaries” discussed Alito’s comments.
    Is the GOP taking aprincipaled stand, or engaging in partisanship?
    Is it OK for a white males to take “background”, “religion” or “gender” into account, but not a Latina woman?
    Or are you just full of it?

  • FlownOver

    Wow. Just wow.

    Do you suppose McConnell made his idiot racist elf take the point on this Marche Futile because he knew there was no chance of winning, and Sesions was the least likely to take a political hit back home?

  • pintortwo

    ..oops “a principled”

  • rustyreturns

    So far I do not see the real Sonya Sotomayor. Where has the President hidden the real Sonya Sotomayor?
    .
    Where is the “wise Latina woman”? Is she hiding from her previous racist statements in the past?
    .
    While I do not believe that her nomination will be turned down, I also fear for the day when this woman sits on the Supreme Court and casts her rulings based on her true feelings. The day when she will up-hold her previous statements of “policy making from the bench”.

  • textee

    pintortwo:

    No; no; I’m not sure which comments from Alito you are referring to; those in the GOP opposed to Sotomayor are taking a principled stand, but those in the GOP who might support Sotomayor are engaging in partisanship; no; no.

  • Art Pepper

    Sessions really is as dumb as a post, isn’t he?

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    We’re talking box of rocks stupidity here. If it wasn’t for stupid Sessions wouldn’t have any brain activity at all.

  • spob

    Sotomayor looked ill-informed about the Constitution when she discussed term limits for SCOTUS Justices. She didn’t seem to have a very good grasp on constitutional amendments.
    .
    Her “wise Latina” explanation seemed bogus (JNS, you ought to be calling her out). The reality is that she disagreed with the view ascribed to O’Connor. That’s not what she said today.
    .
    Her explanation of the burial of Ricci also doesn’t wash. The District Court opinion was not published either.
    .
    I only watched a little bit. Her discussion with Senator Kohl of anti-trust law seemed labored. Her comments on terms limits was not impressive. Then Judge Roberts or Judge Alito this woman ain’t.

  • gysgt213

    “can’t wait to see how Sotomayor’s press release writers/press secretaries at ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, CNN, MSDNC, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated (with terrorists) Press, al McClatchy, Newsweek, et al., attempt (and fail) to cover Sotomayor’s flat-out lie.”

    Textee: I know what you mean about those Hacks.

    This is simply one of the funniest things I’ve read in a long time. You remember those surreal few days when Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) was missing from his state and no knew or could explain where he was. A lot of the media was far too credulous in accepting the increasingly ludicrous explanations for the governor’s absence. But in emails recently obtained by The State newspaper through a FOIA-type request, it turns out that before Sanford got caught sneaking back into the country from Argentina, a slew of right-wing reporters from Fox, the Wall Street Journal ed page and Washington Times telling the governor’s staffers to hang tough, that the whole story was stupid and asking how they could help.

    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/07/great_call_in_emails_to_sanfords_office_right-wing.php?ref=fpa

  • deconstructiva

    Is Jay winning the drinking game?

  • spob

    I don’t think it’s fair to equate Alito’s “i understand the immigrant experience” with Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment. First of all, it doesn’t specifically link racial identity with the quality of judging. Second of all, the immigrant experience is something important here in America. We want judges to know about real life etc. Obviously, things like that don’t make statutes say what they don’t say, but can help in evaluating a fuzzy statute. Life experiences sharpen the mind. Appellate judging is mainly an academic exercise, it’s not solely an academic exercise.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    “I don’t think it’s fair to equate Alito’s “i understand the immigrant experience” with Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment. First of all, it doesn’t specifically link racial identity with the quality of judging. Second of all, the immigrant experience is something important here in America. We want judges to know about real life etc.”
    .
    As oppose to understanding what it means to be different from everyone else and in spite of those differences finding a way to fit in, even though it means overcoming the difficulty of language barriers, racial barriers, cultural barriers — that’s nothing at all like an immigrant experience right?
    .
    God spob you’re an idiot..

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    In spobworld, Italians don’t actually have a race – Puerto Ricans on the other hand….

  • spob

    Dee, you’re the moron. First of all, dummy, you absolutely fail to address the issue. Sotomayor’s quote links the race of the judge to the quality of the decision. A definite no-no, as Sotomayor basically conceded today (and earlier). Alito’s comment basically states that a judge should understand the consequences of his rulings (judging isn’t in a vacuum, by the way) and he provides an example. That’s miles removed from Sotomayor’s comment, dummy. Second of all, genius, had Sotomayor said that her experience of learning to get along etc. made her a better judge because she better understood life, then her comment would be supremely unobjectionable. (Of course, when Clarence Thomas references his poverty-stricken background, libs tend to call him Uncle Tom.) But that’s not what she said.
    .
    Additionally, you stupid jerk, you completely fail to deal with the fact that this arrogant judge lied through her teeth today. Saying that her comment was trying to be consistent with O’Connors is a bald-faced lie. Get that right you idiot.

  • spob

    PD, you must have gotten dropped on your head as a child. You cannot see the obvious differences between Alito’s comment and Sotomayor’s?

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Ah sh*t – I were mistakenly readin’ a spongy!

    Aye, ye bleedin’ idiot, thar be a whale o’ difference b’tween sayin’:

    “I would HOPE (capitals me own) that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” (Sotomayor)

    An’

    “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 INTO ACCOUNT (capitals me own).” (Alito)

    Which statement were actual made durin’ th’ confirmation process fer th’ Supreme Court, an’ didn’t seem t’ be raisin’ any concerns whatever?

    An, which one be actual soundin’ li’ th’ “experiences” – which, not t’ belabor th’ point too much, may be not a’tall related to th’ actual case bein’ decided – be in truth affectin’ th’ outcomes o’ th’ court cases?

    An’ if ye really be b’lievin’ a wise man an’ a wise woman’d be reachin’ th’ same conclusion, how be ye explainin’ all th’ split decisions, ye coral-brained dolt? If tha’ were th’ case, they’d all be unanimous! Be ye meanin’ t’ say ye be b’lievin’ wise people be ne’er dissentin’ fr’m one another?

    ‘ow stupid be THA’ b’lief???

    Spongy, go F yerself!

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    hmm….
    What a brilliant piece of prose. Of course we now see the error of our ways. Because after all, whoever’s the biggest a$$hole is always the winner. Just ask him.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Now I be needin’ t’ go find th’ industrial-strength slime removal kit t’ rid meself o’ spongy’s caustic, irritatin’ mindless quiverin’ mucosal sludge tha’ be passin’ fer brains in ‘is own perverted fantasies…I swear, ‘e be sluggin’ down th’ salt water a’ every opportunity – it be th’ only rational accountin’ fer ‘is rottin’, festerin’ carbuncle-encrusted gray matter!

    YARR!

  • spob

    Ah, PW, your charming self again.
    .
    First of all, perhaps, just perhaps, it’s escaped all you mental giants in here, Sotomayor has disavowed the statement completely. And why? Because it’s indefensible. She explicitly links race to the quality of judging, and it doesn’t take a genius to realize that that just doesn’t fly. And you’ll note, moron, that Sotomayor had to fib about her comment being intended to dovetail with O’Connor’s when it’s 180 degrees out.
    .
    Alito’s comment doesn’t come close to that. First of all, and maybe you guys missed this, Alito at the Third Circuit wasn’t getting a whole lot of discrimination claims raised by Italian-Americans. Thus, what he’s saying is that he understands that people do get discriminated against in this country and he’s going to be sensitive to that fact (which, by the way engendered those very laws). Isn’t nuance supposed to be a strong suit of your side of the aisle? I am a strict constructionist. But I also understand that fundamentally law is enacted in response to an issue. You simply cannot judge without knowing that.
    .
    So we have an unobjectionable statement by Alito and an objectionable one (by Sotomayor’s own admission), and you’re trying to compare the two? Who’s the idiot?

  • Art Pepper

    Trolls, feeding of.

    Discouraged, in the hopes of preserving my last vestiges of sanity.

  • deconstructiva

    Are Puerto Ricans Real Americans in rightwingworld, never mind that they ARE citizens? But can they run for President (“natural born” thingy)? I did a quickie google and found a LOT of confusion over that. US citizens, clearly yes, but future presidents? Good thing Hawaii become a full-blown state: imagine RW rants if….

  • spob

    So PD, was Sotomayor truthful about whether her statement and the one attributed to Justice O’Connor were similar?

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The only problem is that what’s objectionable is being determined entirely by offended white guys like you. And by the way, ‘Latina’ isn’t a race. It applies to just about anyone from the Spanish/Portuguese colonies and encompasses a quite diverse group.

  • spob

    You know what, Art, you are a complete twit. Nothing, nothing I have said in here qualifies as trollish. I responded in kind to Dee, PW and PD. Collectively, they called me stupid and racist? What, I don’t get to respond in kind, you jerk. Besides that, my comments have been ruthlessly on point. Were you impressed by Sotomayor’s discussion of the Constitution and term limits for SCOTUS Members? Did she look good talking about anti-trust law? Was it wrong to point out the apparent untruth of her explanation of the “wise Latina” comment?
    .
    The reality is that you mental midgets want an echo chamber, not debate.

  • spob

    PD, that’s pretty weak. Sotomayor linked her ethnicity, race, whatever to the quality of the judicial product. No one can really defend that, and Obama didn’t, and neither does Sotomayor. So saying that “white guys like [me]” are defining what’s objectionable is a rhetorical dodge and unworthy of debate. She’s not even defending it. Give. It. Up.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Seeing how many synonyms for dumb you can fit in a sentence is unrelated to debate. You have nothing to bring to the table but absolute boorishness and a peculiar sensitivity to anyone but a European discussing their heritage. Not exactly a very good formula for debate.

    Just an A$$hole being himself.

  • spob

    “I am a historian by undergraduate training”
    .
    More from the “wise Latina”. I was thinking that she was going to be a step up, talent-wise, from Souter. Now I am not so sure.

  • spob

    PD, so are you saying I cannot respond in kind? You yourself levelled a thinly-veiled racism charge against me. Not to get into a “who started it” because frankly I don’t care, but where’s your outrage about the boorishness shown to me? Thought so.
    .
    In any event, I don’t see you answering the question–was Sotomayor’s comment about O’Connor truthful?

  • Joe Bftsplk

    I see another sudden jump in the comment count.

    You know, for several months I was terrorized by a literally crazy ex, who would call me in the wee hours to say things like “You’ve taken my life away — why should you get to have one?” It was downright scary to have my thoughts supplanted by others of her choosing.

    Then finally one night I said “I’m turning the ringer off on the phone now, and the volume down on the answering machine. You can leave a message if you like, but I might not get it.

    And you know, the calls stopped coming, and I got my nights back.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I’m not watching the hearing. All I’m addressing it your double standard as to why ‘Italian” isn’t a race but ‘Latina’ is.

  • spob

    Here’s a snippet of today’s testimony:

    KOHL: All right. Judge, all of us in public office, other than federal judges, have specific fixed terms. And we must periodically run for reelection if you want to remain in office. Even most state court judges have fixed terms of office.

    The federal judiciary, as you know, is very different. You have no term of office. Instead you serve for life. So I’d like to ask you — would you support term limits for Supreme Court justices, for example, 15, 20 or 25 years? Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence and that you will be able to stay in touch with the problems of ordinary Americans — term limits for Supreme Court justices?

    SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first. And so, that particular question would have to be considered by Congress first. But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues. And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.

    I can only know that there was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution. And it was a view by the — by the founding fathers that they wanted justices who would not be subject to political whim or to the emotions of a moment. And they felt that by giving them certain protections that that would ensure that — their objectivity and their impartiality over time.
    .
    This is head-smacking dumb. First of all, the crisp answer is that Article III section 1 of the Constitution provides for life tenure and that any change will require a Constitutional amendment. Her answer was far from crisp. Second, given that life tenure is what the Constitution provides, what in the world is she talking about when she mentions statutes? Moreover, it almost seems as if she’s suggesting that Congress alone could change the landscape here. Third, even if she is talking about Congress launching a constitutional amendment (a stretch, given her mention of statutes and the failure to be specific), Congress is not the sole place from which Constitutional amendments can emanate, see generally US Const. Art. V, which makes her comment that “[a]ll questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first” exceedingly odd.
    .
    And what to make of this: “And so, that first step and decision would be Congress’.”
    .
    Finally, Sotomayor makes reference to the purpose and structure of the Constitution. But that’s completely unnecessary. The plain language of Article III provides for life tenure (absent impeachment). So there’s no need to go to the structure. Moreover, what in the world does this mean: “But it’d have to consider it in light of the Constitution and then of statutes that govern these issues.” Article III provides an easy answer.
    .
    So guys, is this trollish??

  • 53_3

    So let’s see:
    Textee, a total knucklehead, spob, a “white rights” advocate who sees Civil Rights in an inverted and distorted mirror, and Rusty, who is a Neo Nazi, are rendering opinions on race.

    This is like asking robbers what they think of the police, in my opinion.

    Oh! Excuuuuse Me! how dare I be so “divisive” as to suppress the “diversity of opinion”!

    Here’s a question for all three of you, so maybe you can scrape together enough brain cells to make up half a brain:

    Which is worse:
    1. Someone who has actively worked to provide legal support to laws impeding the voting rights of minorities

    or,

    2. Someone who has made a controversial comment (“Wise Latino…”)

  • 53_3

    “Collectively, they called me stupid and racist?”

    Spob, you stupid and you are a racist!

    I proudly add my name to their chorus!

    And as PW so egelently put it, go fock yourself.

  • 53_3

    Done. Taken my shots.

    Out.

    tty
    offl

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Would this help ensure that justices do not become victims of a cloistered, ivory tower existence

    I can’t deny that’s an exceedingly inartful answer. The correct one of course would have been That’s the whole effing point!!! Judges are given lifetime tenure so they ARE cloistered and are not influenced by the outrage d’ jour that drives electoral politics.

  • spob

    PD, I have no double-standard. All I am saying is that Alito’s comment and Sotomayor’s comment are far apart. Alito’s comment simply makes the reference that he understands the suffering of all of those discriminated against. (Remember, genius, the 3d Circuit isn’t dealing with too many anti-Italian discrimination claims. Thus, he’s talking about his ability to understand what’s going on with non-Italian discrimination victims.)

  • spob

    PD, Sotomayor’s answer to Kohl’s question is laughably bad for the reasons I described. Try dealing with that.

  • fhmadvocat

    spob,

    First of all, unlike textee, I would not consider your comment “trolling” .

    However, your comment is full of it. Alito’s comment clearly shows “empathy” of which the Republicans are constantly trying to throw in Sotomayor’s face.

    Second, you completely missed the point of Pirate Wench’s post which is how Sotomayor’s statement regarding “Latina Woman” was taken out of context. You miss the point about HOPE, and WITHOUT THE SAME EXPERIENCES. If Sotomayor had said I would hope a judge who has certain experiences would make a better judgment than a judge who has not had the same experiences, and taken out the ethnic references, no one would have made it an issue.

    Third, isn’t interesting that the Republicans are calling Ricci, one of the plaintiff’s in that discrimination case, which was overturned by the Supreme Court. I don’t remember the Democrats calling as a witness during the Alito hearings who was in the same situation, even though, the Supreme Court had recently overturned an Alito written decision and where O’Connor wrote the opinion for the Court’s opinion which stressed how wrongly Alito applied the law.

    Fourth, one of the plaintiff’s in the Ricci case was Hispanic. If Sotomayor was such a “racist”, wouldn’t of she ruled in favor of the Hispanic guy? If Sotomayor is guilty of anything in the Ricci case, it is giving too much deference to the defendants, i.e. showing judicial restraint.

    Fifth, conservatives talk about “legislating from the bench” however, in a detailed analysis, the most “activist” justice from 1998 to 2005 was Justice Scalia. I am not saying Scalia was right or wrong, but in the cases involved, the governmental agency is usually given the benefit of the doubt. Scalia only agreed about 50% of the time.

    Now, I strongly disagree with BHO voting against Roberts and Alito, because both were highly qualified and I believe a president has the right to choose. It was a case of Obama playing politics. It would be disappointing, though likely if the Republicans did the same thing.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Spob- what you call lies I call resignation. She tried to explain what she meant an how within the context in which it was said it was in essence in agreement with what O’Connor was trying to say. What Sotomayor disagreed with is to the extent O’Connor’s vision was practical reality so that assuming that we are getting it right and not allowing our bias color our decision can be dnagerous. In fact we had to deliberately look at our decision and make sure that we weren’t inflicting our biases on the law and not to assume we had biases was disingenuous and dangerous. — You did read the rest of the speech right?
    .
    Both Sotomayor and O’Connor believe that we are all capable of making equally wise decisions. However, what Sotomayor was saying that when it comes to issues of diversity, her experience as a Latino woman would more often than not help her to make a better decision because of the richness of her experience. but that’s not about race that’s about experience. If a white guy chose to avail himself of that rich experience then he would be just as wise. And this is in essence where Sotomayor and O’Connor agree. Unfortunately, the reality is such that too often white men are not availing themselves of that rich experience.
    .
    As a minority you have no choice. You are born with your own culture and circumstances demand that you learn the culture of others. Whites on the other hand, have to elect to learn about minorities. Just as men have to elect to learn the perspectives of women. Now no one is saying they can’t learn it, only they for the most part they haven’t done so.
    .
    Interesting how easy it is to confuse the issue just by throwing the word race out there, but the discussion was about experience.
    .
    Do you think if a minority had been on the court sharing a different perspective that his colleagues they would have foisted Jim crow on the country for a hundred years? Do you think women would have had to fight for even a semblance of equal rights if women with their perspectives had been on the court from the start? Where do you think gay rights would be by now?
    .
    Lets not kid ourselves, in what world is having only one perspective seen as a superior position from which to make a decision on anything? Why is diversity any different?
    .
    Now spob you can stick to your position, I don’t actually expect you to change your mind on anything because like I was saying you have only one perspective to draw on so I don’t experct the conclusions you draw to be any better.

  • pintortwo

    Lecture: ‘A Latina Judge’s Voice’
    Sonia Sotomayor
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=2&pagewanted=5

    In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

    Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

    I did not watch Sotomayor’s testimony today. But if she did say that she agrees with the O’Connor (attributed) quote then it is a reversal. She originally said “I’m not so sure that I agree with (O’Connor’s) statement”.

    My reason for posting Alito’s comment (12:45) is that I think that both Sotomayor and Alito’s statements are un-offensive and reasonable in context. We can debate if her statement is appropriate for a SC Justice (or any court), however, I don’t think that conservative media is necessarily making that argument. I believe their sole reason for bringing up the “wise Latina” is to anger white conservatives and unfairly paint her as racist, sexist, unqualified- I doubt she is any of those things. I also think that Alito’s statement demonstrates the media’s hypocrisy in attacking Sotomayor.

    The appointment of a Sup Court Justice is serious business. Senators should question her thoroughly and voice any concerns they have (in fact, spob makes a good argument @ 3:32). I just object to the, perhaps unavoidable, political side-show and accusations.

  • spob

    “However, your comment is full of it.”
    .
    Nice.
    .
    When you are going to write something like that, you had damned well better be right. Too bad for you, you’re not.
    .
    As to your first point, it is neither here nor there. I said nothing about Obama’s empathy comment. I merely said that Sotomayor’s wise Latina comment was (a) objectionable and (b) a far cry from what Alito said.
    .
    As to your second point, well, she did make the ethnic/racial references? You don’t get a redo of history. And she has forthrightly admitted that it was inappropriate.
    .
    As to your third point about the plaintiffs–well, gee, fhd, the GOP smells a rat here becauase of the summary disposition. Besides, what of it. Sotomayor’s view (summary judgment for defendants attracted not a single vote at SCOTUS).
    .
    Your other points aren’t really germane, so you’ll forgive me for not addressing them. I will say that “deference to defendants” is not a synonym for “judicial restraint”.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    When you disagree with Obama’s choice to reject Alito and Roberts please keep in mind that he believes that a court representing an entire country should not be subject to the political whims of a single party. He believes that balance is just as important qualifications. Republicans have strayed from this precedent and began trying to pack the court with far right wing ideologues bent on creating a conservative country since Bork. Despite their faux outrage about judicial activism, they are trying to get a conservative court to do what they can’t get American voters to do. Obama believes the court should be in the center and we can see from his choice of a moderate, he practices what he preaches.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    I did watch it and what she said was that “she agrees with the essence of what O’Connor was trying to say.”
    which was that everyone was capable of making a wise decision, Sotomayor just didn’t think that this was the happening in practice as much as O’Connor suggests.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Of course its inappropriate to make a comment that too many people are too stupid or too willful to understand the nuance of the argument and its inappropriate to make a comment that is too easily to be misconstrued by your enemies.

  • spob

    Guys, some basics:

    1) a sitting federal judge ought to know better than to link race/ethnicity with the quality of judging.
    .
    2) Even if you take the charitable view, i.e., that she was referencing her experiences, there’s one huge problem, she completely discounts any experiences that a white judge may have had. That’s like Al Campanis in reverse.
    .
    3) Sotomayor has admitted the comment was problematic.
    .
    4) Her comment today, i.e., that her “wise Latina” comment was really consistent with O’Connor’s is simply false.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Its funny how some people keep blaming Sotomayor for bringing race and ethnicity into the conversation, are they really so dense that they don’t understand that she was speaking at a diversity conference?
    .
    Moreover, their rebuttal is that well she said eight different times! Check, every time she’s repeated the line it has been at a gathering whose focus is diversity in some respect, it was her standard diversity speech. I mean most of you do know that it’s rare for a credentialed minority to be asked to speak at gatherings that are about anything other than race, ethnicity and diversity right?
    .
    When the forum is about justice and the law they march out the white male judges, when it s about women in the law, they march out the women and when its about diversity they get Sotomayor — please, spare me your faux outrage.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Guys, some more basics:

    “1) A sitting federal judge ought to know better than to link race/ethnicity with the quality of judging.”
    .
    Yeah they should know better to have a cogent thought, an intellectual discussion, a basis in reality, when so many stupid Republicans still roam the earth.

  • pintortwo

    Spob- when Alito says: “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 into account”, why would he take his family’s ethnicity (and the discrimination faced because of ethnicity) into account if not to enhance the quality of his judging? Both justices claim that their ethnicity enhances their ability to judge discrimination cases.

    I don’t see where Sotomayor discounts the experiences of white judges. She talks about how a diversity of experience would be beneficial.

    Also, I think her statement was “problematic” in a political sense, not ability-wise.

  • fhmadvocat

    spob,

    You are fixated on one statement made in a speech, which was taken out of context by the Republicans.

    When I say “You are full of it”, it is because you make the phony argument that somehow Alito’s statement is innocuous and I have observed how you have twisted your brain to explain that it had nothing to do with ethnicity, even trying to point out that Alito’s appellate circuit does not have as many racial cases. My point was Alito was expressing “empathy” which now the Republicans are saying has no place on the bench. You are performing a lot of mental gymnastics, however, avoiding my points does not make them go away.

    The problem is you are ignoring the attacks on Sotomayor from the Republicans are for the same things which were stated by Alito during his confirmation hearings, but when he says the analigous statements, it is okay.

    In truth, Alito has to say those things in order to appeal to the Democrats in the Senate. However, I don’t remember he being criticised for making such statements.

    Of course, Sotomayor says her statement was problematic, she is trying to win over the votes of Republicans, just as Alito’s statement of empathy was made to win over Democrats.

    You can fixate over that statement all you want, but she is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice. Hopefully, she will add more balance to the bench.

  • fhmadvocat

    Dee,

    Obama was wrong to have voted against Roberts and Alito. The only question which should be considered is the judicial temperment and whether they are qualified. Roberts and Alito were very well qualified, even though I may disagree with much of their political viewpoints. In addition, appointing Roberts would not have changed the balance on the court, which is the only other consideration which is half-way legitimate. Alito was a move to the right, but it is not as if he were replacing Ginsberg or Stevens.

    Presidents have the right to choose who they want on the Supreme Court. Did Obama think if these guys were rejected Bush would choose someone better?

  • spob

    fhd, Sotomayor has disavowed the statement. Not sure that mentioning the problematic nature of it is “taking it out of context”. In any event, remember too that federal judges have to be careful about what they say. Appearances are a problem too. And the excuse that she’s just trying to mollify the GOP doesn’t really wash. I’ll just take her at her word. The comment was inappropriate.
    .
    Second, I wasn’t saying that Alito’s circuit doesn;t have a lot of racial cases. I was saying that it doesn’t have a lot of cases where Italian-Americans alleged discrimination. Thus, his comment about understanding the lot in life of those who have been discriminated against was to mean that he took discrimination seriously, that it has impacted him personally (i.e.., through his family) etc. etc. That’s a far far cry from linking race/ethnicity to the quality of judging, which Sotomayor explicitly did.
    .
    As for empathy, I think there’s a difference between understanding the effect of one’s decisions and the reasons why a certain law was passed and Obama’s empathy, which smells a lot like putting a thumb on the scale.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    I be sorry Art!

    Still adjustin’ t’ th’ change in format…fergot t’ look o’er on th’ other side ‘fore readin’!

    I’ll not be makin’ tha’ mistake ag’in….tho’ it did be remindin’ me I be no’ missin’ anythin’ by passin’ ol’ spongy by, an’ also tha’ a hearty ‘go F yerself!” be th’ appropriate response fer all spongy posts – no prior readin’ needed – it be always fittin’!

    YARR!

  • notfooledtx

    I’m embarrassed by the behavior of the republicans. To see them acting in such a shallow manner doesn’t speak well for their intelligence – I’ve begun to question whether they have any. I’ve seen more reasoned questioning from high school students than I’ve seen from Kyl and Sessions.

  • 53_3

    Well, spob, since you are on a crusade against racism, why won’t you comment on the fact that Sessions actively worked to obstruct the Constitutional rights of Black Americans?

    C’mon, spob!

  • 53_3

    C’mon spob, time for you to man up…

  • apollyon07

    I think the GOP should back off questioning Sotomayor because then they could alienate a large and growing voting bloc, Hispanics!
    .
    Just kidding, that would be petty and disingenuous.

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/2009/07/14/scotus-confirmation-hearings-kabuki-theatrics/ SCOTUS Confirmation Hearings = Kabuki Theatrics « Let It Ride

    [...] of the mindset of these hearings, read these two threads from TIME’s Swampland blog (”Playing Good Cop/Bad Cop with Sotomayor?” and “Sotomayor’s Aristotle“)and see what the commenters–especially [...]

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    It’d be ri’ smart, too, so I be b’lievin’ we won’t be seein’ it happenin’ – th’ GNOP be appearin’ t’ be set on destroyin’ themselves.

    I be sayin’ go ri’ ahead, mateys, full steam!

    We will be havin’ Justice Sotomayor, an’ lots o’ entertainin’ video fer th’ next election cycle, t’ boot!

    Arrgh!

  • 53_3

    apollyon07:
    Aside from the politics of it, when you have Sessions, who was actively involved in obstructing the Constitutional rights of Black Americans, questioning Sotomayor and trying to draw out some sort of racial bias, doesn’t that strike you as just a bit short of credible?

    I mean, really, just who has the black marks here?

  • 53_3

    As an FYI on the petty and disingenuous part, I think, apollyon07, they’ve already shot that particular dog…

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    By Neptune’s fork! Wha’ need we be doin’ t’ be gettin’ a new thread aboard?!

    I be BEGGIN’ ye!

    YARR!

  • anghiari

    I think Maureen Dowd’s observation about the Republican males. I see them as neanderthals holding on to old ideas of power and totally inadequate to function in a diverse 21st century without their “white only” club memberships.

    I think they personify “Conservative judicial activism”

    “We are entering a time when people speak of judicial activism without realizing that the issue more and more is conservative judicial activism. The great hot button issues that we are talking about, guns, property, reverse discrimination are cases where those who favor conservative viewpoints want judges to set aside decisions made by Congress, state legislatures, local governments; the elected representatives…and more and more that is the issue as to whether judicial power will be used to invalidate what popularly elected governments have done and to do so in the name of certain conservative values”

    Walter Dellinger, American Professor, Duke University, Former Solicitor General to the Supreme Court. Statement he made on Charlie Rose Show on July 13, 2009…www.charlierose.com
    (these are my transcribed notes from the video, so there may be some tiny inacurracies) Watch the video!

blog comments powered by Disqus