Sotomayor Day 3

A dispatch from TIME’s Sophia Yan who sat in for us at today’s hearings:

Judge Sonia Sotomayor relaxed a bit in the hot seat in her third day of confirmation hearings to the Supreme Court.

Nearly every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Republican and Democrat alike, today pressed her on abortion; predictably the appellate judge declined to offer her personal views. Senator Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, persistently lobbed one hypothetical situation after another – “Let’s say I’m 38 weeks pregnant,” he said, which drew a couple guffaws from those in the room – but Sotomayor repeatedly offered the same response, “I can’t answer, because…[it’s] in the abstract.” Even when Senator Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat, goaded her, almost coaching her to speak certain words, she was careful to pad her answers. Rather than stating an opinion, her fallback was often to cite what’s already been stated: “The court has said…repeatedly, that there is a right to privacy that women have with respect to the termination of their pregnancy in certain situations.” She refused to acknowledge exactly what situations those would be: she knows well that giving such bites will invite Republicans to trip her up later. The way facts are presented to a judge on a bench, she said, are very different than the way issues can be academically debated.

Sotomayor continued to hold steadfast when asked about her previously stated opinion that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” Coburn press hard in his questioning, asking her if there is a constitutional right to self-defense.

Senator Ted Kaufman, Biden’s replacement from Delaware, didn’t offer fireworks the way Franken would later, but Kaufman’s questions gave Sotomayor an excellent opportunity to discuss the advantages she’ll bring to the bench given her previous experience.  Franken, as the last senator to close out the first round, lightened the mood with a more jovial tone. “You have been nominated to be justice of the Supreme Court. I think that’s pretty cool,” said the former late night comedian, stating the obvious.

Franken also brought a new fish to play with in the bowl (we’re all starting to envy that fact that some fishes have five second memories). According to Franken, the Internet plays “a central role in our democracy by allowing anyone with a computer to publish their ideas, their thoughts, their opinions, and reach an audience of millions.” And he’s right – cyberspace offers up a soapbox to anyone with a keyboard and an opinion. So with such wide reaching influence, Franken pushed Sotomayor for her thoughts on Internet regulation.

The second round of query opened with Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, the panel’s top Republican, echoing his G.O.P. colleague Texas Senator John Cornyn’s remarks from the morning (again, fish: bowl). Circling back to empathy and Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment – which she has made quite clear has been taken out of context – Sessions added another coat of green algae on the glass that is starting to obscure our view of the outside in a way that worries us. Once and future Democrat Arlen Specter called out his former Republican colleagues for making “a mountain out of a molehill.”

Utah’s Orrin Hatch highlighted specific quotes from Sotomayor’s past speeches, trying yet again to parse out if personal bias factors in to her decisions. The day rounded out with Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, proudly heralding a new topic that “no one, not one Senator on this panel has yet asked about”: marriage laws. He asked Sotomayor for her thoughts on the Defense of Marriage Act, to which the judge respectfully declined to answer, saying she would not comment on pending or impending cases.

Tomorrow morning, the second round of questioning will resume, and in the afternoon, we’ll hear from witnesses from Sotomayor’s past cases. Please, Senate staff, come and change the water overnight.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Mitt Romney’s Sweet Spot: Just Conservative Enough

    Why is Mitt Romney having trouble winning over the conservative Republican base? One reason is his lack of political finesse, an air of dorky rich-guy aloofness that reminds some people of John Kerry. More important, however, is his ideological profile. In almost every important way, Romney’s policy platform is more moderate than those of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Gingrich  offers a much more conservative tax plan, along with crowd-pleasing ideas like his plan to sic federal marshals on “radical” liberal judges. Santorum carries a blazing social-conservative torch, championing ideas like a constitutional ban on abortion. Both Gingrich and Santorum talk quite openly about the virtues of bombing Iran. Romney’s temperature runs cooler in all these areas. Not to mention his past record of pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions. As Jon Chait notes today, the GOP establishment is defending Romney but also working hard to push him to the right.

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Conflict Over Obama’s Contraception Rule Intensifies

    The Administration’s decision to require Catholic charities and universities to provide free birth control through employee health coverage is several weeks old, but the maelstrom of dissent it’s created is widening. Republicans, who charge that the measure violates such organizations’ religious freedoms, have allied with Catholic groups in opposition, and in recent days a handful of high-profile Democrats have joined their ranks in calling on the Administration to broaden exemptions from the rule.

  • gysgt213

    “You have been nominated to be justice of the Supreme Court. I think that’s pretty cool,” said the former late night comedian, stating the obvious.

    You know I would be helpful if you asked your fellow reporter to add some context. There was a lot that more led up to the above comment from Franken. So in fact he wasn’t stating the obvious. You guys kill me with these lazy phone it in writing.

    Oh wait. You beltway types don’t idolize Franken. Yet. My bad.

  • spob

    Not that Time Magazine would cover this issue, but Sotomayor hasn’t exactly been candid with her responses.
    .
    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Republicans-dont-believe-Sotomayors-stories-50839327.html

  • gysgt213

    Republicans don’t believe Stomayor’s stories by Byron York. Like Byron would write an objective opinion article.

  • spob

    Here’s a Sotomayor quote:
    .
    The Constitution is a document that is immutable to the sense that it’s lasted 200 years. The Constitution has not changed except by amendments. It is a process — an amendment process that is set forth in the document. It doesn’t live other than to be timeless by the expression of what it said. What changes is society. What changes is what facts a judge may get.
    .
    First of all, the quote is, ummmmmm, lacking a certain confidence. This is pretty tortured language. The Constitution is immutable in the sense that it’s lasted 200 years–ok. It doesn’t live other than to be timeless by the expression of what it said–uhhhhh, whatever.
    .
    Second of all, does anyone really believe that this is how she thinks?
    .
    Third of all, in reality the law has changed. (And if all she meant to say was that the language hasn’t changed, well, that ascribes to her a triteness that she could not possibly have met.)

  • spob

    gunny, come on. Even libs are complaining that she hasn’t been exactly truthful. And no one is defending her comment that her “wise Latina” statement was consisitent with what O’Connor is purported to have said.

  • yutsano

    What the hey the Marines are on the case so I’ll bite. Care to link to these supposed libs who are up in arms there Spob?

  • gysgt213

    Spob-why don’t you follow the process. The process is, Judge Sotmayor will be confirmed to the Court. You might not like that, but that is pretty much the way it is. The repubs won’t stop her because the cost is too high.

    So your critique of her responses (and it seems to be only one you seem to focus on after 3 days of hearings just like you focused on one of her opinions earlier) means, pretty much nothing.

    I know you seriously wanted to portray her as stupid and unqualified, because your Pat Buchanan mentality is showing, but the truth of the matter is she is neither.

    Try reading more than Redstate, Malkin and York. Your act is getting pretty old.

  • apollyon07

    With all this talk about race and federal court nominees, I’m shocked that no one here (or anywhere) has brought up Miguel Estrada by now.

  • gysgt213

    “gunny, come on. Even libs are complaining that she hasn’t been exactly truthful.”

    Spob-Have you ever heard of don’t ask don’t tell? WTF is that? My point is, no one selected for the supreme court can be honest. We Americans can’t be honest with ourselves or would never stand for such a farce of a policy within our federal government. You know full well the other party either left or right will destroy them for honesty. That’s why you had Lindsey Graham who supported a candidate for president with a hot temper telling Sotomayor she has a hot temper with a straight friggin face.

  • jcapan

    And it begins again…

    Bill Murray, Groundhog Day, anyone?

  • yutsano

    It may be early in the process yet Apo. They only have mentioned Ricci a couple of times, but I’m certain Estrada’s criticism of the Second Circuit will be coming forward here in due time.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Ye be kiddin’ ’bout Estrada, ri’? I seem t’ be rememberin’ several occasions yesterday when ‘is name was brought up.

    arrgh.

  • yutsano

    Normally I’d be right there with the criticism JC-san, but one thing being interested in a Marine has taught me is when their sights are set on something get the Hades out of the way!

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Go F yerself in both o’ yer a$$holes!

    YARR!

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    yutsano –

    Jest t’ be clear, th’ go F yerself were meant fer spongy, not fer ye, me hearty ;) .

    Arrgh.

  • yutsano

    Okay, experiment seems to be a success, you CAN reply to yourself!

    Whenever that term comes out of your fingers PW I kinda figure it’s aimed for the bilge rat over there. Could you imagine if he lived up here? We’d have to give him a serious talking to!

  • yutsano

    Still waiting for those links there Spob. I have the day off, I can be patient.

  • spob

    Ok, gunny, I get it–it’s a done deal, so no complaint? Is that what you’re arguing?
    .
    As for your Pat Buchanan charge, honest commenters will see it for what it is. I am quoting her testimony, get it? The quote I just gave looks pretty bad.
    .
    Here’s the link: Note the quote of Seidman.
    .
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/legalities/2009/07/liberals-lash-out-against-sotomayor-testimony.html

  • gysgt213

    Lindsey Graham mentioned Estrada on July 13, 2009 and he lied about Estrada for no apparent reason.

    Graham:

    No Republican would have chosen you, Judge; that’s just the way it is. We would have picked Miguel Estrada. We would all have voted for him. And I don’t think anybody on that side would have voted for Judge Estrada, who is a Honduran immigrant, who came to this country as a teenager, graduated from Columbia magna cum laude, Harvard, 1986, magna cum laude and Law Review editor, a stellar background like yours, and that’s just the way it was.

    He never had a chance to have this hearing. He was nominated by President Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which I think most people agree is probably the second highest court in the land, and he never had this day.

    http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7600ffc3-802a-23ad-484e-a4b5f58dbd44

    Never had his day?
    .
    http://feinstein.senate.gov/03Releases/r-estrada.htm

  • spob

    “My point is, no one selected for the supreme court can be honest.”
    .
    Hmmmmmmmmm, so it’s your view that judges should be dishonest under oath?
    .
    Ok, gotcha.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Nowwww gunny,

    It be no’ playin’ fair t’ actual be consultin’ th’ FACTS!

    An’ besides, now tha’ none o’ th’ members o’ our fine journalistic profession were lettin’ it go – givin’ ‘em a pass, can ye be imaginin’ tha – it be squarely planted in th’ wee minds o’ th’ wingnuts an’ nothin’ be able t’ be dislodgin’ it!

    Arrgh!

  • spob

    It really is amazing. I quote the nominee, and get called names in here. Guys, you obviously want an echo chamber, not a debate.

  • yutsano

    Wait…that’s it? One liberal judge who was opposed to her from the start? THAT’S your definition of libs? One is not a plural noun last time I checked. Try again.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    It’d be a good sight more than just a serious talkin’ to…spongy be beyond tha’!

    Tar, feathers, cement boots, a dip in th’ slop pot, an’ a nice short roll off th’ plank be more wha’ I’d be havin’ in mind fer th’ gonorrhea-brained troglodyte!

    YARR!

  • spob

    Hey PW, you gotta go easy on Graham. Him and McCain are the reason that the 4th Circuit is going to go from very conservative to mildly liberal in the next cpl of years.
    .
    Estrada got hosed.

  • yutsano

    Spob, if we REALLY wanted an echo chamber, we’d work to get you banned from the Swamp. As it is, we just want a little intellectual honesty from the other side. What we get is Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.

  • spob
  • spob

    and what have I posted in this thread that’s dishonest?
    .
    And aren’t you guys violating the “no dealing with spob” rule??

  • gysgt213

    Spob-thanks for the link. However, I am not saying you can not complain. “Sotomayer” is not someone you would have picked. I get that. No problem. But your argument against her (in my opinion) has to focus on more than you have based it on so far.

    In the end though the process is the process. Once the media and the pols start talking its a done deal. Its a done deal, no matter what you and I think.

    The reason why I bought up Buchanan is because the way you have argued against Sotomayer is the same way Pat has. Paint her as a stupid far left liberal, That may not be your intention but, it is the way you come across to me. And Sotomayer is not stupid and she is not a far left liberal in her judging. Her record does not reflect that. I kinda of wish she was, but the realty is that she will more than likely vote more the way you like once she is on the Court. But than again I can always hope.

  • yutsano

    Forget it. I’m going with JC-san. Let Spob say whatever he wants, I’ll just skip on by like I do Rusty.

    PW are there rum drinks on deck tonight?

  • Cliff

    Every day is the first day of Spob 101 at Swampland!

  • spob

    gysgt, don’t worry, Sotomayor will be a reliable liberal vote. She may side with the conservatives on a few criminal law issues, but she will be voting with Ginsburg, Breyer and Stevens on the lib stuff. That you can count on.
    .
    How do I know this? Well, her voting patterns are to the left of an average Dem judge. (That’s in WaPo.) Second, I look at her prisoner voting decision, and that screams Stephen Reinhardt/Richard Paez/Marcia Berzon liberal. I look at her Clean Water Act nonsense, and that’s liberal too. Guys, she’s liberal, and she will give rein to her liberal tendencies on the court.
    .
    As for “stupid”, that’s a relative word. Is she “stupid” when compared to the average person, no. Is she “stupid” when compared to Dick Durbin, no. Is she anywhere close to the intellectual talent of Alito, Roberts, Breyer or Ginsburg, no. She’s just not that bright. Look at the stuff I’ve quoted–it’s just laughable. Then there are the numerous malapropisms, the tortured explanations etc. etc. They don’t evidence a rocket scientist.
    .
    As for focusing on more? What more do you want? Ive commented on her record as a judge, her comments and her testimony.

  • gysgt213

    “Hmmmmmmmmm, so it’s your view that judges should be dishonest under oath?”

    No Spob. That is you seeing things the way only a Spob can. But that’s okay too. I’m still glad you came aboard here to offer your perspective. Because it is important. Despite the fact that you might feel under attack 24/7.

    Besides you win every thread anyway.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    yutsano 0

    Ye be knowin’ it be Ohana Race Week ‘ere on th’ lovely Isle o’ Whidbey (Oak Harbor), ri’? Thar be rum flowin’ like water ev’ry night after th’ boats be comin’ back in t’ th’ harbor!

    Unfortunate, pirate tha’ I be, I were refusin’ t’ join th’ “yacht club” so I be not eligible t’ partake on their lovely grounds. I’ll be contentin’ meself wi’ me own stash an’ stealin’ a listen t’ th’ musical entertainment waftin’ up th’ hill – I be b’lievin’ it’ be reggae night t’nite!

    T’morrow be an open party…a fine opportunity fer sashayin’ out wi’ th’ cap’n an’ indulgin’ in a bit o’ wenchin’!

    Arrgh!

  • yutsano

    That’s really what it’s all about to him Gunny. He has to WIN. He has to be RIGHT. And he will always be right regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It’s all just a game and he will always come out on top because he’s the arbiter of victory.

  • spob

    “My point is, no one selected for the supreme court can be honest.”
    .
    Then what, gunny, does that mean?

  • yutsano

    Reggae music, the sun setting over the Olympics, rum flowing like water from the barrels, and wenching until the sun comes up again. Man why does my Dawg have to be stuck on the other side of the country?

  • spob

    No yutsano. The whole “clowned you” thing isn’t about me winning–it’s a response to you bozos calling me every name in the book. You call me stupid, and I point out that I kick your teeth in (rhetorically, of course).
    .
    I am not a sophist. I don’t argue to win a debater’s point; I argue what i feel is right. I don’t say a thing on here that I don’t believe in order to score points.

  • 53_3

    I’ll be there!

    I need more fortitude, anyway, Pirate Wench.
    Spob is a bit thick these days…

  • yutsano

    I don’t say a thing on here that I don’t believe in order to score points.

    To quote Yoda: “That is why you fail.”

  • 53_3

    yuts:
    I’ve gotten many a laugh watching him kick his own arse, declare victory, then without hesitation, promptly repeat his sortie into the sordid world of masochism.

    I’m thinking we should sell him into bondage to be Pirate Wench’s cabin boy.

    Or bait…

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    I’ve a fine cabin boy already – spongy’d be just fer chummin’ th’ waters, ‘r crab bait…

    Speakin’ o’ which, th’ crab be partic’lar fine this season!

    Arrgh.

  • 53_3

    You know what else I don’t like about spob?

    He might believe in this or that, but he’s really a paper tiger and he knows it:

    “Sessions added another coat of green algae on the glass that is starting to obscure our view of the outside in a way that worries us.”

    I present this here to make the point that Sessions is exactly the last individual, given his history, to try and engage Sotomayor on issues of race.

    Not surprisingly, spob has relentlessly refused to either condemn Sessions, or to even acknowledge the fact that Sessions was directly involved in legal efforts to deprive Black Americans of their Constitutional rights.

    Compared to Sessions, any “transgressions” that Sotomayor may or may not have pale in comparison.

  • spob

    whatever, yutsano, I quote her, and I’m a troll. The intellectual honesty around here is hilarious.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Aye, 53, that be a fine idea! We’ll hoist a few t’ yutsano too, as th’ sun be settin’!

    Arrgh!

  • 53_3

    Bait it is, Pirate Wench. Or, better yet, how about a pinata?

    We can enjoy a little bit of multicultural influence in the jolly proceedings thereof*…

    *the rollicking jolly wenchin’ and winin’ me hearty, o’ course!

  • spob

    53_3, not sure how Sessions’ record is at all germane here (hey, these are the rules you guys lay down). From what I’ve read Sessions has fully explained his actions, although I admit I haven’t looked all that deeply into it. But you know, 53_3, a couple of points. First, if Sessions has no business talking about race, what business does Barack Obama? (Two can play at that game. Obama’s racial record ain’t so hot.) Second, given your “the GOP is racist because some parish blocked an Interstate leading out of New Orleans” line of attack, I’d be shocked if your conclusions about Sessions were correct.

  • 53_3

    spob.

    I’m waiting…

  • spob

    And guys, what about the rules? No engaging spob. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Th’ pinata mi’ be workin’ – I be thinkin’ even th’ crabs be needin’ some “disguisin” o’ th’ spongy meat t’ be tempted t’ partake…in ‘is natural state, the stink be too much even fer hard shells t’ be takin’! If we were t’ be “tenderizin” ‘im b’fore loadin’ ‘im in th’ pots, we mi’ be standin’ a better chance at a catch!

    Arrgh!

  • 53_3

    Here:
    http://blackpoliticalthought.blogspot.com/2009/05/senator-jeff-sessions-who-has-shady.html

    http://www.alan.com/2009/07/14/jeff-sessions-once-said-he-thought-klan-was-okay-until-he-learned-they-smoked-pot/

    http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/jeff-sessions-vs-voting-rights.php

    Of course, the ineviatable wiki link (follow the references!)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions

    Takes care of the issue of just where Sessions has been.

    Barak Obama has never attempted to impede the constitutional rights of any American. Unlike Sessions.

    The second part about NOLA is just rhetoric.

    spob 0, 53_3 29.

  • 53_3

    “And guys, what about the rules? No engaging spob. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.”

    When the opportunity presents itself, given your bloated self-importance, and, since others are doing it, I don’t mind clocking you once or twice myself.

    Mind providing links to anything proving Barak Obama is a racist?

  • 53_3

    Oh, btw, not so germane?

    You say you are concerned about racism.

    You say you are impartial when it comes to shortcomings.

    Now, we have here, on full display, a simple choice test.

    Which one is worse:

    Sotomayors alleged transgressions

    Sessions real and furthermore, unconstitutional transgressions.

  • 53_3
  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Watch it, 53 – ye be backin’ th’ rat into th’ corner…expect ‘im t’ declare ye clowned an’ be runnin’ away!

    Sorry Brave Sir Robin:

    Silly spongy ran away

    F’d ‘imself an’ ran away

    When reason reared it’s pow’rful ‘ead

    ‘e F’d ‘imself wi’ awful dread

    ‘e turned ‘is tail an’ swiftly fled

    Aye, spongy ran away!

    YARR!

  • 53_3

    At least PW, we’ll have spob-free threads!

  • 53_3

    Aye matey!

    Ere’ the sun settin’ o’ er the Isle of Whidbey we be!

    A toast to yuts!

  • spob

    First of all, re Obama, I have repeatedly posted in here about Obama’s racial issues. His “schoolyard fight” quote is emblematic of Obama’s less than kosher racial record. I am not going to redo those posts here, although I will note that Obama’s quote on interracial romance is pretty freaking creepy. And Obama tries to lecture the rest of us on race.
    .
    Second of all, some pretty thin gruel with respect to Sessions. Very thin gruel. Sotomayor’s wise Latina comment is problematic because she’s a sitting judge–and I’ve pretty much always linked her comment to that.
    .
    Third of all, not sure that Sessions’ alleged transgressions were “unconstitutional”.
    .
    Fourth of all, and perhaps you missed it, I was throwing back your side’s definition of germane back at you. The truth is that I don’t know a ton about Sessions, and I quite frankly have a difficult time getting worked up about something for which someone has apologized. Kinda like the Jesse Jackson “Hymietown” comment. He apologized. As for the prosecutions, an acquittal doesn’t mean that the prosecution was unjustified.
    .
    I also didn’t say that Sotomayor was a racist.

  • spob

    No such luck, PW. Just accept it PW, you aren’t all that bright. It’s ok. You, Sotomayor and Biden can have a nice conversation.

  • Cliff

    How did you do that?

  • Cliff

    You should probably say that a few more times to make sure you’re convinced us.

  • 53_3

    “As for the prosecutions, an acquittal doesn’t mean that the prosecution was unjustified.”

    Neither does it reflect on the defense.

    As for Sotomayor’s statements, I saw them, but I also saw complete statements posted by others and I understand what she was saying. I don’t have a problem with it.

    Most of your commentary on Obama and race is rhetoric only. Mainly based on things he said that you have interpreted to be racist. No go. Rhetoric only. Just because he has the same opinion I do on Jena doesn’t make either of us racist. No one I know who is interracial has had any problems with any of Obama’s statements. Of course, lets not mention that Obama is also white and does not exhibit any of the psychological scars of self hatred.

    Sessions, as far as I know, never apologized for his acting in legal support of Jim Crow laws, which, as I have shown, is true. Show me where he apologized for his actions. Provide a link.

    “I also didn’t say that Sotomayor was a racist.”
    You strongly implied bias based on race.

  • 53_3

    “Third of all, not sure that Sessions’ alleged transgressions were “unconstitutional”

    Oh, btw spob, are you going to defend Jim Crow laws?

  • 53_3

    On germane, it doesn’t matter how “artful” you are trying to be, it cannot be escaped.

    It is germane, in that he is on that committee! There is absolutely every reason to suspect that Sessions has no credibility on racial bias or racism.

    And you don’t seem to have any, either…

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    Could’ve been only a space in his reply. Dunno for sure.

  • 53_3

    I don’t know Cliff.

    Do you suppose that that is probably the most sensible statement I’ve made all day?

  • Mr. Nice Guy

    I’ve got Bacardi 151. Full bottle. I’m not feeling fine – yet…

  • spob

    53_3, let’s get a few things straight–Barack Obama called the Jena Six assault a “schoolyard fight”. Now, I don’t know about you, but a six-on-one assault where a victim is jumped, knocked unconscious and stomped while prostrate until the assailants are physically forced to stop is a little more than a “schoolyard fight”, and it’s a fair question, given Obama’s shall we say comfort with people like Rev. Wright, to ask why Obama is minimizing the transgressions of these black assailants.
    .
    Second, here’s his interracial relationships quote:
    .
    “The emotions between the races could never be pure; even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart.”
    .
    Creepy.
    .
    Third, did Sessions support Jim Crow? Didn’t see that in your links.
    .
    Fourth, Sessions apologized for his KKK/marijuana joke.
    .
    Fifth, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” quote is troubling from a sitting federal judge. She has disowned the quote (without apology and without acknowledging that people had a right to be ticked), so you can’t gig me for criticizing her.
    .
    Too easy.

  • spob

    By the way, guys, Obama throws like a girl.

  • Cliff

    You do.

  • Art Pepper

    Sweet jesus on a f##ing popsicle stick. The sound you hear coming through your computer speakers is the sound of me clawing my eyes out.

  • ohiolib

    The problem, 53-3, is that two wrongs don’t make a right. Sessions is the poster child for the old racist right, but that doesn’t justify Sotomayor being a little bit racist in response. Of course, her racism doesn’t excuse Sessions either, but I don’t like seeing arguments that boil down to “Well, they do it too!!”

  • deconstructiva

    …my vain effort to drift back on topic / one man’s preparations for tomorrow’s hearings…
    …and as the moon rises over the Potomac, Sen. Lindsey Graham prepares for tomorrow’s closing rounds. This is it. It’s now or never to make his move…on Sonia Sotomayor. Mark Sanford’s right, he thought. Screw the base; it’s the heart that matters. He likes her; better to try and fail than to do nothing and regret it forever. He prepares his suit and spends hours picking the right tie. He checks his breath spray. Alas, his old bottle of Hai Karate is empty, but the Old Spice is okay. He orders online flowers to arrive during HIS questions. He watches retro TV subchannels into the late night to bone up on trivia; screw you, Franken. He calls Sanford (in Argentina?) for last second pointers as he hears Jenny S. and Maria fighting in the background (to be followed by women’s kiss-and-make-up). He can’t stop the nomination, but there are more important things….

  • deconstructiva

    I hope you’re okay. I thought that sound was my hard drive frying again. I can hardly wait for 100% flash drive laptops.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    53 an’ yutsano – sunset be in 23 minutes – 2107 – I’ll be a toastin’ – in more ways than one!

    Face t’ th’ west lads, an’ raise yer glasses!

    Arrgh!

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    BRAVO, deconstructiva!!!

    ARRGH!

  • Matt

    Would love to see poll numbers on Sotomayor after these three days of GOP bullying.

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

  • http://teacherreaderwriter.wordpress.com/ Shakespeare in GA

    spob said: Fifth, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” quote is troubling from a sitting federal judge. She has disowned the quote (without apology and without acknowledging that people had a right to be ticked), so you can’t gig me for criticizing her.
    .
    Too easy.

    (Sigh.)

    From a TIME article by Carolina A. Miranda (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910403,00.html?xid=rss-topstories)

    At the July 14 hearing, the nominee explained that “wise Latina” was her attempt to play off a quote by retired justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who said that “both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.” Sotomayor said that “my play fell flat. It was bad.” But Sotomayor is just trying to ameliorate her critics without having to make them look… unwise. She has nothing to apologize for — and neither have other politicians and judicial nominees who have said the same thing in their own words.

    (snip)

    And that’s all Sotomayor was trying say: that her breadth of experience navigating different worlds might lead her to have greater wisdom on certain topics than her white male counterparts. It is no different from what Samuel Alito said in 2006 (“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 what countless other Congressmen and Supreme Court nominees and presidential candidates have said when channeling their own “I grew up in a van down by the river” youths. Our varied experiences shape us, they enrich us, they give us the ability to… empathize.

    Is this really that big of a deal, spob? More importantly, does her record as a judge suggest that Sotomayor is biased towards “wise Latinas” or Hispanics or any other group?

    This is the problem with the whole ridiculous SCOTUS confirmation hearing process. It’s all political theater. I don’t care if Sotomayor is a stunning orator or not. I care that she’s a very good judge who knows the law and has applied it appropriately. From what I’ve read, she seems to have met these standards. The Republicans seem to have agreed with this as well. But that doesn’t matter as much as the theater. Witness the John Roberts or Sam Alito confirmation hearings. They’re both accomplished judges with a commanding knowledge of the law, as far as I can tell. And yet their confirmation hearings were theater as well. And the Republicans scolded the Democrats for questioning both of those judges.

blog comments powered by Disqus