Leahy Sets Sotomayor Hearing For July 13

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:39:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Via Brian Beutler:

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced on the Senate floor today that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on July 13. . . .

This tracks with the time frame for the nomination hearings of now Chief Justice John Roberts. Leahy noted:

That agreement was reached before the Committee received the answers to the bipartisan questionnaire, and before the Committee had received any of the 75,000 pages of documents from his years working in Republican administrations. If 48 days were sufficient to prepare for that hearing, in accordance with our agreement and the initial schedule, it is certainly adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor.

< Sully On "Victimology" | ICE Agents Conduct Illegal Raids in New Haven >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Leahy Sets Sotomayor Hearing For July 13 | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'm hoping she's been (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by scribe on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:51:05 AM EST

studying the lines which Roberts and Alito gave to the Committee, so she can come back with them verbatim.

Watching Rethugs' heads explode when they go ballistic over her, and then again when they realize they've been punked with her saying the same things they fawned over a couple years ago, would be worth the price of admission.

I don't (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:01:00 PM EST

I want to know how she stands.


I agree with you, Teresa (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by dk on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:12:59 PM EST

It really is astounding to me how all you read about on the left w/r/t this nomination is how exciting it will be to stick it to the Republicans, how racist and sexist the Republicans are, etc. It's not like any of that isn't true, but why isn't anyone actually trying to find out and asking (publicly) where she stands on the issues?

I mean, we all know that Supreme Court justices interpret law and make decisions based on their ideology/policy positions. That's just human nature. So, shouldn't we try to uncover what hers are. I mean, if they aren't liberal, then liberals should speak out against her, right?


Definitely (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:30:01 PM EST

That is the worst result of the racist and sexist attacks on her. It put liberals into the mode of defending her, justifiably, and has distracted from the real analysis of her positions.


rephrase (none / 0) (#8)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:31:43 PM EST

Should say one of the worst results. The worst result of course would be that she gets rejected based on these idiotic attacks that she is a racist.


Well, I'd rephrase that. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by dk on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:59:20 PM EST

On the one hand, I think that refuting the racist is inevitable, and necessary, and that it has sadly been the reason why we haven't had more focus on the important work of figuring out where she stands on the issues.

However, I also think that the some who say they are on the left (which includes many politicians and bloggers...though I certainly don't put BTD in this category) are not particularly interested in fighting for liberal issues (either because they don't care, or aren't particularly liberal) and really are just into this for the food fight. I have no patience for those people.


: thank you (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:21:06 PM EST

I concur with your rephrasing!
Can you help me write this program plan?

She'll be on the Court for next term (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:46:39 AM EST

No problem.

Does this mean (none / 0) (#3)
by dk on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 11:53:21 AM EST

it'll be soon when some of our liberal senators can actually ask her, in public, if she has liberal positions on the issues? So, you know, liberals can have an informed opinion as to how we should feel about her appointment?

: C'mon! (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:43:00 PM EST

That's just crazy talk!

: Liberal Senators? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:52:24 PM EST

OK, there is Bernie Sanders...is he on the committee?

Yes, let's get it going (none / 0) (#6)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 12:25:55 PM EST

Sessions probably whined he has not had enough time, but it's obvious the Republicans aren't using the time to really study her opinions, but are just raising false issues and fears in hopes of causing a big public outcry.

probably pointless revenge thinking (none / 0) (#12)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:02:19 PM EST

but I would love it if she could respond to anyone but Sessions in particular in a way that would remind everyone and get the cable heads talking about the fact that Sessions was once rejected by the same committee he now heads for being a blatant racist.


: yeah, that's probably not (none / 0) (#14)
by ruffian on Tue Jun 09, 2009 at 01:22:39 PM EST

on her agenda at her confirmation hearing!

I am no sure I want her on the courts/ (none / 0) (#15)
by AX10 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:13:30 AM EST

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-sotomayor-prosecutor9-2009jun09,0,7206855.story

In two major rulings after she joined the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York in 1998, she held that evidence could be used to convict a defendant even though police had violated his rights in seizing it. Sotomayor said that because the police and prosecutors acted "in good faith," the evidence need not be thrown out.

In 1999, Sotomayor upheld the crack cocaine conviction of a New York man despite what she called a "mistaken arrest." Last year, Sotomayor spoke for a 2-1 majority that upheld a man's child pornography conviction, even though she agreed an FBI agent did not have probable cause to search his computer.

: Sounds like she was a good, hard working (none / 0) (#16)
by MyLeftMind on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 10:34:45 AM EST

prosecutor. Just what we need when criminals are killing innocent people.
Zealous? That's a word one would use to paint someone as a fanatic or something. I see someone who worked long hours to try to clean up crime ridden neighborhoods. Judges still disagree on what's valid evidence. The law is the law. Working relentlessly to enforce it is a good thing.