Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 2, Blog 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:09:05 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Senator Whitehouse should provide something of interest.

Apparently, being boring and uninteresting is the Dem strategy today. So I am going to return to the politics of the Sotomayor hearings. Matt Yglesias writes:

Consider the case of Jeff Sessions (R-AL). We’re talking about a guy who’s too racist to get confirmed as a judge, but just racist enough to win a Senate seat in Alabama. And it’s not because Alabama is a lilly white state. With 65 percent of its electorate white, and 29 percent of its electorate African-American, Alabama is much more demographically favorable to the Democrats than is the country at large. But while McCain pulled 55 percent of the white vote nationwide he scored 88 percent of white vote in Alabama. And this is what you tend to see in the Deep South, white Americans exhibiting the kind of high levels of racial solidarity in voting behavior that you normally associate with African-Americans in the US political context.

(Emphasis supplied.) It is certainly possible that in the South and in places like Utah and Idaho, the GOP can get 95% of the whote vote. But that will not provide the GOP any political benefit. I'll explain on the flip.

Because of the Voting Rights Act, there are districts across the country, but in particular in the South, that are "majority-minority" districts where minorities are highly likely to win the seat (think about the indicted William Jefferson in Louisiana. While he lost his seat in 2008, his GOP opponent is almost certainly going to lose the seat to a Democrat in 2010.)

Running up the score among white voters in Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and other parts of the South will not get the GOP any more seats (or electoral votes in a Presidential election.)

Unless the GOP can convince young white voters across the Nation and especially, young white women, to adopt their views on race, sexual orientation and women's rights (a very unlikely prospect imo) - then outside of the South - the Sessions KKK approach is going to lose votes for the GOP everywhere else but the South and other GOP bastions like Idaho, Wyoming and Utah.

It simply can not work. So why do it? Because the Republican Party has become a rump party unable to escape the grasp of its racist, bigoted, hateful base.

Since 2004, I have trumpeted a political strategy I labelled a Lincoln 1860 strategy. Now more than ever, that strategy is a winning one for the Democrats. And Republicans are playing their part.

Senator Kaufman asks about application of economic thoery to antitrust law. Sotomayor simply gets the answer wrong - whe says the Court has not. That is flat wrong. Clearly she is not well versed in antitrust law.

Speaking for me only

< Sotomayor Hearing, Day 2, Blog 1 | Right Wing Group Says Cabranes Cavorted With Terrorists >

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.

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 2, Blog 2 | 45 comments (45 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Strange line of questioning (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:31:37 AM EST

by Whitehouse on limits to executive powers and warrants.

Whitehouse voted in favor of giving the executive branch more powers and weakened the 4th amendment rights of U.S. citizens when he voted for the last FISA.

Well, a lot of Dems voted (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Cream City on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:39:12 AM EST

for expanding the president's powers, including the current president, and thus undermining the Constitutional rights of you and me. So Whitehouse is only one of many who have a lot of 'splaining to do -- and only one of many who made it easier for me to turn Independent. I guess I ought to be grateful for the awakening that FISA vote meant for me, huh?

[ Parent ]

: The FISA vote was one of the reasons (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by MO Blue on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:50:07 AM EST

I too became an Independent and choose not to vote for Obama.
IMO the primary responsibility of each and every member of Congress is to defend the Constitution from against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If I cannot trust them to honor their oath of office, how can I trust them on other issues? To make it perfectly clear, I think that every member of Congress who voted for the last FISA broke their oath of office.

[ Parent ]

Leahy (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:53:09 AM EST

has a camera and is taking pictures of the photogrpahers taking pictures of him.

: He's an avid photographer. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by Tony on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:57:38 AM EST

He can often be seen taking pictures before and after hearings. Usually has a camera with him.

[ Parent ]

Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by CST on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:53:14 AM EST

Convincing "young white women, to adopt their views on race"

that makes me laugh... although there is certainly such a thing as a love/hate relationship

They're not just appealing to the base -- (5.00 / 3) (#31)
by esmense on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:31:34 AM EST

they are the base. When Coburn told Sotomayer she'd have some "'splainin to do" that wasn't a calculated gambit aimed at gaining the approval of bigoted constituents, that was a bigoted, sexist idiot at his ease, expressing himself in a totally unselfconscious manner.

I can't help but think that as racist as these guys are, that, in terms of their increasing inability to hide their socially unacceptable attitudes from the greater public, it is actually their sexism that has created the greatest problem. I think if Sotomayer was male, they would be minding their tongues a little bit more. But condescending to and bullying women is so second nature to them (and so socially acceptable) that they don't even recognized when they have also stepped way over the line racially.

He actually said that?? (none / 0) (#38)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:16:45 PM EST

Those words, "some 'splainin' to do"? Oh. My. God.

[ Parent ]

Yes. I'm afraid he really did (none / 0) (#42)
by esmense on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:59:53 PM EST

of course, he was only "joking"

[ Parent ]

Here's the context (none / 0) (#43)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:22:27 PM EST

A funny, slightly cringe-inducing exchange just now between Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, who was pressing Sonia Sotomayor on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor, jokingly produced a hypothetical in which she went back to her apartment, got a gun and shot Coburn -- which cracked up the room, if a little uncomfortably.
SOTOMAYOR: ...Let me try to address what you're saying in the context that I can, OK, which is what I have experience with, all right, which is New York criminal law, because I was a former prosecutor. And I'm talking in very broad terms.
But, under New York law, if you're being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal. The question that would come up, and does come up before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat. If the threat was in this room, "I'm going to come get you," and you go home and get -- or I go home.
I don't want to suggest I am, by the way. Please, I'm not -- I don't want anybody to misunderstand what I'm trying to say.
(LAUGHTER)
If I go home, get a gun, come back and shoot you, that may not be legal under New York law because you would have alternative ways to defend...
COBURN: You'll have lots of 'splainin' to do.
SOTOMAYOR: I'd be in a lot of trouble then.
But I couldn't do that under a definition of self-defense. And so, that's what I was trying to explain in terms of why, in looking at this as a judge, I'm thinking about how that question comes up and how the answer can differ so radically, given the hypothetical facts before you.
=====
Who made that catch phrase famous?
Desi Arnaz, aka Ricky Ricardo, the heavily-accented Cuban-American band leader married to Lucy in "I Love Lucy."
It's easy to whack Coburn here for making a questionable crack. But unless I'm mistaken, this is probably the first time in two-plus centuries of SCOTUS hearings where a nominee suggested he or she would plug a sitting senator, however hypothetically.

[ Parent ]

: Thanks (none / 0) (#45)
by gyrfalcon on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:11:38 PM EST

And was it Politico that spelled it "eminent"? That's certainly an interesting concept to think about, an "eminent threat." I guess it means you're about to be attacked by a VIP of some kind.

[ Parent ]

Nice job (none / 0) (#1)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:14:59 AM EST

explaining the role of a Board member with relation to legal filings of a charitable organization

cspan won't run for me today (none / 0) (#2)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:17:56 AM EST

That's okay though. I think she'll be our next justice. It's not good for me to watch anymore Republicans question anymore unwhite women for awhile.

much better (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by CST on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:39:42 AM EST

to sit here and read comments of those who do the dirty work for you. Then the head explosions come with a chuckle.

[ Parent ]

This is working for me (none / 0) (#4)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:29:07 AM EST

WGRZ

Yesterday the liveblog at NYT was hosting video, but not today for whatever reason.

[ Parent ]

: thx :) (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:35:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I've had good luck with the (none / 0) (#8)
by Anne on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:39:56 AM EST

live webcast from the Judiciary Committee's site; C-SPAN cuts out on me a lot, but this has been problem-free (so far!).

Just click on the blue "Live Webcast" button and it takes you to another page where you can click and get the stream.

[ Parent ]

Im watching (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:01:12 AM EST

here

cspan doesnt seem to have a volume controll

[ Parent ]

Why you should be scared (none / 0) (#3)
by Dark Avenger on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:25:03 AM EST

of some brown/yellow people.

Just a general observation (none / 0) (#9)
by kempis on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:42:41 AM EST

I don't see how anyone watching these hearings can fail to be impressed by the way Sotomayor applies reason to law. She has an amazing mind.

A poster I know from another board--a guy who leans right and is easily wound up by propaganda--tuned in because he was certain that she was a Very Scary Threat to White Men. He realizes--for the moment anyway--that it was propanda, not reality, that had him so up in arms about Sotomayor.

I wonder how many wingnuts have had similar experiences as they've watched this legal scholar sift through the issues like an academic, not an ideologue.

What's really funny (none / 0) (#26)
by NYShooter on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:07:19 AM EST

is watching her trying to keep from breaking out in hysterical laughter as Sessions blathers on, and on, and on. You can see her wanting to answer but he just goes on and on, and she has to just sit there appearing genuinely interested.

She's gonna need a barrel of Tums before these hearings are over.

[ Parent ]

Yes. (none / 0) (#30)
by Dr Molly on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:30:28 AM EST

Listening to her makes me think I might have really enjoyed being a lawyer instead of a biologist. I really like the intellectual argumentation part when I listen to people like her (and sometimes on this blog). She is really something.

[ Parent ]

: It helps explain why this country is such a mess (none / 0) (#39)
by NYShooter on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST

mentally ill inmates enjoy authority over the M.D's.
Clock-World Orange time.

[ Parent ]

CSPAN (none / 0) (#10)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:44:49 AM EST

covering comments by R members of committee during this break:

Sessions: Her answers are muddled. Addressing 2nd Amendment vis a vis Heller. Troubled by her answer - "Concerned, because she may have a vote on that issue."

Cornyn: Sotomayor is a very charming and intelligent individual. Trying to reconcile what we know her about through her speeches and her record. Troubling if she embraced some of her views she espoused in speeches as a member of SC where no one can overrule what she does. Have not had satisfactory answers so far to reconcile those two.

Glad some of the New Haven firefighters are in the audience. Talking about Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas (Puerto Rican denied promotion because of color of his skin). Shocked this was done in secret and only found out because of Judge Cabrenas.

Sessions: Questions remain. Sotomayor said she agreed with Scalia and Thomas about foreign law, but then indicated her theory of practice was Ginsburg who embraces foreign law.

: Isn't it odd (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Steve M on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:48:21 AM EST

that Sotomayor is such a racist that she would help screw over a fellow Puerto Rican because of the color of his skin? Hard to figure that one.

[ Parent ]
: Cornyn lied again (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:47:45 AM EST

said Sotomayor "hid" the Ricci decision.

[ Parent ]
: Seems like Sessions is still having (none / 0) (#15)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:50:19 AM EST

comprehension issues . . .

Her answers are muddled

[ Parent ]

More (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:49:11 AM EST

Sessions: Her testimony is not even close to the clarity of the testimony given by Roberts and Alito. Her testimony is muddled.

Cornyn: Wants to know who she talked to about her views on abortion rights. She says no one, but people have come forward saying she discussed her views with them.

Hispanic constituents expect a hearing filled with respect. All his constituents expect him to do his job, and that's what he feels he is doing.

Dems turn (none / 0) (#16)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:52:11 AM EST

Cardin: We are seeing a great consistency in her answers. Shows a clear understanding of what Congress has done and is trying to do with regards to Voting Rights Act. Comfortable that she will give deference to will of Congress.

Whitehouse: Satisfied with peformance so far. She's been clear, cautious, consistent = grounded answers firmly in precedent in laws of US. Appropriate in resisting "gotcha" questions or where the R's want her to pre-judge. No one's really laid a glove on her.

Klobuchar and Kaufman (none / 0) (#19)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 10:55:07 AM EST

up before lunch session.

Most senators left hearing room.

: Mom stories were heartwarming. (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:03:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
: Specter and Franken stand alone. . . (none / 0) (#27)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:08:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]

quoting Perry Mason (none / 0) (#23)
by Capt Howdy on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:03:08 AM EST

didnt see that comin

Coburn is going to ask about... (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Tony on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:04:13 AM EST

her reliance on Scripted Law.

[ Parent ]

If the Judge would shorten her (none / 0) (#25)
by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:05:23 AM EST

responses, this would finish. Now she's telling war stories.

[ Parent ]

: Many of the Senators (none / 0) (#28)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:08:55 AM EST

have siad they will not re-question in the second round of 20-minute questioning.

[ Parent ]

Why won't they do it (none / 0) (#29)
by lilburro on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:14:14 AM EST

Well, Republicans have their own ultra conservative TV channel that's very successful.

Aren't they at a position where they have to basically jump over a chasm? They're on one side, the side of white Southern men. To jump over to the other side which would include more AAs, Hispanics, and young people, they would have to adopt positions more amenable to the interests of those three groups. And they're at a point where they would lose Southern whites if they did that.

When Coburn did his Ricky Ricardo impression, (none / 0) (#33)
by steviez314 on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:44:25 AM EST

this offically jumped the shark.

Has the committee run out of (none / 0) (#34)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:47:32 AM EST

Southern Republicans?!

: Yes (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:52:27 AM EST

For this round.

[ Parent ]

Please discuss: what significance, (none / 0) (#36)
by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 11:59:54 AM EST

if any, should the Senate Judiciary committee members and the Senate at large attach to Judge Sotomayor's admission she does not watch television. Please note: she does go to the opera.

She turns it on for baseball!!! (5.00 / 2) (#37)
by nycstray on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:06:50 PM EST

{grin}

[ Parent ]

Exactly. I think I'm a shoo-in, except, (none / 0) (#40)
by oculus on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 12:51:29 PM EST

although I can tell endless war stories of my cases, my memory and skills at legal analysis are very poor compared to Judge Sotomayor.

[ Parent ]

: Souter (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:15:14 PM EST

didn't own a TV.
She's replacing tit for tat!

[ Parent ]

Can we break the lock that the racist (none / 0) (#44)
by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:39:32 PM EST

factions have on the South? I like your analysis, it is refreshing and even reassuring to know that the abilities of Orrin Hatch to exert certain pressures on my life have been tremendously diminished. I hope for a better day though in my immediate vicinity. It gets trying on the soul and wears the nerves thin at times living here. I don't want to worry about this stuff anymore, but it is in my face everyday. It divides the communities. Sometimes, living here, I feel very lonely standing in a crowded room.