home

Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 4, Blog 2

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:17:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The ABA representatives presented their report that rated Judge Sotomayor as "well qualified," its highest rating.

The Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, is testifying in support of Judge Sotomayor. I blogged about a call with General McDaniel in this post. Of note is McDaniel's criticism of the Supreme Court's Ricci decision.

Apparently I missed quite the show with the witnesses, judging from the comments. Sorry, life intruded. Apparently the panel on the firefighters' legal opinions is now over.

David Cone, former Royal, Met, Blue Jay and, most importantly, Yankee, speaks about his experience before Sotomayor when he was a MLBPU leader. Nice story, and I like David Cone, but the relevance of his testimony is not apparent to me.

< John Yoo Defends Himself | Republican Meltdown On Race >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 4, Blog 2 | 192 comments (192 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Reminds me of Thomas' rating (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:29:29 PM EST
    Why do the Republicans nominate minimally qualified minority/female judges/Vice Presidents?

    Republican Vice-President Choice (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kit on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:25:56 PM EST
    The reason they select poor choices is "that is the poison pill" against the 'President' being impeached. Bush had Cheney, McCain had Palin, Bush 1 had Quayle. Could you imagine impeaching Bush and Cheney becomes president - the dilemma we don't want to face.
    It also serves to reinforce that government doesn't work[to be clear, republican government does not work]. (By apppointing morons, that helps make their point).

    Parent
    Ohhhhh... (none / 0) (#109)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:39:26 PM EST
    So that's why.

    Parent
    Actually, it is a reflection of their prejudice (none / 0) (#126)
    by esmense on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:05:43 PM EST
    Sarah Palin's lack of qualifications didn't matter when they nominated her for VP, for instance, because they don't see women as qualified anyway. She was nominated because her gender was politically useful, not because they respected her record, intellect or qualifications. (They put more effort into buying her an attractive wardrobe then they did preparing her to answer policy questions.)

    Same thing with Thomas; he was nominated to the court because of his political usefulness as a black man, not because they thought he was the best qualified nominee they could find. Republicans dismiss all successful women and minorities as the unqualified beneficiaries of "affirmative action" -- because they really don't credit women and minorities with being capable. When they find it useful to use a woman or minority for political advantage, they don't care if that person is competent or qualified because they don't believe they could be.

    Parent

    Qualifications (none / 0) (#161)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:31:51 PM EST
    I find it irritating that so many think that Palin, et al, are unqualified to be in a leadership position. Palin has raised a family, been involved in state politics, had an 80% approval rating at one time, I do not understand how she is unqualified.

    She seems no less qualified than Bush, McCain, Sessions, or any other wing nut idealogue. It used to be that people came off the farm to serve in government and then went back home after their stint.

    Palin would be a horrible choice for President, because of her politics, not her lack of qualifications. The nebulousness of qualifications usually rears its ugly head when race, gender, affiliation religious or otherwise, is not acceptable to the white christian male power structure.

    I guess that there are those who still think Barack Obama is unqualified. Certainly that was one of the most oft "criticisms" hurled at him here at TL during the primary.


    Parent

    Speaking for me (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:23:33 PM EST
    I thought both Palin and Bush (W) before here were unqualified because they lacked knowledge of so many important issues.

    Parent
    What irks me is that they thought (none / 0) (#173)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:52:43 PM EST
    Thomas was the MOST qualified black jurist they could find, and that Sarah Palin (in office about a year) was the most qualified woman.

    Of course, your point about Bush is well-taken --- he got to where he was because of his family connections.

    So maybe that they just usually don't consider merits much at all.

    Parent

    Water Carriers (none / 0) (#178)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:21:26 PM EST
    The powers that be (neocon city) saw Bush as a useful tool. Palin as well because both had charisma, loved the spotlight, and would carry water for the planned, permanent GOP rule.

    Thomas on the other hand was also a water carrier but useful because they thought he couldn't be touched without calling racism. Then came Anita. The thing that sopped her was that they were going to publicly announce that she was gay. The trade was to suppress the hard core porn video list that they had on Thomas.

    Parent

    whoa (none / 0) (#179)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:31:46 PM EST
    I didn't know that...how do you know it?

    Parent
    Don't Know (none / 0) (#182)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:04:18 PM EST
    Just what some DC insider gossip birdie told me during the melee. Sounds believable to me.

    Parent
    Is that an IMO? (none / 0) (#183)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:07:39 PM EST


    Parent
    IMO (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:11:16 PM EST
    Credible gossip from a credible source at the time. Made sense to me. So it is not opinion, but imo, a fact I believe that had a good chance of being true.

    Hard to explain why else, they confirmed the loser.

    Parent

    OK. I'll keep that in mind. (none / 0) (#184)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:09:56 PM EST
    (slight eye roll)

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#186)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:17:56 PM EST
    It was well known that Thomas liked porn videos, so some op group went to the store and obtained the list of rentals he had made in the year or whatever time frame. That, with the extremely credible weird sexual sexist comments he made to Hill, would have sunk the guy.

    A deal was made that they would not expose the list when the GOPers found credible evidence that Hill was gay. Something she did not need, and something that could, in the sickness of America, discredited her testimony.

    Red blooded male, up tight lesbo.. type scenario. Both made a truce and waited for the coin to hit the floor with what was already on the table.

    Nothing in writing, but considering my source, something I believe happened.

    Parent

    Sure. It may be true. (none / 0) (#187)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:24:12 PM EST
    But I do not know your source...or you, really, for that matter.

    No offense. I am a pretty skeptical person.

    Parent

    It's OK (none / 0) (#190)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 10:51:18 PM EST
    Not trying to convince anyone. Just the way I saw it go down.

    Parent
    Obama and Bush (none / 0) (#174)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:54:06 PM EST
    were both voted upon, the VP is more of appointment.

    Parent
    to them (none / 0) (#172)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:49:08 PM EST
    one woman/black/latino is as good as another.

    Parent
    I am soooo behind (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:35:39 PM EST
    being on the West Coast. I just heard the gun rights crap.

    I hate that they say that the second amendment is endangered. It's such hyperbole, and such red meat for the constituents.

    That's the truth! (none / 0) (#102)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:13:09 PM EST
    A politician is almost always running for re-election, so hyperbole is always present.

    Parent
    I find it amazing (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:16:50 PM EST
    how efficiently they whisk all these witnesses on and off the stand.  Bang bang, one after another.  Meanwhile, my most recent arbitration hearing took eight days and didn't even finish.

    It is surprising, as there are ample (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:19:34 PM EST
    opportunities for further Senatorial statements and "questions."  

    Parent
    Oh I guess (none / 0) (#62)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:24:25 PM EST
    I didn't realize this was a panel discussion, as I was tabbing back and forth to the TV feed.  They are all still sitting up there at the table.

    Mayor Bloomberg is looking quite well and very stern.  Robert Morgenthau, who has been the DA for 35 years, looks like possibly the oldest human being on earth.  Wow!

    Parent

    Pretty impressive to have Morgenthau (none / 0) (#69)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:27:42 PM EST
    testify on one's behalf before the Senate judiciary committee.  Wonder how often that has happened.

    Parent
    I believe (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:29:20 PM EST
    this is the first nominee he has testified for since Brandeis...

    Parent
    I am speculating what the elected DA (none / 0) (#96)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:50:52 PM EST
    of my county when I was hired could possibly say about me.  Didn't interview me and the first time I spoke with him personally was after my name was on the front page of the local paper re a case I had just tried.  

    Parent
    Of which, in fact, (none / 0) (#66)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:25:48 PM EST
    Sen. Sessions is now taking advantage.  He addressed Lieutenant Vargas.  

    Parent
    No foundation (none / 0) (#78)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    Just the conclusion.

    Parent
    What a strange argument (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    3.5% of attorneys are Latino, but 6% of circuit court judges are Latino, so Latinos are actually overrepresented as judges!!  Never mind that they represent over 15% of the population.

    So, we don't need a Latina (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    Justice on the Supreme Court?  Weird Sessions comment.

    Parent
    I think the point (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    is that we've beaten racism, everyone gets treated fairly now, no need to think about race any more.  The typical Republican argument.

    Parent
    By that logic... (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:49:24 PM EST
    We have four men too many. And way too many Catholics.  Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia have to go. ;-)

    Seriously, the number of Catholics is startling.  Religion represents a belief system and while only about 25% of Americans are Catholic, with Sotomayor's confirmation, 2/3 of the Court will be Catholic.  That's got to have some effect.  

    Parent

    Don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:55:57 PM EST
    Kennedy is Catholic too.  But we Catholics don't all think alike - in fact a majority of Catholics in teh US believe in using birth control, are pro-choice, and are neutral towards or support gay marriage. (We also believe, by the tenets of our faith) in social justice, aiding the poor, education, and SCIENCE).

    (And, as an aside, we are the largest single denomination in the US)

    Parent

    I know Kennedy is Catholic (none / 0) (#166)
    by BDB on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:09:18 PM EST
    I figured he could stay and with Sotomayor, that give 'em about the right representation since what we're looking for is a close demo match.

    Parent
    Klobuchar (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    cleaning up nicely - put Chavez in her place.

    Arlen Specter (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:00:10 PM EST
    In other words, I likes me some firefighters and it's great you folks were able to go get some justice, but why are you here?

    ".......... but why are you here? " (none / 0) (#192)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 01:34:54 PM EST
    For the "empathy," silly.

    Parent
    Klobuchar (5.00 / 2) (#164)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:02:01 PM EST
    I gotta say I've been enjoying Klobuchar's temporary chairing. She is not a heavyweight questioner but she has asked some good ones. And she has a light and pleasant touch with all the witnesses.

    I also have enjoyed Franken and am looking forward to seeing more of him in the future. He is smart and progressive and the issues he has raised are refreshing.

    Funny to see JB Sessions (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:23:55 PM EST
    battling with a southern white Democrat.

    A Sessions is a complete bully (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:24:58 PM EST


    Parent
    McDaniel doing fine (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:25:25 PM EST


    Parent
    Well, none of this matters (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:26:29 PM EST
    But I just tuned in 10 seconds ago.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:27:22 PM EST
    The only thing anyone will remember from this afternoon will be Ricci.

    Parent
    Funny that Bloomie made the trek down (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    to DC.

    Parent
    Part timer! (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:31:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Catchy phrase: issues du jour. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:02:03 PM EST


    Parent
    If AG McDaniel didn't believe (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    Judge Sotomayor would uphold individual's right to bear arms as a fundamental right, he wouldn't testify on her behalf.

    Parent
    Not what I heard (none / 0) (#10)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:30:25 PM EST
    He could have just as easily meant that she's not replacing one of the 5 who will vote to incorporate.

    Parent
    If Heller is right (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    and it is not, it is clear that the individual right found in Heller should be incorporated.

    The irony of course is conservatives HATE the incorporation doctrine as it undermines their Southern federalism.
     

    Parent

    I was in guffaws yesterday (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    as Kyl demanded incorporation.

    Parent
    But why is it (none / 0) (#19)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    that Scalia declined to use the magic word, "fundamental"?

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#113)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:42:37 PM EST
    But my view is that the incorporation doctrine would apply the Heller right as fundamental.

    Parent
    For some reason, while watching Sessions (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    question McDaniel, I all of a sudden felt like I was watching Dana Carvey in the role of Sessions.  Sessions is little more than a caricature of himself.

    What an ass.

    Parent

    Sometimes I think the accent is a put on (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:31:50 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm extremely impressed with the depth (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:26:13 PM EST
    of the ABA committee's investigation.

    Ricci's up... (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:48:28 PM EST


    Putting Ricci forward like this (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:48:40 PM EST
    is pretty silly.

    "achievement is not determined by race" (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    Uh, realllly?

    Parent
    Uh (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:53:06 PM EST
    "This isn't about me."

    Um, yes, it is.

    Parent

    "we sought. . .even-handed enforcement (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    of the laws[.]"

    Another oh reeely?

    Parent

    I have no idea what you look like, but (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    I am picturing you with one eyebrow raised as you utter, "oh, reeeelly?"

    Parent
    Vargas (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    the test was "without question, job related"?

    That's not what the experts say....

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    I heard it included a spelling component.  But what else was on the test?  I really want to know ...

    Parent
    This may not pass the PC screen, but, (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:58:27 PM EST
    were I a New Haven firefighter, I would be a bit afraid of following Ricci into a burning building.  His reading skills are not good and might be critical to the task.

    Parent
    I would like to know (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:01:02 PM EST
    about New Haven's fireWOMEN...based on this maddening story.

    Parent
    Three of the plaintiffs in the combined (none / 0) (#36)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:03:37 PM EST
    Ricci cases are female.

    Parent
    Thanks n/t (none / 0) (#50)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:12:48 PM EST


    Parent
    I know a story.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Fabian on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    about one fire department that made it easy to understand why there aren't more female fire fighters.  

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#27)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:59:31 PM EST
    that's a fair concern, PC or not.

    I'm wondering who wrote their speeches. Vargas is talking about a fundamental civil right.

    Parent

    oooh (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 01:59:47 PM EST


    Parent
    I wonder who wrote Vargas's testimony? (none / 0) (#29)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:00:01 PM EST


    Great minds..... (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    I didn't know firefighters knew enough to discuss fundamental civil rights and such...

    Parent
    It's theater (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:03:01 PM EST
    One staff writes one side, and the other staff writes the other side.

    Parent
    Now comes Peter Kirsanow, recess appointee (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    of W.

    He's a Clarence Thomas acolyte, apparently (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    Affirmative action hurts minorities!

    Parent
    Is that who this is! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:05:12 PM EST
    I did not recognize him.  What a surprise, right-wingers who think affirmative action is unconstitutional believe that Ricci was the worst decision ever.  Yawn.

    You know, setting aside the facts of the Ricci case entirely, the reality is that every single appellate court in the land disposes of a majority of its cases through summary orders.  Maybe Ricci was appropriate for summary disposition, maybe not.  But if this is the game we want to play, you could find literally thousands of litigants to say about any nominee, "boo hoo, they summarily dismissed my case, I felt like I didn't get my day in court."

    Parent

    Government affirmative action died (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:07:38 PM EST
    the day Alito was confirmed. It's just a matter of the right case.

    These people are radical activists, and they're in charge.

    Parent

    No way (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    It may die the death of a thousand cuts, but you will never see those five Justices say, flat out, that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits remedial classifications.  As the Voting Rights Act case demonstrated, they have strong beliefs but it's possible for them to lose their nerve.

    Parent
    Unless Kennedy loses his nerve, I think it's gone (none / 0) (#56)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    Or do you expect him to walk back what he wrote in Grutter?

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    You know, setting aside the facts of the Ricci case entirely, the reality is that every single appellate court in the land disposes of a majority of its cases through summary orders

    Why didn't someone testify to this and drive this point home?

    Parent

    The ABA committee witnesses did. (none / 0) (#57)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:17:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Not strongly enough (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:21:19 PM EST


    Parent
    No one asked me to testify (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:25:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Guess (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    the other two judges on the Ricci panel can kiss their SC aspirations goodbye....

    Parent
    Per Wiki, Kirsanow represents mgt., (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:06:20 PM EST
    including public entities in discrimination lawsuits.

    Parent
    Linda Chavez (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:05:50 PM EST


    Ugh (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:06:19 PM EST
    "I testify today, not as a wise Latina woman, but..."

    Parent
    I have some thoughts (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    that I won't articulate--it's not my place.

    Parent
    My thoughts (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:10:35 PM EST
    This woman is talking about Sotomayor's "offensive words" - this woman who ran for Senate and intimated that Barabara Mikulki was a lesbian - all in an order to stir up homophobia and win votes.

    She's a piece of work ....

    Parent

    I didn't know that, but it doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    surprise me.

    Parent
    From Wiki (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    In 1986, Chavez ran as a Republican for the United States Senate against Democrat Barbara Mikulski in the state of Maryland. It was the first time in modern U.S. history that two women faced each other in a U.S. Senate general election. The historic campaign drew national attention, with Chavez leaving her post as the highest ranking woman in Ronald Reagan's White House in an attempt to win the open U.S. Senate seat in the liberal-leaning state of Maryland.

    In an article quoting Chavez's claim that Mikulski was a "San Francisco-style, George McGovern, liberal Democrat", the Washington Post reported that Chavez was directly implying that the never-married Mikulski was a lesbian. Chavez was accused of making Mikulski's sexual orientation a central issue of the political campaign. In defending her use of the phrase, Chavez stated the line "San Francisco Democrats" was a reference to Jeane Kirkpatrick's 1984 Republican National Convention "Blame America First" speech, in which Kirkpatrick coined the phrase "San Francisco Liberal", meaning those who are weak on foreign policy.[9] Nevertheless, much of the media following the campaign picked up on the Post's story and ran with it.



    Parent
    Another offensive opponent (none / 0) (#64)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    was the Libertarian perrenial candidate who reregistered as a Dem and tried to primary Mikulski.
    The dog-whistle? "Vote for a Straight Democrat'!

    Parent
    I believe I might be thinking the (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:15:10 PM EST
    same thing, andgarden!

    Wow, that woman is something else.

    So, when Sotomayor is confirmed, how will these vulgarly rude people behave when in her company?


    Parent

    Oh, go ahead. (none / 0) (#58)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:18:14 PM EST


    Parent
    She's tempting me (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:30:40 PM EST


    Parent
    To be fair (none / 0) (#76)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:32:31 PM EST
    at least she knows how to pronounce "Sotomayor"... unlike some of the Senators on the committee!

    Parent
    Isn't that the truth! (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:31:33 PM EST
    The greatest display of disrespect is to consistently mispronounce a person's name. They exaggerated the insult by each one having their own personal pronunciation. It isn't a difficult name.

    I want to live long enough to see andgarden become King and the senate get abolished.


    Parent

    It's not a common name (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Democratic Cat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:36:42 PM EST
    but still, you're right, it's not difficult to pronounce.  

    I once had a graduate school professor who could remember all the men's names but not the women's.  It was stunning.  There were only two of us in a class of 20, and he couldn't (or wouldn't) commit our names to memory.

    Parent

    but they seem to know how to pronounce (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:42:23 PM EST
    Luuuuuccccyyyyy!

    Parent
    She makes me just a little ill (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by rdandrea on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:08:38 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    How does one (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by rdandrea on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:32:49 PM EST
    nominate someone to dickipedia.org?

    Parent
    Per Wiki, (none / 0) (#49)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:11:58 PM EST
    In 2000, Chavez was named a Library of Congress Living Legend.[11]



    Parent
    Linda Chavez is not an attorney. I (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    wonder which of Judge Sotomayor's cases convinced Ms. Chavez Judge Sotomayor gives a helping hand to minorities in her capacity as a judicial officer.

    Parent
    The one thing that galls me about all these folks (none / 0) (#47)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:10:46 PM EST
    is I betcha none of them will disavow any gains they obtained as a result of preferences.  Such hypocrits.

    What did Jeff Sessions just say (none / 0) (#60)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:20:58 PM EST
    about crack cocaine?

    according to SCOTUSblog (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:24:40 PM EST
    "We're going to do that crack cocaine thing we talked about"

    Parent
    I thought that's what I heard (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:26:58 PM EST
    Amy Klobuchar didn't much like it.

    I think Jeff Sessions might be more entertaining on crack.

    Parent

    Sessions clarified by saying he had (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:29:23 PM EST
    spoken with the witness re changing penalties for federal criminal offenses re crack cocaine.  This should hearten Jeralyn.

    Parent
    But, hey, isn't the argument in favor (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:33:46 PM EST
    of downward adjustment of penalties for crack cocaine is disparate impact on minorities?

    Parent
    if he just said "changing" (none / 0) (#123)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:01:38 PM EST
    maybe they plan to increase them

    Parent
    that is by far (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by CST on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:31:48 PM EST
    the funniest thing I've read today

    Parent
    I've missed the panel (none / 0) (#67)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:26:55 PM EST
    discussion today.

    Are any of the Dems on the comm'ee attempting to rebut the anti-Soto presentations?

    Is Linda Chavez motivated by the (none / 0) (#75)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    Queen Bee Syndrome?

    Love (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by jbindc on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    that she argued about Sotomayor saying she was an affirmative action student and hire out of law school and Morganthau said he hired her because he looked at her resume and was impressed.

    Parent
    Durbin nails it. We asked Roberts and (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    Alito repeatedly will you, as a white male, have sympathy for minorities?

    Chavez is fainthearted about Republican politics! (none / 0) (#83)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:37:44 PM EST


    Graham asks Chavez (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:39:33 PM EST
    whether a Republican official ever selected someone based on their ethnicity (like you, Chavez).  Graham says he knows Republicans have specifically selected someone to avoid being tabbed as a party of white guys...

    Graham is now supporting Sotomayor.  

    Did anyone hear what Graham just said (none / 0) (#85)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    about Ricci?

    This is a race war for him.

    I did, and I thought he was saying (none / 0) (#86)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:41:41 PM EST
    something along the lines of have some understanding for the minorities......

    Parent
    I'm going to have to look (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    at the transcript.

    Parent
    I was shocked to hear it (none / 0) (#89)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    if I indeed heard it correctly.

    Parent
    He was saying (none / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:44:57 PM EST
    that Ricci got screwed, but that only one generation ago, it would have been a completely different group of people getting screwed.  In other words, a possibly necessary reminder that white males are not the only historically oppressed group in this country.

    Parent
    He asked Ricci to concede (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:49:34 PM EST
    that not so long ago the test was rigged against minorities.  He asked another plaintiff firefighter to recognize that one generation ago, he would never have had a chance because of his last name.

    Graham seesm to be saying that discrimination used to exist....

    Parent

    And did Ricci concede? (none / 0) (#175)
    by sallywally on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:05:50 PM EST
    People here weren't into the hearings and I muted them for a while.

    Parent
    He did not concede he had no evidence. (none / 0) (#176)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:15:24 PM EST
    He conceded he isn't a lawyer. (Above his pay grade I guess.)

    Parent
    My comment is entirely unrelated to its (none / 0) (#177)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 07:21:03 PM EST
    parent.  Sorry.  Too much Sen. judicial committee.

    Parent
    I thought he implied that a generation from now (none / 0) (#92)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:46:52 PM EST
    he would have no shot at such a job, because the minorities will take them all. But I could be wrong,

    Parent
    Huck Graham just doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by brodie on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:52:21 PM EST
    strike me as being in the same white racist category as, say, a Thurmond, Helms, Sessions or Pitchfork Pat.

    He's probably not even in the knee-jerk extreme Right wing of his party.  And might well be voting Aye for Soto.

    Parent

    Thurmond, Helms, Sessions etc (none / 0) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:17:34 PM EST
    no
    I suspect it has to do with his, um, "single" status.  which gives him a different lens through which to view things.

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:54:11 PM EST
    I think he is trying to play the role of the wise solon, dispensing a little moral lesson for everyone.  Kind of like a fortune cookie.

    Parent
    Fortune cookie--LOL (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    Fortune cookie slogans....Tha's your modern GOP.

    Parent
    Bloomberg states he didn't agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 02:43:41 PM EST
    with the panel decision in Ricci and he is talking about a pending case.  NYC City Attorney is running for the duct tape!

    Tough critic (none / 0) (#104)
    by Rashomon66 on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:21:55 PM EST
    Wow, had no idea Linda Chavez was so anti-Sotomayor.

    She's a "Latina for Hire" (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:40:01 PM EST
    I will not help her with her GOP Race Racket by even mentioning her name in a post.

    Parent
    I kept my mouth zipped shut (none / 0) (#111)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    so you could say essentially that, which I figured was the case.

    Parent
    According to Wiki, it appears Ms. Chavez (none / 0) (#117)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    is in good financial shape, as she sits on the board of two Fortune 500 companies and her family has four foundations worth a bunch of $$.  

    Parent
    Great defense. (none / 0) (#114)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    Since the nominee is a Latina, they go and find another to say all the things they are afraid to.

    Parent
    not! (none / 0) (#115)
    by coigue on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:44:37 PM EST


    Parent
    she is probably (none / 0) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:46:38 PM EST
    happy about this nomination.  I have not seen her much recently.  this will get her back on FOX if no where else.

    Parent
    She's a right wing hack with no pretense (none / 0) (#106)
    by MKS on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    of being fair.  Sotomayor is an evil librul.

    Parent
    Lt. Vargas acknowledges he is not a (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:47:34 PM EST
    lawyer and not an expert on the law.  Refreshing.

    Even I've hit my limit (none / 0) (#119)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    I'm not watching anymore.

    lightweight (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:00:05 PM EST


    Parent
    What? You're missing the testimony (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Anne on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:00:30 PM EST
    of the Americans United for Life witness!

    It won't surprise you that this organization finds Sotomayor to be wholly unqualified to serve on the Court.

    Parent

    I love her (none / 0) (#122)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:01:14 PM EST
    What a nut.

    Parent
    thats unfair (none / 0) (#124)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    to nuts

    Parent
    Not to mention those who love them. (none / 0) (#129)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:10:08 PM EST


    Parent
    No it wouldn't (none / 0) (#127)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    And while I'm sure she's entertaining, I do have some other priorities.

    Parent
    Is that final tonight? (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:15:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. Apparently the right to life person is (none / 0) (#125)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:03:32 PM EST
    twittering from the hrg. room.  Is that allowed?

    Parent
    I find this part (none / 0) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    more interesting than her testimony.  

    Parent
    David Kopel (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:10:51 PM EST
    I went to college with him (he was a few years ahead of me) and was at a conference with him once.

    Sounded just the same.

    Is he the one who called (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:17:59 PM EST
    her attitude toward the Senators "glib"?

    I'm shocked at how disrespectful people are to each other. No matter what happens here, Sonia Sotomayor has accomplished more in her life that deserves admiration and respect than 90% of the people who are daring to put words in her mouth and represent her life with such unbelievable disdain.

    When did our society abandon common courtesy?There's not one thing that has been said, even as evidence to not support her appointment, that couldn't have been said respectfully.


    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:25:37 PM EST


    Parent
    I believe "common courtesy" (none / 0) (#180)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:51:17 PM EST
    went out with the Newt Gingrich crowd in the late 1980s and the successful Republican right push for power.  Now everything's a gotcha and in the media, seen from that point of view, which is the statistical zero, with left and right in politics determined by how far positions deviate from that zero.  

    When will the "liberal" (gulp) or progressive talking heads start challenging the notion of the Gingrich view as the norm?

    Parent

    Not Gingrich (none / 0) (#188)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:29:39 PM EST
    well before that, George H.W. Bush reelection campaign and the rise of Lee Atwater.

    Parent
    Good point! (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jul 17, 2009 at 10:59:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#132)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    His posts at the VC are consistently nutty in an unintentionally humorous way.

    Parent
    My point exactly (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:21:58 PM EST


    Parent
    He seems to be in a one-issue rut: (none / 0) (#134)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:14:53 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    His NR piece arguing in support of Nader (none / 0) (#135)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    is one of the strangest endorsements I've ever read.

    Parent
    a glib and dismissive (none / 0) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:12:42 PM EST
    attitude toward the right.

    YES!

    omg (none / 0) (#133)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:14:20 PM EST
    is this guy for real?

    Now I know why so many people in this (none / 0) (#138)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:21:56 PM EST
    country do not pay attention to political dealings.

    It appears that every single person in a position of power and influence in the laws of this country are selected based on their opinions on 3-4 issues. Abortion, Guns, Diversity, and Drugs. No wonder we're in the mess we are.

    "Most importantly, Yankee" (none / 0) (#139)
    by tworivers on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:21:57 PM EST
    BTD, it's too bad you're a Yankee fan.

    I'll try not to think less of you for liking such an odious team. ;)  

    27 (none / 0) (#141)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:22:49 PM EST


    Parent
    ancient history (none / 0) (#143)
    by tworivers on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:25:42 PM EST
    to paraphrase Janet Jackson, "What have they done for you lately?"

    Parent
    Ha. I am reading Adam Gopnik's (none / 0) (#144)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:27:50 PM EST
    Through the Children's Gate.  The author's son suddenly becomes a Yankee fan just after 9/11. He asks his dad if the Yankees have ever won the World Series.  Dad says, ask your friends at school  Dad is decidedly not a Yankee fan.  

    Parent
    Specter (none / 0) (#145)
    by lilburro on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM EST
    asked a great question today (cribbing from SCOTUSblog again):

    3:58
    Kristina Moore:  AS to Ricci: Do you have any reason to think Judge Sotomayor acted in anything other than good faith?
    3:58
    Kristina Moore:  Ricci: That's beyond my expertise I am not a scholar
    3:58
    Kristina Moore:  Ricci: I simply accepted the Senate's invitation. It was the first time we got to tell our story
    3:59
    Kristina Moore:  About time someone asked this question

    I wish I had been watching to see how Ricci said that.  Sincerely or in the Fox News way ("I'm not saying she's a racist, BUT...").

    He seemed sincere. (none / 0) (#147)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:40:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Am I correct that no Senator had the (none / 0) (#146)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 04:39:42 PM EST
    guts to challenge David Cone and/or Judge Sotomayor's decision in the baseball strike case?  

    Who is this crazy guy (none / 0) (#148)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:15:43 PM EST
    ranting about "sympathy for criminals?"

    He speaks only for himself, he says. (none / 0) (#149)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    New subject:  why isn't someone on behalf of La Raza testifying?

    Parent
    I dunno (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:20:18 PM EST
    But I have a new question, is the entire law faculty at George Mason wingnuts?

    I joked that it was when George Mason played the Gators in the NCAA Tournament in 2006, but my gawd, I have to believe it is actually true.

    Parent

    Pretty much looks that way. (none / 0) (#151)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:22:35 PM EST


    Parent
    when (none / 0) (#152)
    by Capt Howdy on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:23:29 PM EST
    did Howdy Dooty get a law degree?

    Parent
    Why is this McGinnis guy (none / 0) (#153)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:24:59 PM EST
    screaming?

    Parent
    It's a temperment issue. (none / 0) (#156)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:26:48 PM EST


    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#158)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:27:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Northwestern Univ. Law School (none / 0) (#154)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:25:25 PM EST
    isn't looking to good either.  I wonder if these advocates of "no international law" object to state courts including the authority from other states in their opinions?

    Parent
    What a bunch of nuts (5.00 / 0) (#155)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:26:31 PM EST
    These folks are truly nuts.

    Parent
    He's against the Torah (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    Don't tell Scalia . . .

    Parent
    This must be a law professors subsection (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:31:49 PM EST
    of the Federalist Society.

    Parent
    And the new guy (none / 0) (#159)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:31:31 PM EST
    the "textualist what "those words" mean.

    My gawd, this is so stupid that it is hard to anything but lauigh at them.

    They rolled out all the wingnuts now.

    Parent

    I thought the questions about (none / 0) (#181)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 08:58:05 PM EST
    looking to non-USA law might be referring, inter alia, to judicial notice by Supreme Court of fact that most other nation, e.g., don't permit capital punishment for child defendants.

    Parent
    I read at the VC (none / 0) (#162)
    by Steve M on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:43:38 PM EST
    that they assembled a largely conservative faculty pursuant to a "Moneyball" approach, which is to say, if you believe conservatives have fewer opportunities in academia due to viewpoint discrimination, it stands to reason that you ought to be able to go into the marketplace and snap up talented conservatives who are undervalued.

    I actually don't think it's the craziest theory.  Ave Maria School of Law, founded in Ann Arbor by uber-wingnut Tom Monaghan, was envisioned as a conservative law school utilizing a Catholic education model and it actually became a solid law school in a remarkably short period of time.  At one point their bar passage rates were exceeding every other law school in Michigan, including that other school in Ann Arbor.

    Parent

    The Dominos pizza guy founded a (none / 0) (#169)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:18:18 PM EST
    law school called Ave Maria?  Very interesting.

    Parent
    So I've heard (none / 0) (#165)
    by andgarden on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:06:26 PM EST


    Parent
    Mr. Jeffries seems to be connected (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 05:44:35 PM EST
    w/Sen. Kyl.  Has Judge Sotomayor, however, somehow trampled on the rights of victims of violent crime?

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:15:00 PM EST
    Allowing felons to vote is terribly damaging to victims of violent crime, in the same way as allowing gay people to marry is terribly damaging to people in "opposite" marriages.

    Parent
    Just looking at the people testifying (none / 0) (#170)
    by oculus on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 06:19:41 PM EST
    in support of Judge Sotomayor is quite interesting.  Many women, some minority; and some minority men.  

    Cone's Testimony (none / 0) (#189)
    by rdandrea on Thu Jul 16, 2009 at 09:49:02 PM EST
    Is relevant for a simple reason.

    For all the horse hockey we've heard for the last few days about speeches, Sonya Sotomayor is, and will always be, The Judge Who Saved Baseball.

    That took the wisdom of Solomon. It's reason enough by itself to put her on the Court.

    Sotomayor Hearing Live Blog, Day 4, Blog 2 | 192 comments (192 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment