July 15, 2009

Am I going to live-blog Day 3 of the Sotomayor hearings?

No, no. I'm afraid I can't. I've got places to go. But I will listen to it, live, on the satellite radio as we cover a lot of miles today. And I'm going to take notes in a notebook, because that's how much I care.

And when I stop for a cheeseburger in a McDonalds, I'll get on the WiFi and share my observations, which may or may not be skewed by my personal experience of watching the interstate fly by instead of watching the faces of the Senators confronting the wise Latina.

Somebody, anybody, please, take the initiative to live-blog in the comments — to live-comment the hearings. Or not. Say anything. On the topic of Sotomayor. I'll put up a general open thread in a few minutes. Then, I'm throwing my things in a suitcase, so we can be in the car by 9 Central Time, when Senator Leahy restarts the proceedings.

35 comments:

Lem said...

Sotomayor is not disavowing her wise latina comments.

Kirby Olson said...

Either she's been lying all her life about what she believes, or else she's committing perjury now.

Either way she comes off as violently and smugly untruthful, which gives a model to all criminals everywhere from the highest bench in the land that perjury's ok. It's what everybody does to attain power.

MadisonMan said...

Have safe travels. But McDonald's? Seriously? How about the good Wisconsin company Culver's?

On the topic of fast food, I note that Tim Horton's opened an outlet or three in NYC this week. I think the new Target store in the hold next to Hilldale -- if it happens -- would greatly benefit from a Tim Hortons next door.

Fred4Pres said...

Was Miguel Angel Estrada CastaƱeda a wise Latino?

Actually Estrada was a wise unhyphenated Amercan judge who got blocked because the left disagreed with a judge who follows the law as opposed to making it (the way they like). If the GOP had the votes they could do the same, but they do not. So the best we have right now is this circus on confirmation hearings to see if we can flush what Obama is all about by picking Sotomayor.

MadisonMan said...

hole next to Hilldale, not hold. (sigh)

Lem said...

When she says the wise Latina comment "fell flat" she is inferring that it might have been some sort of comedy routine. It "fell flat" because the audience was not receptive.

They really need to go back to this.

Jim said...

fred -

"Was Miguel Angel Estrada CastaƱeda a wise Latino? "

Just to remind people how racist the Democrats really are. Here's a reminder:

In November, 2001, representatives of those groups met with Democratic Senate staff. One of those staffers then wrote a memo to Democratic Sen. Richard Durbin, informing Durbin that the groups wanted to stall Bush nominees, particularly three they had identified as good targets. "They also identified Miguel Estrada as especially dangerous," the staffer added, "because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination. They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.

traditionalguy said...

Both sides are restless today. Yesterday Sonia refused to play either sides assigned role for her in the Colosseum. The Pro-choice forces are nervous that she is not ideologically driven after all...what a blunder by Obama.The white people's rights defenders are so baffled by her cordial and thoughtful demeanor that they are convinced that she must be lying about everything she says. Sonia needs someone on her side today bigtime. Who will it be?

ricpic said...

McDonalds?! in 'n out is just a 1000 mile detour away, and well worth it.

AllenS said...

Thanks for providing me the opportunity to live-blog the proceedings.

Senator #1: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

Senator #2: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

Senator #3: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

Senator #4: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

NKVD said...

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, Wise Latina, blah, blah, white men stupid, blah, blah, blah."

There, fixed that for you...

Hoosier Daddy said...

I can't believe you're going to McDonalds. Do you have any idea how many miles you're going to have to ride on that bike to work that crap off?

And you a Madison law professor.

Hoosier Daddy said...

On the topic of fast food

I'm reminded of a great line from Remo Williams.

"You know why they call it fast food? Because it speeds you on the way to the grave."

About the only fast food I will lower myself to eat is a Subway. And even then, I have to be starving.

AllenS said...

And, here's more:

Senator #6: "Blah, blah, blah."

Senator #5: "Senator #6, you went out of turn."

Senator #5: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

Sotomayor: "Blah, blah, blah."

mccullough said...

Hoosier,

Nice Remo Williams reference. I'm still bummed they never made a sequel.

I suppose Joel Grey made-up to look Korean wouldn't fly these days.

Christy said...

I'm with Kirby. She is giving us the correct answers, not her own answers. I simply do not believe her.

CarmelaMotto said...

did anyone notice how much and how fast her eyes flutter while she's explaining herself? They flutter the way slot machines spin.

Scott M said...

@Hoosier Daddy & mccullough

Well remembered on the Remo Williams schtuff. One of the best 80's flicks that nobody ever watches.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/41640

Michael Hasenstab said...

Blogging travellers stop at McDonalds to use free wi-fi. Plus the new angus burger is pretty good.

Back to the hearing. Preinnial back bencher Sen Herb Kohl (D Wisconsin) opened his line of questioning by asking Sonia if she were appointed to the SCOTUS, could he come over and try on her clothes. She hesitated briefly, then Kohl interjected that he'd bring his own undergarments.

Sen Orrin Hatch (R Utah) interrupted to ask if they were Mormon undergarments.

The gavel was heard and a recess was called in order that an aide could explian what the hell was going on to Sen Al Franken (D Mars) after he repeatedly addressed the nominee as "Charo".

LarsPorsena said...

"Nice Remo Williams reference. I'm still bummed they never made a sequel."

That makes two of us.

Donald Douglas said...

"And when I stop for a cheeseburger..."

Hey, when I'll strike up the band when you say "when I stop for a burrito"!

Dale said...

after he repeatedly addressed the nominee as "Charo"

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hoosier,

Nice Remo Williams reference. I'm still bummed they never made a sequel.

I suppose Joel Grey made-up to look Korean wouldn't fly these days.


I am too. The title certainly led you to beieve there were going to be more. Remo Williams: The Advernture Begins and it ended right there.

Then again as sequels generally go, they usually flop. Best sequels that come to mind are Empire Strikes Back (probaly the best of all of them) and Aliens. The Indiana Jones series are all good except for that last abomination. Damn I'm sorry I remembered it now. I feel sick.

Donald Douglas said...

Ahh! Hit enter ...

Simply, "I'll strike up the band"! Cheeseburgers, cheeseburgers! Let's see some fish tacos, burritos, or something ...

American Power

LarsPorsena said...

"Then again as sequels generally go, they usually flop. "

Godfather II.

Fred4Pres said...

“Is the President entitled to deference on Supreme Court nominations?”

No.

Not from the Senate. That does not mean we are going to win this, far from it, barring Sotomayor completely melting down she will be confirmed because the Dems have the votes. But we should use this opportunity to show why she is a bad pick anyway, and narrowly focus on that issue.

Bart DePalma said...

Today, in a colloquy over the Second Amendment, Judge Sotomayor demonstrated either a gross misunderstanding of the fundamental rights doctrine or yet more disingenuousness:

SOTOMAYOR: In the Supreme Court's decision in Heller, it recognized an individual rights to bear arms as a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment, an important right and one that limited the actions a federal — the federal government could take with respect to the possession of firearms. In that case we're talking about handguns.

The Maloney case presented a different question. And that was whether that individual right would limit the activities that states could do to regulate the possession of firearms. That question is addressed by a legal doctrine. That legal doctrine uses the word fundamental, but it doesn't have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean. To most people, the word by its dictionary term is critically important, central, fundamental. It's sort of rock basis.

Those meanings are not how the law uses that term when it comes to what the states can do or not do. The term has a very specific legal meaning, which means is that amendment of the Constitution incorporated against the states.


COBURN: Through the 14th Amendment.

SOTOMAYOR: Through — and others. But the — generally. I shouldn't say and others, through the 14th. The question becomes whether and how that amendment of the Constitution, that protection applies or limits the states to act. In Maloney, the issue with — for us was a very narrow one. We recognized that Heller held — and it is the law of the land right now in the sense of precedent, that there is an individual right to bear arms as it applies to government, federal government regulation.

The question in Maloney was different for us. Was that right incorporated against states? And we determined that, given Supreme Court precedent, the precedent that had addressed that precise question and said it's not, so it wasn't fundamental in that legal doctrine sense. That was the Court's holding.


To start, Criukshank or Presser simply applied pre 14th Amendment precedent holding that the Bill of Rights on its own does not apply to the States. Neither case applied the selective incorporation doctrine (which was created later ) or held that the Second Amendment right was or was not fundamental.

In applying the fundamental rights doctrine, the courts determine whether the right is fundamental by examining whether the right is historically well established in society and law. Sotomayor is completely wrong when she claims that: "That legal doctrine uses the word fundamental, but it doesn't have the same meaning that common people understand that word to mean. To most people, the word by its dictionary term is critically important, central, fundamental. It's sort of rock basis."

Apparently, this is one of the ways in which Wise Latina's come to different and better conclusions of law than do the rest of us "common people."

Sotomayor is utterly unqualified to be a federal judge, nevertheless a Supreme Court Justice charged with interpreting our fundamental rights.

richard said...

the ironic thing is, a wise latina would never have such a comment.

former law student said...

Sotomayor kept saying "um" during the last Senator of the day (Hatch?) She's wearing out.

Actually Estrada was a wise unhyphenated Amercan judge who got blocked because the left disagreed with a judge who follows the law as opposed to making it (the way they like).

Actually Estrada had never been a judge at any level before Bush tried to appoint him to the DC court of appeals. Absent a track record, Democrats were understandably wary of him.

To start, Criukshank or Presser simply applied pre 14th Amendment precedent holding that the Bill of Rights on its own does not apply to the States.

And yet, sadly, they are still good law.

Why would Bart want Sotomayor to ignore a century of Supreme Court precedent? Wouldn't that be the hallmark of an activist judge?

Patm said...

Sotomayor is Obama's Harriet Miers...but the Democrats haven't got the balls to put a stop to her, as the GOP did for Bush.

Tell me again which is the party of unspontaneous, lockset moronic robots.

JAL said...

Remo Williams? Oh my word, haven't thought about that movie in ---- 20 years?

Make that 3 -- or 4 -- who thought it was great and wished there were more.

former law student said...

Sotomayor is Obama's Harriet Miers

Comparing all of their resumes, Sotomayor is Obama's Samuel Alito, only more qualified by education and experience.

LoafingOaf said...

Sotomayor is clearly a decent and good choice to be on the Supreme Court and has handled herself well in the hearings. Why does InstaPundit keep trying to portray her as "unfit"? Well, the day will never come when Althouse attacks InstaPundit.

kentuckyliz said...

What DVDs did SortaMeiers watch?

Where did she leave her pubic hairs?

Laura(southernxyl) said...

We rented it again recently and watched it. Still a fun movie but in some ways it didn't hold up ... scenes with Emperor Smith using his computer are hokey as hell. Didn't know any better in the 80's.