July 13, 2009

Live-blogging the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

8:22 Central Time: I'm setting up the post. The hearings start at the top of the hour. You can watch on-line at C-SPAN. I'll be watching, with a DVR assist to get quotes right, and I'll also be doing some radio commentary, at the breaks, on Minnesota Public Radio.

8:48: After reading some of the comments here, I want to say that, of course, I think that Sotomayor will be confirmed. So that won't be the focus of my commentary. There are plenty of genuinely relevant, important things to observe. You'll see!

9:02: The Senators all get to make — which means read — 10 minute statements. Patrick Leahy, is now reading Sotomayor's biography to us. Leahy has a raspy, annoying voice, and he stumbles over words, saying, for example, "pie partisan."

9:11: Leahy acts like it's a special problem that Sotomayor was attacked before Obama picked her. But that's the very best time to make the argument about possible nominees. It might influence the selection. Once the selection is made, it is extremely difficult to defeat it.

9:14: Senator Sessions stresses impartiality and adherence to the law. "Our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe, an objective truth... Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning.... In this world, a judge is free to push his or her political or social agenda." "An ordered universe" comes close to grounding law in religion, but doesn't quite go there. Atheists can believe in "objective truth" too. Sessions is making a nice and clear statement of what really should be the GOP theme in these hearings. Law is not ideology or politics, and relativism undermines the rule of law.

9:36: Orrin Hatch reminds us of what Obama, as a Senator, said against Janice Rogers Brown. Turnabout is fair play. [Here's the text of Senator Obama's anti-Brown speech.]

9:49: Dianne Feinstein does not think judges are merely umpires (as John Roberts notably asserted at his confirmation hearings). Personal background informs decisionmaking — properly and inevitably.

10:00: Russ Feingold wants us to be wary of the term "judicial activism." It really is used to say, essentially, a decision I don't like.

10:22: Chuck Schumer is carrying a lot of weight, making the argument that the Republicans obviously are planning to demand that Sotomayor make for herself. He's laying out details that show Sotomayor has been impartial, that the outcomes in her cases do not reveal favoritism to certain times of litigants and antipathy toward others. She really has been an umpire, unlike Chief Justice Roberts who said he was an umpire, but check out the outcomes in his cases.

10:26: Lindsey Graham says that no Republican President would have picked her. Miguel Estrada would be the choice if the idea were to pick the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. But this isn't about ethnicity. It's about liberal and conservative, he says. He tells her outright, she'll be confirmed. That is, "unless you have a complete meltdown" — which she won't.

12:11: They're on lunch break now. I did 10 minutes of analysis of Minnesota Public Radio. And there were a few more Senators doing their opening speeches that I haven't said anything about. It's getting a little repetitive. Kind of a drag to have to go after so many others, but nothing is forcing the Senators to have this terribly clunky approach to opening the hearings. On the up side, it will be interesting to hear a little speech from Senator Al Franken. My guess is that — in an effort to establish his senatorial gravitas — he will be terribly boring.

1:20: Specter said a lot of pretty substantive things, but, sorry, I was bored. And now: It's Al Franken!!!! Ha ha ha! I'm laughing, because he's a comedian, but he's not saying anything funny.

1:31: A heckler! Hey, Franken is a comedian! He should have some snappy comebacks!

1:33: "Judge Soh-toh-my-AIR."

1:34: Franken keeps talking about himself. I just took the oath of office... I may not be a lawyer... blah blah blah.

1:35: Man, Franken has quickly adapted to the Senate. He's doing pompous and leaden as if he'd been lumbering along senatorially for decades.

1:41: Chuck Schumer is now sitting at the table next to Sotomayor. He's being the Senator from New York, introducing the nominee from New York.

2:06: Sotomayor stood to take the oath, saying "I. do." in a way that tracked the odd cadence used by Senator Leahy. in administering it. She then gave a plain and straightforward statement about her simple judicial philosophy: following the law as written. She presented empathy and her personal background something that might enhance her understanding of the facts. In the end, the only task is to say what the law is and apply the law to the facts. There's nothing for the conservatives to attack in that (unless they say they don't believe her, which isn't nice). She said what they say they wanted to hear. And this — not any complicated explanations about how empathy is a component of interpretation — is really the easiest and best way to appeal to Americans. Good job.

133 comments:

rhhardin said...

This involves listening to Senators.

NKVD said...

The outcome is predetermined. Welcome to the bench, you wise latina.

All hail our racist overlords.

Original Mike said...

Althouse: Listening to Patrick Leahy, so you don't have to.

John said...

NKVD,

You are right. She is going to the bench. But if the Repubicans have any balls, they were make her look like the racist mediocrity she is and end any idea that Obama is somehow post racial. They can make the political cost for nominating her high. This woman has lower poll numbers than Myers did.

John said...

"Althouse: Listening to Patrick Leahy, so you don't have to."

Makes you wonder if maybe Ann doesn't have some kind of pain fetish.

ricpic said...

In deference to the mythical up for grabs Hispanic vote the Pubbies will wimp-out.

John said...

"In deference to the mythical up for grabs Hispanic vote the Pubbies will wimp-out."

Probably so. Of course what they don't realize is Mexicans as a general rule can't stand Puero Ricans and vice versa. If you really wanted to insult the woman, you would refer to her as a Mexican. Puerto Ricans consider themselves to be a more caucasian elite and far above Mexicans. Mexicans can't stand them. Cubans look on knowing for sure they are better than both of them.

John said...

I wish someone would get up and for the first question say something like

"Now judge Sotomayor you said in a speech once that you were some kind of magic Latina. Now just exactly what magic powers do you have? Do all Latinas have these magic powers or just you?"

TMink said...

John, I would pay money for someone to ask that!

Trey

MadisonMan said...

rhhardin @ 8:35 nails it.

The outcome is predetermined. So is this comment thread.

traditionalguy said...

We will get to see if she is a Wise judge by her answers. Hold fire until she speaks. No one offends hispanic voters by finding out some truth about Sonia Sotomayor. Only pre-judging her by easy ideological suspicions arouses the anger of the hispanic voters who remember being pre-judged by their appearing different in speech accent and hair color. The Spanish-American War was more than 100 years ago, and winning that War has consequences today, most of them good consequences.

rhhardin said...

"pie partisan."

It's a zero-sum pie.

Lem said...

Joe Biden took around 11 minutes to ask Alito a question; I believe that’s the record.

Keep an eye on some rookie senator to try for the record, exploiting the fact that Joe won’t have the opportunity to reclaim it.

John said...

Traditional Guy,

I don't think she should be judged soley by her answers today. She should be judged by her record. And frankly her record stinks. The wise latina speech was downright offensive and racist. Her attempt to deny the Ricci plaintiffs relief at the Supreme Court through procedural maneuvers was equally offensive. She ought to have to answer for those actions.

Lem said...

Long winded questions should signal that she is safe.

But Sotomayor would be well advised not to give long answers.

Crimso said...

Slightly OT

CNN breaking news headline: "President Obama taps Dr. Regina Benjamin for surgeon general"

What, was the SG too busy to do it himself?

Original Mike said...

Atheists can believe in "objective truth" too..

Not according to some around here.

Anthony said...

Unlike President Obama, I generaly believe that the president has deference in his choices. So long as he does not choose Harriet Meirs for SCOTUS or makes Bill Ayers Secretary of [Re]Education, I generally will not make a big deal.

She is not Meirs nor is she Ayers. So I would in the end vote yes. But I agree that Sessions seems to have hit the right note.

Invisible Man said...

All hail our racist overlords.

I know, Jeff Sessions, really!

Kirby Olson said...

She'll get in, but it will be baggage for Obama's presidency. Her heft of racist sins will weigh him down, and make it less likely he's re-elected.

PatCA said...

"An ordered universe" comes close to grounding law in religion, but doesn't quite go there.

I'm glad Sessions didn't overdo it. It is a good way to bring up such controversial issues, like the fact that our founders actually did ground our values in a belief in God-given rights. I hope people end up thinking about such things as a result of these hearings.

chuck b. said...

"Personal background informs decisionmaking — properly and inevitably."

It does on juries. The judge tells you that.

LarsPorsena said...

Give her some Bork!

Lem said...

Sessions’s ok when you are looking at Procedure. But when its comes Down to all the marbles Hatch’s the man.

Ben (The Tiger) said...

Given what Hatch said, what's the over/under now?

I'll throw out a number -- Alito got 58 votes when there were 55 Republican senators, so I say a few more Republicans will cling to deference to the president than that -- Sotomayor gets confirmed with 65-68 votes.

John said...

"Atheists can believe in "objective truth" too."

objective based on what Ann? If there is no God, who are you to say that one set of values or morals is better than another?

pduggie said...

Sotomayor seems so static and "lumpy" (for lack of a better word.)

Can't she roll her eyes when the republican senators claim to be concerned or something

Dale said...

1) It is a turnaround for the Democrats to talk about Sotomayor's judging experience:"more than any of the current Justices had when they were confirmed".

Obama clearly said - and was immediately parroted by hundreds of pundits and Democrats - that he wanted someone with more "real world experience". This was said because the Democrats knew they don't have the mental firepower dugout of a Scalia, Roberts, or Alito (and more often now Thomas, also) to pull from. Yet now - with Senator Leahy's pathetic opening statement - the Democrat talking points about "real world experience" vs. "count up all the years as a judge - go ahead, count!" has done a 180 degree turnaround.

2)The real meme/lie the Democrats want is to claim the term "activist judge". Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of activist judges - they want Justices who interpret the meaning of the law.

Democrats know they cannot win this argument on the merits - they lost it long ago with the "empathy" attempts and they do not have enough constituency that are suspicious of the courts to keep them in office. So, they disingenuously try to re-frame and redefine "Activist" to mean a Judge who changes "precedent" - previous decisions, whether the decisions are completely and utterly devoid of Constitutional reasoning or not.

Watch for this to become the constant - and completely dishonest - argument for the near future by Democrats during most judge hearings. If you can't win on the merits - fudge on the particulars.

3) Someone should get the man behind Sotomayor a better suit. This sympathy play will work against her more than help her.

ricpic said...

An ordered universe,
All ducks in a row,
An aspiration
Minutae stows.

John Althouse Cohen said...

objective based on what Ann? If there is no God, who are you to say that one set of values or morals is better than another?

First of all, I don't think the reference to "objective" just meant "objective moral values." But to answer your question, how about utilitarianism? Also, you seem to assume that God provides a solid foundation for "objective values," but I'm not so sure about that. If everything is relative to God's arbitrarily chosen values, that sounds more relativistic than an atheist utilitarian who makes moral judgments based on the observable consequences of actions.

Lem said...

Dianne Feinstein does not think judges are merely umpires.

Of course not, it’s not like a supreme can toss her out for arguing balls and strikes.

Duuuh ;)

Dale said...

Russ Feingold wants us to be wary of the term "judicial activism." It really is used to say, essentially, a decision I don't like.

BOOP! Wrong again Mr Feingold.

The Democrats are DESPERATE to take over the definiton of "Activist Judge" - they cannot win the arguments about activist vs, well actual judging - reading the Constitution and applying exactly what it says. In other, smaller) words - Judges should not get to put their "empathy" into play.

"Activist Judge" real definition: Judges who make decisions based on the outcome they want rather than what the law actually says. Can the Democrats win in redefining the term and misuse it's meaning, changing it's description to "Judges who don't follow "precedent" no matter how wrongly decided that precedent was decided?


Stay tuned.

Dale said...

He's laying out details that show Sotomayor has been impartial, that the outcomes in her cases do not reveal favoritism to certain times of litigants and antipathy toward others.

Did you even hear of the Ricci case, Professor?

John Althouse Cohen said...

what the law actually says

But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says." That means both sides can accuse the other of deviating from what the law actually says based on their personal preference. And that means that "judicial activism" is shorthand for "decisions I disagree with."

Original Mike said...

objective based on what Ann? If there is no God, who are you to say that one set of values or morals is better than another?.

Told ya.

John said...

"But to answer your question, how about utilitarianism?"

it is a system. Of course what do you do when you can improve the lives of many people and help make the world a better place by sacrifing the lives of a few? We do that in wars all the time of course. But if you follow that logic to its end, you wind up saying things like "it is a good idea to kill the old and the weak if it allows everyone else to live better. The end result of utilitarianism is things like eugenics and slavery.


"Also, you seem to assume that God provides a solid foundation for "objective values," but I'm not so sure about that. If everything is relative to God's arbitrarily chosen values, that sounds more relativistic than an atheist utilitarian who makes moral judgments based on the observable consequences of actions."


If God is some kind of personafied old man in the sky like Zeus, then yes you have a point. If God is an ominipotent creator of the universe, then you point doesn't stand. If God is omnipotent, it stands to reason that he has access to knowledge and wisdom beyond our comprehension. And thus his laws and values are always going to be superior to the ones we dream up.

Lem said...

Of course the senator from California doesn’t like umpires.

They got just got Manny back.

Typical politian ;)

mccullough said...

These hearings aren't the same without Joe Biden.

If there were a nationwide vote for the Supreme Court and Sotomayor ran against Roberts or Alito, who would win?

John said...

"But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says." That means both sides can accuse the other of deviating from what the law actually says based on their personal preference. And that means that "judicial activism" is shorthand for "decisions I disagree with."

I think that is playing far too fast and lose with the truth. There is a position known as "originalism" whereby the judge reads the plain meaning of the statute or usually the consitution read in light of the contemparary statements of the drafters and settles on one meaning of the document. This is in contrast to the idea of the Constitution being a "living document". If the constitution is read as a "living document" it is read not in the context of its drafters intent and plain meaning, it is read in context of current values. If current values say that the protection against search and seizure means that aborition is a gaurenteed right, even though the drafters of the Amendment contemplated no such thing, then that is what it means.

Judicial Activism does mean something. It means interpreting the construction of statutes and the Constitution to fit with what the judge considers contemperary societal values even if doing so requires a reading not contemplated by the drafters of the document.

Lem said...

There is good reason why the term “judicial activism” resonates and it’s identified with liberal judges.

Al que le pica que se arrasque.

John Althouse Cohen said...

But if you follow that logic to its end, you wind up saying things like "it is a good idea to kill the old and the weak if it allows everyone else to live better. The end result of utilitarianism is things like eugenics and slavery.

Well, I thought the question was whether an atheist can have objective moral beliefs, not whether they're correct. If the question is whether they're correct, then of course utilitarianism is open to criticism, but of course God-based moral beliefs are equally open to criticism.

Donald Douglas said...

American Power tracked-back with, "Sonia Sotomayor on Capitol Hill: 'Give Her Some Bork!'".

John Althouse Cohen said...

I should add, John, that I think you raise an excellent reason why utilitarianism is incorrect. But I was just giving it as a convenient example of a moral belief system. I thought it was a useful example because people instantly understand what it means and it's simple to describe. My goal wasn't to write a treatise on ethics. In the real world, atheists -- like agnostics and theists -- usually have much more complex sets of moral beliefs.

Lem said...

One and a half hours into this and Sotomayor has not said anything yet?

TitusHappyMondays said...

Love Beauragard Jefford Sessions III. That's the kind of racist I can support. Go Bama! Poor things own racist past derailed him in becoming a judge but he gained vengeance by becoming a senator...from Alabama.

You know he has a sheet and hood and noose hanging in his closet.

He also is very unattractive and looks like he has a small cock. That's sad.

John said...

John Althouse Cohen,

I misstated my point. You are correct in saying that Athiests can have objective systems. But what athiests cannot have is any claim to moral imperitive of their system over any other. Even ultilitarianism has its virtues. In the end, with no ultimate authority to appeal to, the Atheist is left defending his system with personal preference. I think Nitzsche had it exactly right. Once God is dead, all that is left is the human will. Why is one system better than another? Because I will it to be so. When athiests tell you how great they are because they are "good for the sole purpose of being good and not some eternal reward" they are just asserting their will like a good Nitchean superman.

gaywrites said...

wow, this JAC/John conversation is shaping up to be something straight out of Inherit the Wind.

Baron Zemo said...

My dear sir.

Please do not attack the whelp or the dam will charge.

Thank you.

chuck b. said...

Raise your hand if you live "a real American life".

Dale said...

But the little detail you're leaving out is that, in all the most interesting cases, reasonable people are going to disagree about "what the law actually says.

There are NO reasonable people today - on all sides of the issue - who believe that Roe v Wade is a "disagreement about what the law says". Just another example of certain judges trying to "solve" a problem rather than finding see "what the law actually says". They wrote entirely unwitten and unthought of things into the Constitution. Even Liberal Scholars agree that it was bad judging.

Those were "activist" judges, JAC.
By this illustration alone your point is therefore destroyed.

Please do not allow yourself to become a regurgitator of Democrat talking points on this issue. you are far to much of a think for yourself kind of person to become another Democrat lapdog.

Lem said...

Maybe there is a silver lining.

After sitting thru her confirmation hearings Sotomayor may begin to have doubts as to whether or not waterbording “shocks the conscience” ;)

TitusHappyMondays said...

Love Tom Coburn, from Oklahoma.

Loved his campaign for senate speaking about lesbian teachers in bathrooms in public schools in Oklahoma.

Also, especially delish that he was insisting Ensign to pay off the whore he was fucking...alledgedly. Although, Coburn won't speak about it because as a deacon and doctor is was confidential. Not sure what that has to do with his being a doctor or deacon but still absolutely eat it up. A true family values man and for that I am in total awe.

John said...

Apparently whatever institution that houses Titus is allowing him internet access again.

TitusHappyMondays said...

I could never watch that confirmation crap.

No person should have to listen to 20 some senators talk for 10 minutes each. It is so wrong.

This is like the senators academy awards though.

How come blue state senators sound smarter than red state senators? Is it just the red neck accent or is there more to it? Breeding, education, urban vs rural? The south really is horrible. I am sorry but what gay would live in the south. I know Hotlanta is supposed to be all that but is it really worth it fellow fags? Aren't you in like Cobb County as soon as you leave Hotlanta. I am sorry but so not fabulous.

halojones-fan said...

Hee. "pie partisan". Can there be any common ground between the meringue and the fruit? And there's the whole "shell/crust" conflict.

We won't even get into the question of such miscengenations as Meat Pie.

John said...

"The south really is horrible. I am sorry but what gay would live in the south"

Just enough to support big gay communities in just about every major city there from Houston to Oklahoma City to Nashville to Savanah. And of course places like Bensenhurst and South Boston are so welcoming to gays. Greasers with baseball bats just love gays as long as said greasers are from the enlightened Northeast.

Baron Zemo said...

Please do not attack Titus.

He is a protected feces.

At least in these enviorns.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!

former law student said...

Orrin Hatch is all "What goes around comes around Obama Baybee!"

I don't like Dianne Feinstein's format: telling the nominee about her past life. I mean, aren't we all familiar with our own bios?

what was the guy shouting about during DiFi's speech?

TitusHappyMondays said...

South Boston has changed completely fyi.

Most the Irish trash have moved out and the "DINCS" and fags have moved it. Lofts for days, fabulous cafes, ferns everyhwere. You know what those fags do to a neighborhood. The price of real estate has gotten ridiculous and as a result the riff raff have had to move out.

Can gays marry in any southern state? Oh yea, no, but they have all voted for constituional amendments, thank the lord our savior.

Sorry, the south is gross. Embrace your grossness and your southern strategy. Fucking rednecks.

Baron Zemo said...

This is indicative of why Titus is the dear lady's favorite.

He is her muse.

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha.

John said...

"Can gays marry in any southern state? Oh yea, no, but they have all voted for constituional amendments, thank the lord our savior."

The State of California overwelmingly voted down gay marriage last November. I guess it is gross to. As a matter of fact, I think an anti-gay marriage proposal passed there to. I don't know how those fags live in those lofts in South Boston do you?

Considering gays reaction to the vote in California, I don't know how anyone could have a problem with them. I mean realy, you try to burn down a couple of Morman temples and people start to hold it against you or something. You constantly spew about how most of the country are evil rednecks and how you hate them all and all of the sudden no one likes you. I mean the nerve of people not to like someone as enlightened and tolerant as you.

madawaskan said...

Titus-

The reason homosexuals may raise the price of real estate is because often they are dual income without the cost of kids.

And, for some strange reason The South's unemployment rates are actually better or recovering better than most other regions of the country.

That would be because the state governments down there have more business favorable practices.

traditionalguy said...

Titus...From your statement,one would assume that Atlanta is located way up North. FYI the Mayor of Atlanta's office is now won not by panderingto the Black vote, but is won by drawing the intown gay vote that is conservative on the issue of working for ones financial rewards instead recieving those rewards for bloc voting. So far so good.

madawaskan said...

Which reminds me, of this comment made by President Obama when he was giving a speech in Ghana-

No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top.

Transcript:CBS News

Truly laugh outloud funny, but not really....

The irony.

LonewackoDotCom said...

These are for the most part show hearings, with more conflict at a Politburo hearing.

The main thing opponents should do is educate as many people as possible about her history, highlighting the fact that for six years, she was a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that gave an award to someone who'd proposed genocide years earlier.

No, really: genocide.

What opponents need to do is send emails to all their friends with that link and others. Urge your friends to contact as many national politicians as possible stating their opposition. And, urge them to pass the message along to others.

John said...

"The reason homosexuals may raise the price of real estate is because often they are dual income without the cost of kids."

Since they don't have kids, they don't have to worry about bad schools. And they can thus be the first to move into bad areas. Gays are usually the tip of the gentrifying spear. Of course that gentrifrication leads to hoards of rich yuppies running the property values up and forcing out the people who live in the neighborhood. If I were a working class latino or black, I am not sure I would be very happy to see the first white gay couple move into my neighborhood. It means that I am probably going to have to move along in a few years for the rich white yuppies who will follow.

madawaskan said...

John-

Yes, I think basically Titus can feel more special than most just based on all the extra free time.

He has no idea how much kids cost.

Just in lack of sleep for starters....

Baron Zemo said...

Now it is the time for Titus to speak of his latest sexual adventure to change the subject.

Three,two,one........

Patrick said...

From BO's anti-Janice Rogers Brown speech:
'Justice Brown went so far as to suggest that the landmark civil rights law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, could be unconstitutional under the first amendment.'

Hmm.

Lem said...

Justice Sotomayor.
It has come to the attention of this senator that your judicial philosophy is contrary to the judicial standards of jurisprudence in this country going back to the founding fathers.

Could you take a few moments and please remember you are under oath.

Could you please tell the committee what’s a chupacabra?

Dale said...

Al Franken is a very funny fellow.

It is going to take a lonnnnnnng time for everyone to take him seriously.

Sice he's a Democrat, I will personally find it hard to EVER take him seriously.

Oooo, here's my favorite funny part: he took the oath to follow and defend the Constitution 5 days ago. And he - Al Franken - takes that oath "seriously".

Hahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahqahahahahahahahahahahahahaha cough cough cough hahahhahahahahahahahah

Dale said...

Oooo - NOW Franken is trying the lying Democrat redefinition of "activist judges".

Boo Al Franken - BOO!

I actually expected better.

Now he's talking smack about the Supreme Court being the last refuge for American citizens to find sympathy and not the law.

Dale said...

Is Patrick Leahy drunk? I haven't heard slurring like that since New Years.

Dale said...

Schumer - what an evil lying bastard. His family has GOT to be ashamed of his whoring himself to whatever the Democrats tell him.

Boo Boo Schumer - BOOO!

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"I may not be a lawyer"

Does he not know whether he is a lawyer or not?

"Lem said...
One and a half hours into this and Sotomayor has not said anything yet?"

You realize this isn't really about her, right? It's an opportunity for senators to bloviate. She's a peripheral.

Dale said...

Senator Schumer:

"her (Sotomayor's) life and her career are not about race or class or gender . . ."

Oh is this lying bullshit deep!
After all, we all know she was chosen by Obama as the very BEST, and with no consideration as to whether she was a woman and Latina.

"That she is modest and humble in her approach"

THAT"S what those white firefighters missed! They missed the humble and modest part!

"We are all governed by one law" - except of course, when we can give favor to someone over white guys.

Dale said...

"(Sotomayor is)one of the outstanding legal minds"

Which is why even Ruth Bader Ginsburg just 2 weeks ago spanked that outstanding legal mind for the poor job it did on the New Haven Firefighters case.

Dale said...

Sen Gillebrand from New York is putting me to sleep with that monotonous voice!

LarsPorsena said...

"...."I may not be a lawyer"

Does he not know whether he is a lawyer or not?"

I want to scream "Bullshit" every time I hear this phrase.

We are a nation of 300 million lawyers. Playing lawyer is America's second favorite indoor sport.

Dale said...

I used to think Leahy was just a regular idiot Democrat, but now i feel sorry for him - he's obviously not in full control of his capacities.

Dale said...

I do like Sotomayor's accent!

Dale said...

Thanking her mother now - that was touching. Her mother looks very dignified. Cool!

ricpic said...

In Titus' tiny brain being from Alabama ipso facto confers racist status on Sessions. And there are millions of unprejudiced fudgepackers out there. What if Sessions were a fudgepacker? What a quandary that would be for Titus.

Dale said...

Shoot - good thing I'm not a Justice.
I'd put her on the Court right now just by watching her Mom and the personal story about growing up.

Dale said...

"the task of a judge is not to make law, but to interpret the law".

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you want me to think you think it means.

Dale said...

Senator Leahy:

"Thank you, Judge Sotomayor for your testimony. Everyone to the bar - drinks on me!"

ricpic said...

According to Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg if it were not for Roe v Wade there would have been a lot more births of "the wrong kind of people."

The response from progressive America? The sound of crickets.

Lem said...

..personal story about growing up..
..getting ogled on her way to school in the Bronx.

Baron Zemo said...

I may be mistaken but I was under the misapprehension that the Fudgepackers were footballers from Wisconsin?

I thought wise Latina’s preferred knife play and strangling straying spouses with their purse strings.

If they are inclined toward sport.

ricpic said...

Why aren't blacks and hispanics capable of gentrifying their own neighborhoods? And don't give me the horse turds that it's a matter of money. Racism? Nope, that don't work neither. Then what is it? Tick, tick, tick, ti.....

peter hoh said...

Heard your wrap up comments. Gary Eichten isn't exactly the most free-wheeling, spontaneous program host in the MPR lineup.

kimsch said...

Schumer (paraphrased):
"No one in the history of SCOTUS nominations has ever been as qualified as this nominee."

and

"In no other country in the whole world could any woman rise as high as this woman will."

Schtoopid Chuckles the Clown

memo to Chucky: Women have been elected to lead whole countries. Hasn't happened here.

LonewackoDotCom said...

I just posted easy steps you can take to oppose her. Please evaluate what you do for effectiveness, and consider doing things that are actually effective. For instance, the comment about what Schumer said is good, but it would be better as a blog post showing how he's wrong.

Original Mike said...

Good job..

Lying?

Methadras said...

What is it with all of the photos taken of this woman with her dopey capped toothed smile. She looks like a sesame street puppet.

Methadras said...

They don't care how she gets in as long as she does. That's all that matters and for Franken, FRANKEN!!! unbelievable this human clusterfuck can have any say so at all thinks she's the most qualified candidate in 100 years? Really, you ignorant leftist stooge? You wouldn't a think about the law if it crawled up your ass and tickled your throat. Unbelievable just watching my country go to shit with people like this.

Scott M said...

@ Titus...

"most of the Irish trash have moved out..."

Really? In what world is it okay to bemoan the plight of one group while waylaying another indiscriminately?

Truly, you bring a new level of hate to your dubious outlook on things.

NKVD said...

Titus is the funniest, most God-like, informed, humorous and gifted commenter here.

That he is as full of hate as he is of shit just adds to the urbanity and wit. Afterall, if a fag, to use his own description of himself, cannot hate those not like himself, have not the terrorists (who he really likes to do) won?

Thank you, and have a nice republican day.

AJ Lynch said...

Gentrifying a neighborhood requires pickup trucks. That is an important tool which helps a small contractor gets started.

For some reason, some ethnic groups don't grasp this theory (of mine) and simple fact of life that using a pickup truck is a great way for a young ambitious person to make money and get work.

TitusHi,HowAreYou?IamSuperThankforaskin said...

The reason I said Sessions was a racist is because he was nominated for some judge thing and during his confirmation hearings it came out he liked to use the n word and tell n jokes. Nothing new there. Oh and because he is from Alabama, natch.

As far as gays and the gentrifying of hoods. Let me speak to that. I have been a gay gentrifying pioneer. What does happen though is the gays clean the hoods up, plant some ferns, open a few coffee shops, some fab restaurants, a yoga studio, gym, cute little stores and before you know it Bif and Buffy with Bif Jr. are rolling around the streets. Next come the straight DINKS and before you know it the mos are forced to leave the hood. And finally come the empty nesters who have the money and want the amenties of living in a city. A single mo can afford a 700,000k-1,000,000 condo but when they go overr 1 mill its time to look for the new hot destination.

And finally NKVD has licked my dirty ass after I took a really juicy shit. He licked it clean. When he came up from his dindin his mouth looked like Clarabel The Clown. NKVD likes to lick dirty fag ass on the downlow, natch. NKVD still has a thing for me. Waiting with baited (shit) breath for my every word. I told you one ass licking is all you get. Now enough, you are embrASSing yourself you little shit eater.

Deborah said...

[Franken is] "doing pompous and leaden as if he'd lumbering along senatorially for decades."

A skill he honed on SNL. I never thought Franken was one bit funny. I thought then, and still do, that he was stupid. He's been in the Senate 5 minutes and he's judging the judge. Only in America.

TitusHi,HowAreYou?IamSuperThankforaskin said...

Also, I say Irish Trash in a very complimenting way-they are hot.

And they are very accustomed to the downlow.

There is a major cruise area on the beach in South Boston called Carson Beach. On any night it is packed with hot Irish Trash. Major downlow spot. Check it out. Sometimes it is difficult to even get into or out of the parking lot because of the traffic backups. It is that busy.

I have done some of my best work at the beach. Thank you.

NKVD said...

As usual, your wit is sparkling and your Godliness shines through. Titus, you are the best commentor ever.

And while I know you struggle with English, the word you were looking for is "bated". But you knew that, as you are superior to all others.

Have a nice day.

Baron Zemo said...

Titus and Jeremy have made this blog the great success that is the envy of all who read it.

You must be so proud dear lady.

TitusHi,HowAreYou?IamSuperThankforaskin said...

I don't like terrorists either. For some reason straighties think gays have "empathy" for terrorists.

I don't. I despise them.

Now Muzzies on the downlow, that is another story. Very hot.

I am going to NYC tomorrow to pick up my last belongings and I am not even sad.

I just had Kohlrabi Batons as the fabulous cafe next to my fabulous loft. I think I have mentioned this before but I could never live anywhere that wasn't walking distance from Kohlrabi Batons.

But back to my question. Why are blue states the most fabulous and have the most fabulous cities. Cities that people travel all around the world to visit: NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Boston, LA.

You never hear about people going on a vacation in Mississippi or Alabama or Tennessee and that is just sad.

And all the fabulous southern people leave their states so there is no more fabulousness. I say lets bring back fabulous to the South. What do southern fags do? Hide, I would imagine.

And no Beauragard Jefford Sessions III is not a fudgepacker. I can see where the red neck southern accent can sometimes be confused with the gay voice but he is definitely not a fudgie. We gays can smell it in others, right NKVD?

TitusHi,HowAreYou?IamSuperThankforaskin said...

And finally, fellow republicans, I just have to say what a contribution I make here. It is really such an impact. It is heartfelt, intelligent, thought provoking, earnest, compelling, fascinating and so important.

And for that I say thank you.

Thank you from the bottom of my heavy heart.

NKVD, my dog didn't die either, Wahh, Naah, Na, Nahh, NA.

Baron Zemo said...

Yes beyond compare.

It is sublime.

Lexington Green said...

"unless they say they don't believe her, which isn't nice"

Unless she's lying (she is) which is not nice, and makes anyone who believes her a chump. Be nice. But don't be a chump.

Baron Zemo said...

How could you not believe someone who says they are impartial and will follow the law?

Why would she lie?

It would be like someone lying about the fact that their dog died. Why would they do that?

To garner sympathy from the gullible?

To change the subject from some verbal faux pas that might subject them to criticism?

Who would deign to stoop so low?

Ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,ha!

Baron Zemo said...

You people are fools.

Lexington Green said...

"Why would she lie?"

Because if she told the truth she would not be confirmed.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law. There is a third element in her jurisprudence, which is find a way to provide outcomes for groups she considers more deserving, i.e. those not composed of white males.

If you believe all law is merely a veil covering power relationships, this is nothing special.

This is considered normal and OK at law schools. Amongst normal people, not so much.

Sotomayor is a product of a world most ordinary Americans do not know exists, which is motivated by values they do not share, but which increasingly controls their lives.

Baron Zemo said...

So you say she is a member of a secretive subculture whose customary practices would be anathema to the average American if they ever took the time to examine them in the light of day.

Surely you jest.

It would be as preposterous as feigning despair at the death of a beloved pet that probably never existed in the first place.

Who could be so twisted and depraved?

Methadras said...

TitusHi,HowAreYou?IamSuperThankforaskin said...

I don't like terrorists either. For some reason straighties think gays have "empathy" for terrorists.


You don't like terrorists you can't fuck. Everyone here knows you'd plow a Hajji while getting to scream "JIHAD!!! balalalalala!!!" just so you can say you did it. Since the straighties contributed to you miserable and god-awful existence let me be the first to say that if you keeled over today, the world would be a better place for it, you chub-producing twink wannabe.

Baron Zemo said...

By the way, Nina Totenberg has let it slip on NPR that Judge Sortamajor’s beloved chihauhua Che is very ill. It seems she has overfed it empanadas and plantains and it is at death’s door.

She might have to be put down.

Baron Zemo said...

To clarify. The dog will have to be put down.

Baron Zemo said...

To futher clarify. The chihuahua not the chica.

Jeremy said...

Considering the uproar over "activist" judges...

Here are some percentages of judges with an inclination to strike down Congressional laws:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Notice a common thread...??

Jeremy said...

Lexington Green said..."She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law."

Her comment relates to how a judge could or would better understand an aspect of life they themselves may have experienced.

Oh, and you left this part out:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

*Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
( CHARLIE SAVAGE / Published: May 14, 2009)

Methadras said...

Jeremy said...

Considering the uproar over "activist" judges...

Here are some percentages of judges with an inclination to strike down Congressional laws:

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Notice a common thread...??


Oh sure, Gene. We notice a common thread with you all time. The common thread that you like to pluck horseshit out of your ass whenever it suits you to lie. Afterall, you are a liar and liars like you lie all time.

Your finality as a pathetic joke has come to fruition once and for all. You post a series of percentages based on what? Which congressional laws are you even talking about? And are you confusing activism with actual judgments against certain laws that the justices found to be unconstitutional? Do you even know what the fuck you are saying you half-wit?

Methadras said...

Jeremy said...

Lexington Green said..."She is saying that the female and hispanic judge will "reach a better conclusion" because of her life experiences, not because of the facts and the law."

Her comment relates to how a judge could or would better understand an aspect of life they themselves may have experienced.

Oh, and you left this part out:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

*Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

In making her argument, Judge Sotomayor sounded many cautionary notes. She said there was no uniform perspective that all women or members of a minority group have, and emphasized that she was not talking about any individual case.
( CHARLIE SAVAGE / Published: May 14, 2009)


Oh, Gene, Gene, Gene. When will you learn that life experience as a function of being a wise latina federal judge is no substitute for legal precedence. You don't even know what aspect of life she was talking about. Let's say you are a judge Gene and you have to make a decision, do you use your life experience, high and wise empathic powers to formulate a proper judicial decision based on your feelings or do you go back and look at precedent and formulate a rational decision based on past relative cases? Oh hey, Gene, did you say hi to your mom for me?

elHombre said...

According to Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg if it were not for Roe v Wade there would have been a lot more births of "the wrong kind of people."

The response from progressive America? The sound of crickets. (2:05 PM)

Ruth's actual quote: Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.

Response from the Law Profs' blogs? Also the sound of crickets.

Could be the basis for a question to Sonia, but you gotta be cautious about confronting the malevolent soul of pro-abortion America.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

Notice a common thread...??


That you are pulling numbers and statistics out of your ass with no documentation or links?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

LOL

Posted before I read Methadras.

elHombre said...

Jeremy, et al, uses statistics demonstrating that, like most lefties, he doesn't understand the concept of judicial activism (or lies about it).

traditionalguy said...

I was home at lunch and stayed to hear Sonia's remarks. I was pleased with her sincerety and her intelligence to say what she was there to say and then shut up. She was a trial lawyer once. That's the only place one learns those skills in combination. If she could only teach those two skills to Al Franken, then we would have something to really brag on this Bush-I appointee for. My expectation was confirmed that she is a good Justice being used by Obama's boys to draw anti-hispanic war dances out of simple minded conservatives who think they are heroicly and rudely fighting judicial tyranny. Word to the wise...Sonia on the Court is not going to lead to a tyranny, but a second Obama term and who he can appoint to the Court then will.

Cedarford said...

Obama, from the link from Hatch's speech speaking of why he rejected black female Janice Rogers Brown, as a political activist:

Now, the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent. Some of us who attended law school or are in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff. The test of whether a judge is qualified to be a judge is not their intelligence. It is their judgment.

The test of a qualified judicial nominee is also not whether that person has their own political views. Every jurist surely does. The test is whether he or she can effectively subordinate their views in order to decide each case on the facts and the merits alone. That is what keeps our judiciary independent in America. That is what our Founders intended.

Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge. It is a pretty easy observation to make when you look at her judicial decisions.


Now we can have a cohort that screams hypocrisy! hypocrisy!
hypocrisy! hypocrisy! - Case closed!

But in fact it isn't. Both sides know political bias is built-in to whoever is on the bench and injects their bias into "rule of law".
Reagan blew it when he selected a moderate who saw herself as a legislator 1st, fitting the law to justify her political preferences.

Bush I simply just blew it when he selected a liberal as his Scotus pick.
Souter was is 2nd-biggest mistake, next to having George W.
(Read my lips a distant 3rd).

So what Obama said about Janice Brown was utterly expected, just as Republican claims she was merely an impartial strict constructionist - and have no effect on Sotomayor's confirmation. But, Obama's vote on "well-qualified, superbly well-qualified" Roberts and Alito DOES provide cover to Republicans who declare they are in total love with Sotomayor and all her biography and 95% of what whe is...but that last 5% FORCES them to vote against her...as the Black Messiah did in other votes he cast as Senator.

Add that much blame goes to Bush II, Hatch and Frist for not being willing to fully go to battle for Miguel Estrada...but string things along until he got sick of being played with. Republicans could have had a hispanic star of their own in position to nominate...but no, they let that be sabotaged by Democrats even while they controlled both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.

knox said...

I guess my opinion of Senators officially reached a new low. I couldn't get past the first couple entries. Seems I just can't bring myself to care what these people say.

Actually, that's not really accurate; it's not that I don't care, it's that they repulse me. I can't read hardly anything any of them say without thinking Bullshit, bullshit.

I know this is not at all an original thought or sentiment. But boy, it has reached a visceral level for me recently.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Ni Hau!

/kick

Inside joke. Hoosier will get it.

Jeremy said...

Activist Judges: By PAUL GEWIRTZ and CHAD GOLDER / Published: July 6, 2005 / NYT's OpEd

Jeremy said...

Methadras - Who the fuck is this Gene, Gene, Gene character you continue to float?

Are you stalking this poor person?

You're an idiot.

Jeremy said...

METH MAN - "When will you learn that life experience as a function of being a wise latina federal judge is no substitute for legal precedence."

I've never heard Sotomayor ever say anything that would make anyone, other than a fucking dolt, believe she wouldn't adhere to "legal precedence."

Can YOU provide any evidence of such, other than your usual insanity?

I have to admit, it is funny reading the bitching and whining disguised as real criticism of this woman.

Same ol', same 'ol...every day of the week from this wingnut crowd.

The same thing one could find here right up to the day President Obama was elected.

I love every minute of it.

Matthew Tripp said...

The wheel of Buddhist terms poster Velcro modular wall mural game. Doctoral dissertation for philosophy, title: The Interpenetration of Buddhist Practice and Classroom Teaching.

PARASITIC SPECIES INFESTATION alien robot telescope spaceship: audiobook first few tracks are good, PALE BLUE DOT as we transition to a knowledge based global society

as computing power increases exponentially and ubiquitous web enabled sensors allow for immersion in context relevant buddhist or ethics perspective, national broadband plan...

www.dharmaprinting.com augmented reality sociology subject index and table of contents Chinese military intelligence genius clones life energy word abacus sustainability transmission measurement context mapping twitter.com/globalcide is me Google for EXTINCTCULTURE please let me know what you think about this topic www.computer.org/pervasive (FOLDING@HOME and BIONIC software's, engineering 450 million new species to make deserts habitable or telepathic ecosystem maintenance) autodesk inventor prototyping software for genetics use the audio book list on audibles.com to build course of life coaching training young orphan people to be CIA certified ethical hackers download free at nowtorrents.com because if the current post world war 2 education system was meant to produce factory workers (not critical thinking curriculum video from best teacher nationally then teachers answer questions and do research while the kids watch, pause for Q+A, the videos podshifter software for iTunesU ) how much worse is this continuation of using the bible koran instead of critical mass ecosystem dynamics physics logistics?

google for flashcard database

subliminal education psychological profiling HDTV prenhall.com/dabbagh/

MIT OCW designing your life. The art of war flashcard deck, wikipedia article audio book the 48 laws of power... RAW stem cells movies: Eagle EYE, Minority Report, (gps and audio recording + all video survelance to DVR on web for all probation and parole ankle monitors, put more people on them and use software to monitor them, the probation or parolee pays for the ankle monitor and then gives it back to the probation office then the next probation pays for it again, thus buying another one) broadcom is makeing new version of these chips every two months now GPS + Bluetooth + WiFi + FM combo chip)
audio + video security DVR in juvinile prisons with audiobooks streaming leave the headphones you buy behind for the next inmate

lifehack.org/articles/productivity/the-ultimate-student-resource-list.html

selfmadescholar.com/b/self-education-resource-list

web 2.0 directories: ziipa.com and go2web20.net USE THE TAGS cloud, also lifehacker.com and lifehack.org SHARE 99ebooks.blogspot.com via http://www.care2.com/click2donate/ or http://www.thehungersite.com and http://gizmodo.com/tag/ecomodo/ click every tab every day with iMacro, smarterfox, colorful tabs, TOOMANYTABS, WebMynd extensions for the new firefox 3.5 browser.

youtube.com/homeproject

Laura(southernxyl) said...

"Same ol', same 'ol...every day of the week from this wingnut crowd."

And you evidently just can't get enough.