9:01: Leahy asks a question about the incorporation of the 2d Amendment, and Sotomayor makes it clear that, as a Supreme Court Justice, she would have an open mind about it, although as a Court of Appeals judge she saw herself bound to a precedent. Leahy asks about a federal statute that had been challenged as exceeding the commerce power and expresses pleasure at the degree of deference she showed to Congress. Note that in both cases, the Constitution lost out to the power of government, but Leahy and Sotomayor, operating in a smooth dance, made it seem more as though she were exhibiting neutral fidelity to the law — which is, of couse, the theme of these hearings.
9:09: The first mention ever of YouTube in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, as Sotomayor says her statement — at Duke — that the Court of Appeals is where policy is made needs to be heard in its full context (and not just in that YouTube snippet). She's answering a question from Sessions that invites her to talk about her various famous quotes that have been used to portray her as a judge who is not a humble follower of the law.
9:10: "Life experience has to influence you," Sotomayor says. "We're not robots who don't have feelings. We have to recognize those feelings, and put them aside." I add the italics to indicate dubiousness. Sessions jumps in to remind her that she had said that judges should not deny the difference that come from experience and heritage. Sometimes the "sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." That's a quote from her speech. So when is it appropriate? She says that sometimes "the law" requires it. She is trying to reframe her old remarks so that they mean that the judge is "testing" to make sure that improper emotions are not influencing the decision. It's all about fidelity to law. Sessions points out — and I think he's right — that she's saying the opposite of what she said before.
9:21: Sotomayor makes the powerful statement that her "wise Latina" remark "was bad," that it was an attempt at at a play on something Justice O'Connor had said (that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same result) and that it "fell flat." The context of her whole speech was to inspire young Hispanic students, to make them feel that their life experiences were a valuable asset. ADDED: So she answered the first of the questions I asked in yesterday's NYT op-ed: "When you said you hoped that 'a wise Latina' would make better judicial decisions, did you mean it as a pleasantry aimed at people who had invited you to speak about diversity or will you now defend the idea that decision-making on the Supreme Court is enhanced by an array of justices representing different backgrounds?" The answer is: It was just a pleasantry that suited the feel-good occasion and not meant to be taken seriously.
9:22: Sessions asks about Ricci. She promised to him, back when she was confirmed as a Court of Appeals judge, that she would apply strict scrutiny to all racial discrimination. Why didn't she want a full hearing on an issue that Judge Cabranes called the most important race discrimination case the 2d Circuit had faced in 20 years? Why did she deal with it "in such a cursory manner"? Sotomayor, unsurprisingly, cites the very careful, thorough district court opinion that her panel had adopted.
9:35: Both Sessions and Sotomayor are terrific, by the way. This is a classic confrontation, at the highest level. It's a real thrill to listen in.
10:28: Senator Hatch takes over. He begins by asking if her adherence to precedent would include the case upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion. She gives a bland answer: precedent is subject to the doctrine of stare decisis. And he moves on! Why not follow up with some questions about when precedent may be overruled and whether she sees that particular precedent as a good candidate for overruling? Maybe some other Senator is set to pursue that line of inquiry and Hatch merely wants to be on record having mentioned it. What he moves on to is: guns.
10:29: Does Sotomayor see 2d Amendment rights as "fundamental" in the sense that means that they are incorporated in the 14th Amendment and thus applicable to the states? Sotomayor participated in a case that said that they were not, but her answer is about whether the Supreme Court had said that they are, so her answer is very much about precedent.
10:47: Hatch gets into the details of Ricci, and both Hatch and Sotomayor are patiently spelling out technical matters. I don't think many in the general audience will keep watching or that anything here will make the news highlights. Again, the topic is precedent. Sotomayor has rested heavily on the existence of precedent and the limitations on the role of a Court of Appeals judge. Hatch is endeavoring to show the ways in which precedent had not foreclosed key details of the case.
11:01: Dianne Feinstein sharply distinguishes Sotomayor from Miguel Estrada. Why compare those two? He had no judicial experience and he refused to answer some questions.
11:03: Feinstein expresses outrage that Sotomayor is portrayed as an activist. She can't possibly "be construed as an activist." She agrees with her colleagues on constitutional matters 98% of the time.
11:09: Now, Feinstein is giving Sotomayor a comfortable but serious opportunity to speak about following precedent in a duly judicial fashion. This is nicely handled by Feinstein, because it doesn't look too softball, but it is gently supportive and designed to make Sotomayor look solid and smart and, above all, dutifully faithful to the law.
11:23: Feinstein says that the Supreme Court, after 60 years of declining to strike down any laws as beyond the commerce power, in the last 3 decades, it has struck down 3 dozen. 3 dozen?! What Supreme Court cases is she talking about? Isn't it more like 3?
11:34: I'll be on Minnesota Public Radio soon, doing a call-in show that will be an hour or so long. Live streaming on-line. Here's the stream, they're having difficulty getting me connected. I'm on now.
1:09: We're back from the lunch break. (I didn't eat lunch. I gabbed on MPR.) Now, Senator Grassley is questioning Sotomayor about property rights, specifically whether Kelo was correctly decided. Sotomayor pays obeisance to property rights, then explains the majority's reasoning in Kelo and her devotion to stare decisis. We don't get an answer to the question whether she'd have voted with the dissenters in Kelo, but I get the cue that she would not.
1:12: Another heckler. Hard to understand what he's yelling, but I think I hear the word "babies" and presume it's another anti-abortion activist.
2:11: Sotomayor disentangles herself from Obama's line about "heart":
[W]hile adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court... what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.Sotomayor sticks to her strategy of declaring fidelity to the law. None of this "heart" business for her.
2:20: Jon Kyl is parsing the "Wise Latina" speech, looking at the whole context. She quoted lawprof Judith Resnik's statement that there is no "objective stance" and lawprof Martha Minow's statement that "no neutrality." Kyl says "That sounds to me like relativism." Then she works toward saying that judges from more diverse backgrounds will "make a difference." And "you seem to be celebrating this," not saying, as you said today to Sessions that you were looking to identify it so that you overcome it. She doesn't say anything new or piercing in response, even when Kyl repeats his challenge. I think the truth is that she has backed off from her statement and minimized it as fluff, so, yeah, the inconsistency is there. She's admitted it. What more can she do?
3:06: "We could do this all day long!" Chuck Schumer exclaims in the middle of describing case after case in which Sonia Sotomayor decided against the sympathetic party.
3:26: Lindsey Graham asks her to define and say whether she is: 1. a Legal Realist, 2. a strict constructionist, 3. an originalist. She's none of those things. "What is the best/most legitimate way for a society to change?" Is it by the action of judges? Graham asks this abstract question and quickly focuses on abortion rights. He doesn't really extract an answer from her here.
3:32: Graham blurts out "I like you" and segues into reading a bunch of quotes about her temperament (e.g., she's a "bully"). She says she "asks tough questions at oral argument." Does she have a temperament problem? Ugh! What can she say?! She says she doesn't. Graham drifts on to what he calls her "wise Latino" [sic] remark. Blah blah.
3:40: Graham says that if he'd said he could make better decisions because he's a Caucasian man, the explanation that he was trying to inspire some people, it would not save his career from destruction. Now, he likes the answer that some people deserve a second chance when they misspeak.
3:43: Graham asks what September 11, 2001 meant to her, then inquires whether she believes their are people "out there plotting our destruction." She answers yes. Graham wants to know if, under that circumstance, whether, under the law of war, we can hold members of the enemy force detainees indefinitely. She doesn't have an answer, and he wants her to think about it.
6:20: I had to run off before I could say anything about the last part of Graham's questioning, but it was particularly interesting. He wanted to know about her role on the board of the Puerto Rican Defense Fund, which notably equated the denial of government funding for abortion to slavery. Sotomayor's response was to try to distance herself from the Fund's litigation in particular cases. She was a board member, you see. Sotomayor evaded a lot of things today, didn't she? But I've got to give her credit for consistency here. She has a strategy to disengage from every single controversial thing she's ever been associated with. She's a good little modest judge just like John Roberts, isn't she?
Posts
180 comments:
Hopefully she will have to answer questions regarding her decision in Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which, by comparison, makes Kelo v. New London look like a victory for individual property rights.
The unnaturally slow cadence of her voice grates on me.
No, Judge Sotomayor, we did not misunderstand your words. ("Wise Latina".) You are changing them now, as you ought, but we did not misunderstand the first ones.
AA: The live blog of the SS hearings
does not excuse you from providing something frothy and frivolous for your groundlings.
The hearings are pre-scripted and the results foreordained. Senate hearings = American Kabuki.
I am not a fan of Sotomayor's obviously liberal bent. But I like her personally. Sorry Joseph, I like the way she speaks.
There is no doubt that she would be a fascinating friend or dinner date.
Unless a Republican senator holds her feet to the fire and forces her to defend her stated position that a judge's rulings are affected by that judge's sex and ethnicity or race and SHOULD BE affected by those things, that it is A GOOD THING that judging be subjective, proudly so, and NOT OBJECTIVE, unless a Republican senator insists on a thorough airing of that stance, BY SOTOMAYER, not her apologists, unless that is done these hearings are a farce.
Sessions is putting her feet to the fire.
No better judge of prejudice and empathy for one group of people than Jeffrey Sessions!
ricpic--are you watching? both leahy and sessions have asked numerous questions about that and sotomayor has explained and offered context. and im sure there is plenty more aggressive questioning to follow from less congenial senators like kyl.
i dont see pressing sotomayor on cherry-picked one-sentence soundbites that are easily debunked when she gives explanation and context is a winning strategy for the gop. i think they gop will make more ground pushing her on things like her support for the summary decision in ricci and other substantive criticism of her experience as a judge.
I am watching a very interesting display of Sessions' determination to make Sonia eat her words, followed by a wise answer back from her each time. Sonia may be in more trouble by her continually showing that she is so much smarter than the lynch mob. She might be better served by begging for mercy. The goodness and intelligence being shown by Sonia is very encouraging to me in an era when ideological divsions are expected to trump everything. I eagerly await the moment when the Progressives wake up and figure out that Sonia is not whom they wanted for life on a Court they expected to re-write the Constitution on demand for them.
Well, it's healthy to see her have to disown all those statements.
I'm enjoying seeing a Democrat judicial nominee declare, over and over, her fidelity to judging cases irrespective of gender, race, or class -- it's what they should do.
"she's saying the opposite of what she said before."
Perfectly understandable considering who nominated her.
"No better judge of prejudice and empathy for one group of people than Jeffrey Sessions!"
I nominate Robert Byrd. You may suspect Sessions is KKK, we KNOW Byrd is. And don't try to correct me and insist "was." I ain't buying it.
No better judge of prejudice and empathy for one group of people than Jeffrey Sessions!
Indeed garage! Too bad you guys don't drag good old boy Robert Byrd up there asking her about those things.
Re racial prejudice, actions speak louder than words. The country is 66% non-Hispanic white. The Dem Congressional delegation is 63% white. The GOP Congressional delegation is 97.3% white.
"The GOP Congressional delegation is 97.3% white.'
Yes and since whites are morally and intellectually inferior, they should just defer to the 'wise latina'.
I nominate Robert Byrd. You may suspect Sessions is KKK, we KNOW Byrd is. And don't try to correct me and insist "was." I ain't buying it.
Byrd gave up the KKK long before Sessions "I don't like them only because they use pot" did. The irony of having a man rejected by his own party for a judicial nomination because he was too much of a racist for even the 80's GOP, heading the "modern" GOP Judiciary committee. Not exactly what you'd call progress.
To bad Sonia can't ask him if he thinks she should "watch what she says when talking to white folks".
If the law is on my side,
Fuck Empathy.
Invisble Man,
What a racist statement. I assume you are being tongue in cheek?
So, judging form garage's remark and yours, what we have in the hearings so far this morning is 2 racists - Sotomayor and Sessions - sparring with each other?
Sotomayor comes across as unintelligent, the result of outrageous government-sponsored preferences for members of low-IQ populations.
She was helpless to defend herself from Sessions' superior intellect.
Her strategy? Yes, I said that--but I meant the opposite (see George Costanza).
It is highly disconcerting to see someone of mediocre intelligence being elevated to the highest court in the land.
Yes and since whites are morally and intellectually inferior, they should just defer to the 'wise latina'.
No, but a party with almost no racial minorities is going to lack some credibility trying to accuse someone else of racism.
So, let me see if I have this right, according to Joseph, if the republican party is mostly white, then Sotomayor cannot be a racist. That makes perfect sense, come to think of it. Liberals must be the smartest people in the world. Thanks for teaching us that no hate-filled latina can ever be a racist until the republicans get more minorities.
I don't understand why a liberal would criticize Sessions for looking out for the interests of his ethnic group. It's the same thing that basically every non-white member of Congress does all the time, openly, and with pride. Why shouldn't white legislators be entitled to do exactly the same thing as non-white legislators, and get the same nod of approval from white liberals?
Byrd gave up the KKK long ...
Oh please...stop...I mean really...lol
Sotomayor makes the powerful statement that her "wise Latina" remark "was bad," that it was an attempt at at a play on something Justice O'Connor had said (that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same result) and that it "fell flat."
I can't wait to hear what all the ideologs have to say after they spent a few weeks DEFENDING this sentence as not a big deal. I heard many references to the fact that opponents of Sotomayor were just not nuanced enough to "get it". One idiot claimed that "we write with quill pens and they write with crayons". First, that's just a patently ridiculous comment. Second, it shines a bright light on the elitist mentality pervasive on that side of the spectrum.
Ever priced quill pens and ink? Not cheap. Crayons, however, are mass produced and easily available to the very people they claim to represent. In fact, I would venture to guess there are more crayons in more houses in this country than there are quill pens.
Vote for Crayon-users in 2010.
MnMark - it's called double standards. It will only get worse, so lie back and enjoy it.
NKVD--I was reponding to the little back-and-forth over whether Sessions or Byrd were better representatives of racism in Congress. Whatever the views of individual Dems, their delegation is largely representative of racial makeup of the country. The GOP is not just "mostly white"--it is almost exclusively white. There are six nonwhite members in the whole delegation. The party's exclusion of racial minorities from elective positions speaks louder than some racist remarks by Sessions or long-severed racist associations of Byrd.
What a racist statement. I assume you are being tongue in cheek?
I know isn't it. Maybe you should read some of the transcripts from witnessess in Sessions judicial confirmation to find out the MYSTERY of who would say such a thing. I'll give you a hint, his middle name is Beauregard.
No, but a party with almost no racial minorities is going to lack some credibility trying to accuse someone else of racism.
So what is the magic quota number of minorities we need to have in order to call a spade a spade?
Maybe it says more about minorities that they gravitate to the party that promises government handouts than it does the GOP.
Joseph - you must really like koolaide a lot to think that Byrd is no longer a racist. Keep drinkin', boy, nationalized health care will give you good treatment for your diabetes.
The answer is: It was just a pleasantry that suited the feel-good occasion and not meant to be taken seriously.
That's the Octavio Paz question,
The writer's morality does not lie in the subjects he deals with or the argments he sets forth, but in his behavior towards langauge.
She will say anything anytime.
LarsPorsena said: The live blog of the SS hearings does not excuse you from providing something frothy and frivolous for your groundlings.
Sometimes we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.
And so, my fellow Althousians, here’s a heaping helping of frothy frivolity, Bissage-style.
Enjoy.
(Linked only to preserve precious Althouse comment space.)
The context of her whole speech was to inspire young Hispanic students, to make them feel that their life experiences were a valuable asset....(The "wise latina" remark) was just a pleasantry that suited the feel-good occasion and not meant to be taken seriously.
Oh I see. The way to inspire young Hispanic students is to tell them that they are ethnically superior to whites. And a little racial supremacist stuff like that "suits" a "feel-good occasion" and was "not meant to be taken seriously". Riiiiiight. Interesting and glaring double-standard you've got there Ms Althouse. Hispanics can talk like Goebbels and it "suits the occasion".
Numchucks???
Nunchaku, please.
Or I'll call you SotoMAYer
So what is the magic quota number of minorities we need to have in order to call a spade a spade?
The fact that you think that a quota is the only way that minorities are worthy enough for your liitle country club is quite telling.
I don't know a lot about Sessions, but I've always thought he was pretty sharp in these confirmation hearings.
But ricpic is right - these hearings are a farce. Unless a Republican has made a nomination. Then they are of utmost importance!
Because...aren't they all really evil? ;-)
Hatch asks tough, critical, substantive questions about Ricci, respect for precedent, Second Amendment. I think he's a model for this kind of a hearing and a model for Republicans that want to take Sotomayor down a notch. The nonsense about "wise Latina" is going nowhere.
The fact that you think that a quota is the only way that minorities are worthy enough for your liitle country club is quite telling.
Is it? Hell it's your party that invented the whole quota system. In any case I was simply posing the question back to you since you seem to think there aren't enough minorities in the GOP to level a racism charge.
Oh and I know a lot of liberals who belong to country clubs too. Funny how that is isn't it?
"The party's exclusion of racial minorities from elective positions"
You mistake the lack of minorities for an active exclusion. The Repubs simply don't pander to blacks. When the black "leadership" realizes that they are promised the moon by the Dems but are delivered far less, then you might see them return to the party that freed them from the literal slavery perpetrated on them by Dems (I say this as a Southerner, by the way). If Alabama wants to elect a racist to the Senate, and if West Virginia wants to elect a racist to the Senate, well I don't get a say in either of those states. But regardless, I think we should try very hard not to appoint people with clearly racist views to the Supreme Court.
@ Invisible Man
Throughout the length and breadth of people I know, I cannot think of one Caucasian-American that is in any way, shape, or form in favor of quotas based on identity politics. That particular Sisyphean struggle lies with those that think we need x amount of this color and y amount of that color to make a decision.
Bissage, you are evil. Deliciously, wickedly evil.
The party's exclusion of racial minorities from elective positions speaks louder than some racist remarks by Sessions or long-severed racist associations of Byrd.
Why do you jump to the conclusion that it's "exclusion?" Don't you think the jerrymandering might just maybe be a factor? The question is not whether the makeup of the delegations reflect the overall demographics, but whether they reflect the demographics of their districts, isn't it? Isn't that the whole idea of representative government?
You've got to love the guns questions.
The Heller 5 are still on the bench, so they can incorporate the 2d amendment against the states this upcoming term if they want.
They don't need Sotomayor's permission.
weird. I thought I only got to vote for my particular congressional seat. I didn't realize that I got a say in the ethnic make up of an entire congressional delegation.
Also, I would point out that nationally we're +50% women and neither delegation comes close to that, so does that mean that both parties are rotten sexist so-and-sos? Perhaps they are anyways. Women of the US unite! Throw off the shackles of the two party system!
-The Other Jeremy
Why do you jump to the conclusion that it's "exclusion?"
Exclusion might not be exactly the right word but the Republican party nominates its own candidates whatever the shape of the districts and they are very, very rarely nonwhite. Sure, jerrymandering will play a role in the relative demographics of each district. But the GOP is so wildly out of step with U.S. demographics, its hard not to read something into that.
You mistake the lack of minorities for an active exclusion. The Repubs simply don't pander to blacks.
You should ask JC Watts about the first sentence.
On the second, you pander to white's by making the "Ricci case" the most important case on the Supremes this year, as well as, the "wise latina" comment. You pander to pro-lifers with talk about overturning "Roe v Wade" while pretty much every important Republican politician always quitely says that they actually aren't planning to. You pander to Christians with the constant talk about threats to their religion, despite the fact that about 75% of the country are Christians. You pander to businesses with the constant couplings with the Chamber of Commerce to gut common sense regulations. You pander to woman, with the now toothless talk about "family values". I can go on and on. It's just funny that blacks and hispanics are a few groups that you won't pander to. It's like they aren't good enough for you.
so does that mean that both parties are rotten sexist so-and-sos?
Yes, I think there is sexism in politics as well as racism, and on both sides. For the record, 10% of the GOP Congressional delegation is women. 28% of the Dem delegation is women.
Considering that non-white or Hispanic conservatives are considered traitors by liberals and are treated exceptionally badly by them, it's not surprising that there may be a lesser number of them in public life. It takes a lot of fortitude to put up with that.
I am mildly uncomfortable with the thought of Sotomayor on the Court. And that is frankly because I am uncomfortable with any liberal leaner on the Court.
But she is doing well I think - coming across well. If she honestly believe the things she is saying about her intentions and discernment in judging, then she should be fine.
But that's the question isn't it?
This comment thread is as close to intellectual discourse as a Happy Meal is to gourmet dining.
"You're a racist" "No, you're a racist." "You're a worse racist." "You wish!"
How edifying.
For the record, 10% of the GOP Congressional delegation is women. 28% of the Dem delegation is women.
That's because it takes brains, reasoning power and fortitude to be a conservative and most women are too emotional, illogical and mushy, which is what it takes to be a liberal
Madame Feinstein is speaking about an amendment to some National Security bill that intentionally ties the hands of the President to keep him from nullifying bits of it.
Here's the problem with that -
Congress is basically a collection of P**sies, backbone-speaking wise.
If the law is supposed to say soemthing, then put it in the law, damn it! If you didn't do it right, then stop expecting the court to fix it. YOU (Congress) fix it!
Dust Bunny Queen
you forgot to add "empathetic"!
Feinstein expresses outrage that Sotomayor is portrayed as an activist. She can't possibly "be construed as an activist." She agrees with her colleagues on constitutional matters 98% of the time.
AGAIN - how many times do we have to listen to these stupid and/or dishonest Democrats?0
"activist" isn't whether a Judge agrees with his/her compatriots on the bench or not.
"Activist" is someone who makes law, not reads and applies the written law. See Roe v Wade, a decision that, despite the wet dreams of the non-Judge Democrat Senators, is considered poorly reasoned activism, a "judgement" that created a solution rather than applying what the Constituion said.
Again - if the Congress or the people don't like a law or it's effects - CHANGE the LAW!
And these are adults we elect who do this for a LIVING! SHIT!
The Republicans and a few conservative Dems put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Where's the love from minorities on that?
@ Invisible Man
I won't bore you with the equally lengthy, if not more so, list of pandering the Democrats do to their various voter blocs.
I think there's a basic misunderstanding that never seems to get mentioned on the demographic makeup of the parties.
As a card-carrying Libertarian, I want less government. Give me the basic services municipalities are supposed to provide (such as security, ie police and fire) and let me figure out the rest on my own. This tends toward the rural, or, at least, non-urban.
The demographics of the democrats relies heavily on urbanized areas. The dwellers of such areas are far more reliant on the system to provide their necessities and, ironically, far less likely to rely on each other in lieu of government.
Whatever the racial undertones and historical demographic spread of the country as far as who lives where, there are more whites in rural areas. There are more minorities in urban areas.
Draw whatever conclusions from that you want, but outside the context of the Democratic/Republican dichotomy, the Libertarian party tends to be younger with higher incomes, dwell more predominantly in rural or suburban areas and, shockingly, tends to be more white. That's not exclusionary, that's a mindset that tends to be held by one group of people of like-pigmented skin, apparently.
If you don't like others making decisions for you, I don't care what skin color you have or what your forefathers did or didn't do (a sentiment echoed by most Libertarians I know).
Come on in...the water's fine.
Talk about knee jerk prejudice, anyone who says that they honestly see Sonia as unintelligent after witnessing her careful responsiveness and friendly manner this morning is either pulling your leg or is clueless to legal procedures. One wonders what such a person's view of Sarah Palin's intelligence must then be. IMO they are both excellent thinkers and honest people worthy of the positions they seek. For both of these women we need to turn off our prejudice and turn on our power to observe what is really there in front of us.
The local wingnut's should be pleased to see that one of their "heroes" is staying right on top of this important hearing:
Glenn Beck is very upset with the softball questions that the Senators offered up to Judge Sonia Sotomayor during her first day of confirmation hearings.
Unfortunately for Beck, there were no questions on Monday. The first day of the hearings is when Senators and the nominee make opening statements.
Duh.
"The GOP Congressional delegation is 97.3% white.'
Yes, the GOP needs to brush up on its plantation skills. Afterall most of the minority DEMS represent districts where the majority of voters are also minorities. Therefore, it just proves the Dems are better at doling out crumbs to the minorities.
Lastly, the 67% figure sounds high to me. Do you have a link?
Anyone who thinks ANY judge, on ANY court, doesn't allow their own life experiences and background to influence their review and decisions relating to specific cases is dreaming.
There are certainly "cut and dry" decisions, based on settled law, some good and some bad, but there are also many cases that do actually involve the ability to understand the circumstances and influences that relate to one's own life.
The argument Sessions continues to throw out is nothing more than a red herring talking point that, with the exception of the far right conservatives who won't vote for her no matter what she has to say, isn't going to carry much weight and she will be overwhelmingly confirmed.
11:34: I'll be on Minnesota Public Radio soon, doing a call-in show that will be an hour or so long. Live streaming on-line. Here's the stream, they're having difficulty getting me connected.
Tuning in now. Who wants to take bets that they bring you on as a conservative blogger?
AJ Lynch said..."...it just proves the Dems are better at doling out crumbs to the minorities."
YEAH!!
Why does anybody have to "dole out crumbs" to anybody?
Shouldn't those who have the "crumbs" keep the "crumbs?"
Who the hell do these "minorities" think thney are...Americans?
Scott M said..."Tuning in now. Who wants to take bets that they bring you on as a conservative blogger?"
She IS a conservative blogger.
Are you daft or just sucking up?
Joseph said..."The unnaturally slow cadence of her voice grates on me."
Well, that's enough to stop this nominee right NOW!!
We need justices who talk FASTER!!
Shouldn't those who have the "crumbs" keep the "crumbs?"
Yes.
Get your own crumbs.
Dust Bunny Queen said..."Get your own crumbs."
Very Christian of you.
Of course, I already knew you were a Republican.
@Jeremy
Scott M said..."Tuning in now. Who wants to take bets that they bring you on as a conservative blogger?"
She IS a conservative blogger.
Are you daft or just sucking up?
How often do you listen to NPR? I do, quite often. Both in my own experience and widely mentioned in conservative chat is the fact that NPR is notorious for introducing the guest (ostensibly from the left) by name without an ideological moniker, then, in nearly the same breath, introduce the right-wing guest and identify them as such.
Of course, I already knew you were a Republican
Wrong again numbnuts.
Refreshingly, they brought both guests on by name and occupation. Well done!
AJ--Link re demographics.
Dust Bunny Queen - Sorry, my mistake. I meant:
Wingnut.
Scott M said..."Refreshingly, they brought both guests on by name and occupation. Well done!"
And the sucking continues...
Scott - I listen to NPR every day, but what does that have to do with whether Ann Althouse is or is not a "conservative" blogger?
She IS and anybody who frequents her site knows that.
She tries to represent herself as some kind of "independent," but that's a crock.
@Jeremy
Exactly who is being sucked up to? The host? Because that's who I was talking about. Pay attention.
Bissage:
You're the pause that refreshes!!
A Kafka lite.
Another wingnut argument out the window:
According to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor's reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present -- both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.
Scott M said..."Who wants to take bets that they bring you on as a conservative blogger?"
Are you not inferring Ann is NOT a "conservative blogger?"
She IS.
Refreshingly, they brought both guests on by name and occupation. Well done!
So much for notoriety.
"On the second, you pander"
IM, you need to back way off with the word "you." You wrongly assume i am some sort of Repub. I tend to vote for them much more often than I do Dems, mainly because I think they are closer to being correct on the most important issues than the Dems are. I'm not registered as a Repub (I don't think we register thusly in our state; you choose which primary to vote in when you vote), and have never donated money to any political party or candidate (though I have always checked that box to give a buck or two to support public campaign financing on my tax returns; never do that again EVER after BHO lied about using that money). There are enough things I don't agree with Repubs on (some of which you listed) to keep me from self-identifying as such. Nevertheless, I'll save Jeremy the trouble of insisting I'm a Repub and I'm dumb. I'll gladly concede both points (though I think them quite incorrect) if it will prevent at least one comment by Jeremy (Hi Jeremy! Hope all is well with you and yours! No, really!).
And the sucking continues...
Hi Jeremy how are you today? I'm fine thanks. Corn is waist high already and doing well.
You know I was thinking that you should have voted for the McCain/Palin team because Palin stated that she would be a voice for the mentally handicapped and special needs childrens in America and I feel that her loss is a bigger loss for you.
Joseph:
Thanks but that link did not provide the demographic breakdown of Dem Congressmen.
Someone, mayber it was not you, claimed it was almost 34% minority. That sounds high to me.
Dust Bunny Queen: Get your own crumbs.
Jeremy: Very Christian of you.
Yeah, because real Christianity is using the government to take other people's money away from them to support the charity of your choice. Mandatory charity under threat of prison term...that's Jeremy's idea of a real Christian, caring arrangement.
Corn is waist high already and doing well.
Gee, it's ten feet high in Central Ohio, and topped by tassles.
It was elephant's eye high on the 4th, even though that's normally Oklahoma.
I'm tempted to pedal down the road and take a picture.
Oaky I'm back pic.
Notice bike with wicker basket in front, file crate atop Delta Megarack in the rear, and garbage bag for waterproofing.
Draw whatever conclusions from that you want, but outside the context of the Democratic/Republican dichotomy, the Libertarian party tends to be younger with higher incomes, dwell more predominantly in rural or suburban areas and, shockingly, tends to be more white. That's not exclusionary, that's a mindset that tends to be held by one group of people of like-pigmented skin, apparently.
I've got a black friend who is about as Libertarian as they come and we've actually had some good discussion about this topic. I would agree somewhat with your stance that Libertarian's because of their more absolutist stand on the issues gets a pass on their make-up because they are pretty consistent across the board on their stances.
Crimso,
Whether you consider yourself a Republican or your just defending them as an agitator (sorry love that word), the point remains the same. You can identify with them however you want, but as you can see from the "plantation" comment, Republicans think that maybe African-Americans are too stupid to make a rationale decision or that there is some kind of mind control going on. Face it, Republicans in their willingness to use words like "plantation" to describe what is honestly a rationale decision, champion efforts against "reverse discrimination" while not careing one whit against just "discrimination" and to ignore black interests like urban centers while devoting their time to "real Americans" and "the heartland" aren't attractive as a party to African Americans. It's simple cause and effect as when Northeastern "liberal" Republicans ran the party, African Americans voted routinely for Republican candidates. Only those who can't accept that black people aren't stupid and that there are actual reasons for their voting patterns seem to have a problem with this.
Look at Hispanics. When Bush spent time trying to address their issues and there was little anti-pathy towards Hispanics by your party, Republicans did reasonably well. When the nativist elements began taking over and scores of Republicans began their hostile words and actions against Hispanics, that voting pattern began to change. Simple cause and effect.
You can identify with them however you want, but as you can see from the "plantation" comment, Republicans think that maybe African-Americans are too stupid to make a rationale decision or that there is some kind of mind control going on.
What does that say about Harry Belefonte referring to Powell and Rice as house slaves? Evidently to Harry those are a couple of 'darkies' who left the 'plantation' to work the good life for 'massa'.
Or was Harry trying to make some other kind of point? Help me out there.
p.s. Didn't Hillary make some kind of 'plantation' crack when she was losing ground to the very junior senator from Illinois?
Our corn in the greater Mil-ago or Chi-waukee (whichever city you care to put first) metroplex is very very short, not even knee high because of a cold spring.
My garden should be much farther along too, but I couldn't really get anything in the ground until mid June instead of around Mothers' Day which is when I usually plant.
I also had to replace my three grape tomato plants after a June 19th deluge knocked them over at the soil line.
@ Jeremy
Are you not inferring Ann is NOT a "conservative blogger?"
She IS.
I'm definitely not one to go pejorative, but...
Listen, you mental midget, first...I imply. You infer...and rather poorly. If you're going to slam people, you should pay attention first.
The status of Althouse's ideology is not the issue and never was. I don't really care if she's conservative or not. My implication, and I'm going to use very...tiny...words...so...you...can..get...it...was that NPR will bring on guests that are right-leaning by pointing out that they are, while never mentioning the leaning, one way or the other, of left-leaners.
It's a patently biased approach to talk radio in a forum the claims not to be. It's well documented. I hear it all the time.
When the nativist elements began taking over and scores of Republicans began their hostile words and actions against Hispanics, that voting pattern began to change.
Nativist? You mean those people who insisted that we not ignore our immigration laws and not turn a blind eye to millions of Hispanics who figure they don’t need to abide by our laws just because we need their votes? Can someone please tell me why by expecting Hispanics to obey the same fucking laws that someone from Russia, Ghana, Taiwan or Vietnam has to comply with to come here is called nativist? I always found the idea that Hispanics should have unfettered access to entry into the US whereas some poor clod from Africa or Asia has to suffer the indignity of filling out bullshit paperwork to be quite discriminatory.
Why don't we all stop pretending that non-whites would ever vote for the party that represents the interests of the people who founded and built the country: white men. The Democrats are an umbrella party under which all the various factions that resent straight, financially successful white men can gather to use the power of government to take money from those men and to give themselves special privileges like Affirmative Action because they can't compete otherwise. And then there's the "useful idiot" portion of the Democratic electorate, the whites who think they're doing the right thing by supporting the other anti-white-male grievance groups. Somewhere down the line these white liberals have an awakening coming to them like the awakening that hit the South African white liberals who worked to end the power monopoly of whites in their country, only to find the country became unlivable. Many of them have now decamped for Australia and Europe, shaking their heads in confusion about what went wrong.
You can't boil everything in American politics down to one thing, but you can come awfully close if that one thing is race. It's Darwinian competition for territory, resources, and power with conservative whites on one side and the grievance groups and white liberals on the other. We dress the fight up in pretty language about ideals but at root it's racial competition for resources. Latinos know that; Blacks know that; Asians know that. The only ones who haven't figured that out are white liberals.
Whatever the views of individual Dems, their delegation is largely representative of racial makeup of the country.
Not really, some 20% of the populace is Black, and the only Black in the Senate is Obama's replacement, Burris (and that is arguably negated by Byrd, D-KKK). On the other hand, somewhere around a dozen Senators are Jewish, almost all Democrats, and that group constitutes only a percent or so of the population. Note that these are the two ethnic demographics that have traditionally voted almost exclusively for Democrats. Realistically, if you believe in quotas, there should probably be about 20 or so, mostly Democratic, Black Senators, and one or two Jewish ones, instead of the other way around.
And, no, women do not differ racially from their menfolk. Senators Feinstein, Specter, Schumer, et al. are all Jewish, though not all male nor all female.
Hoosier -
They can't explain it because it is discriminatory. It's also....what's the word for it...oh yeah...ILLEGAL.
Since when did we award an entire group of people (of any size, shape or color) the right to pick and choose which laws they obey?
The reality is that the only reason that Leftists support illegal immigration is because of population trends. White liberals are depopulating themselves due to their embrace of abortion (see the "Roe Effect) while conservatives continue to have larger families. They already have the African-American population "locked down," so in order to offset the decline of whites they need to look for another group to compensate. The natural choice? The repeated cycle of unrestricted illegal immigration-amnesty-more illegal immigration-amnesty.
It's never been about tolerance for the Left. It's always been about numbers. If that means turning their heads while millions break the law, well that's just the price to be paid to keep their fingers on the levers of powers now isn't it?
Let's not forget that the ones who scream loudest about "living wages" are also the ones inhabiting New York and Los Angeles and have no problem at all paying sub-minimum wages to illegals. After all, you can't expect an upper middle class liberal to take care of their own children and mow their own lawns, can you?
And how can you afford to be a vegetarian if you're not artificially reducing the price of produce by employing illegal immigrants rather than paying a full wage to an American citizen?
How can you run a successful multi-billion dollar Ponzi scheme like Madoff unless you have illegals clean up the office after hours?
And those ultra-cheap, low-quality "low income" houses aren't going to build themselves you know. Without illegal immigrants, how can you keep the cost of construction under control?
It's quite amusing to watch Leftists lecture conservatives on tolerance while they hypocritically hold an entire population of people in quasi-slavery conditions for their own personal convenience.
But hey, we all know that Leftists are all for the downtrodden...so long as the downtrodden remember their proper place.
You mistake the lack of minorities for an active exclusion.
Exactly. I think most republicans would be thrilled to have more qualified minorities running as a republican, but when 90+% of African Americans vote Democrat, how likely do you think it is that the Republicans will get a bunch of representatives of that race? Hispanics are more likely to be Democrats as well, although not by as wide a margin as AA’s. Republicans have had trouble getting minorities to join the party, and the perception of Republicans as racist (mostly untrue) makes it difficult to recruit new members and new leaders. That perception is pushed by the Democrats and media in various forms including Hollywood.
In short, simple political demographics, rather than “exclusion” is the cause of most of that.
Considering that non-white or Hispanic conservatives are considered traitors by liberals and are treated exceptionally badly by them, it's not surprising that there may be a lesser number of them in public life.
That too.
Our corn in the greater Mil-ago or Chi-waukee (whichever city you care to put first) metroplex is very very short, not even knee high because of a cold spring.
My garden should be much farther along too, but I couldn't really get anything in the ground until mid June instead of around Mothers' Day which is when I usually plant.
Ah ....at last a conversation worth having.
We never plant corn. The growing season is too short. End of June to Sept, maybe. We can have snow or frost almost until the end of June some years and it has been unusually cold this year.
Tomatoes can barely make it through the season unless you start them early in a green house or planting beds with green house covers (like I do). Ditto with peppers or eggplant.
I'm going to pick all the rest of the Fava beans at lunch today for dinner tonight. The green peas are all done with now....too hot and the carrots are just getting beyond medium baby stage so out they come this weekend. I got a really great crop of French Shallots & Elephant Garlic this year.
I'm also experimenting with Fennel and Parsnips. They seem to be doing rather well. I always try to grow things that you can't usually get in the grocery story or that are super expensive. Next year I'm planning on Endamame.
Our apple trees are loaded and so are the Santa Rosa Plums and wild plum trees. No peaches this year the blossoms got frost bitten. Bummer.
Now isn't that better than arguing with mindless trolls about the same stuff over and over?
Thank you for this, Althouse. I'm at work and can't watch live. Great play-by-play that you can't get elsewhere. Your analysis makes the whole thing sound so exciting! ;)
DBQ - I'm experimenting with Brussels' sprouts, cauliflower, and eggplant this year.
I think I'm having a real bunny problem though because although I get really beautiful squash blossoms, when they're gone there's just an empty stem instead of a gorgeous little zucchini...
I had the hardest time finding grape tomato plants this year (although I finally found them) so I have lots of different types this year. Beefmasters (wonderful, meaty, heirlooms - had a one pounder year before last), Roma, Sweet 100's, Early Girls (still waiting on those), cherries, and the grapes. Two kinds of cukes and a straight neck yellow too.
MnMark said..."Yeah, because real Christianity is using the government to take other people's money away from them to support the charity of your choice."
I thought this country was founded on "Christian values?"
Are you saying the government has NO responsibility for helping their more unfortunate citizens?
And the silly canard you throw out, that "charity" represents "government to take other people's money away from them to support the charity of your choice" is ridiculous.
And unless you're a moron, you know it, too.
Scott - "Listen, you mental midget, first...I imply. You infer...and rather poorly. If you're going to slam people, you should pay attention first."
We can both infer and imply.
im⋅ply - to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith. (As YOU did)
n⋅fer - to guess; speculate; surmise.
(As YOU did)
Moron.
Shanna said..."Exactly. I think most republicans would be thrilled to have more qualified minorities running as a republican, but when 90+% of African Americans vote Democrat, how likely do you think it is that the Republicans will get a bunch of representatives of that race? Hispanics are more likely to be Democrats as well, although not by as wide a margin as AA’s."
Gee, ever wonder why there are so few minorities helping out with the Republican agenda?
Ever wonder why that "big tent" you tout has so few minorities included?
Any minority that votes or supports Republicans should have their heads examined.
And most of them already know that.
Definitions aside (if I'm wrong about nomenclature, so be it), you're original point is still invalid.
MnMark - "The Democrats are an umbrella party under which all the various factions that resent straight, financially successful white men can gather to use the power of government to take money from those men and to give themselves special privileges like Affirmative Action because they can't compete otherwise."
Saying Democrats or those who support Democrats "resent straight, financially successful white men"...is a perfect example of why the Republicans can't garner support from minorities.
It takes in Democrats, minorities and gays?...all in one fell swoop.
The comment is so over the top and impossible to defend or support via any real statistics or objective thinking, it's laughable.
Wingnut drivel...and really stupid.
Scott - Are you actually trying to say that I can't "infer" something?
That I have to be responding to something being "implied??"
That "infer" doesn't also mean: "to indicate or involve as a conclusion" (just as YOU did) or
"to guess; speculate" (just as YOU did) or "to hint; imply; suggest" (just as YOU did).
Do you own a dictionary? Ever crack it open?
You need to read more and blather less.
Our apple trees are loaded and so are the Santa Rosa Plums and wild plum trees.
Plums are the best!!! They were 98 cents a pound at fresh market this weekend, but I have to finish my watermelon before I bring the plums to work. I love Peanut butter sandwiches with plum jelly. I have been thinking about planting fruit trees, but I’m not sure how long I’m going to live in my current house. I have been there almost 5 years now, though, so I might as well I guess.
A thought for today. The NPR news and reports has always leaned left while it reports all the interesting events from the days news. In other words, they respect their audience enough not to cover up news, but do spin and sneer a lot about how smart liberals are and how dumb conservatives are. But for the last 4 months , NPR seems almost subversive to the new Obama guys because NPR still reports the news and adds their usual spin. Comparing NPR's shows to the rest of the media it is remarkable that the rest of the media just Does Not Report anything the Obama guys would wish unreported. No spin needed...its all censored and therefore never happened.
"The Constitution is a timeless document" Sonia Sotomayor
So are the Magna Charta and the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies.
The Honduran Constitution is also a timeless document, especially the term limit part.
pduggie said..."So are the Magna Charta and the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies."
WOW...GOOD ONE!!
Duh.
traditionalguy - Say what you want about NPR (and I'm not saying your complaining...at least as much as others), but they always allow BOTH sides of the story or discussion to be presented.
National Public Radio NEVER allows both sides to be represented. NPR is so steeped in its own moderate-left groupthink they think moderates are conservatives and socialists are moderates. Those idiots probably STILL think of Obama, the Wastrel-in-Chief, as "moderate," even though he was one of the three leftmost Senators on the Hill.
And that's exactly why they introduce moderate commentators, like Althouse, as 'conservative.' They think the Obama-voting, Madison-resident Althouse is a 'conservative,' the little darlings.
Anyone further right? than Althouse? A moderate Republican with a few true libertarian tendencies? Your AVERAGE middle class voter in rural Nebraska? They think those people are neo Nazis and LaRouche-supporting whackjobs.
NPR wouldn't recognize the conservative position if it bit them on the ass.
Jeremy, you REALLY need to get out more.
Even I don't believe the Constitution is a timeless document, and I'm a rock-ribbed conservative.
I can't see how Sotomayor can seriously claim she thinks it is. Maybe its a "rhetorical riff" and she doesn't really mean it, but says it, like "Go, America!" on July 4.
Jeremy...I agree. Today I have found myself being thankful for NPR's approach, and it feels like a twilight zone experence. They also talk slow and enunciate their words on NPR. Nevermind, I still oppose socialism and love the It Girl Palin.
"The answer is: It was just a pleasantry that suited the feel-good occasion and not meant to be taken seriously."
Is there any reason to think that SS isn't repeating this little rhetorical trick today as she swears fidelity to the law, the whole law and nothing but the law?
-The Other Jeremy
@ Jeremy
No, no...your original point about "sucking up" when nothing of the sort was occurring.
As far as your assertion that they always allow BOTH, as you put it, sides of an issue, you obviously don't listen to Roundtable (7pm central) very much or Tavis Smiley's show.
Hell, I like Tavis quite a bit and I'm certainly not an ideological cool-aid drinker, but you have to be either blind or simply being glib to say that always present both sides.
The original point that started all of this was the fact that they did the right thing and just introduced two people...not a person and a conservative.
I have been thinking about planting fruit trees, but I’m not sure how long I’m going to live in my current house. I have been there almost 5 years now, though, so I might as well I guess.
You might as well. Trees are a commitment to the future. If you don't use the fruit, someone else will and be grateful that you planted the tree.
Even I don't believe the Constitution is a timeless document, and I'm a rock-ribbed conservative.
And speaking of commitments to the future: I also don't think that the Constitution should be carved in stone, however it should be looked at as the foundation for everything else that came before us and will come in the future. Just like remodeling your house, there are somethings that can be remodeled and altered to keep up with the times, HOWEVER, you should never remove or destroy the foundation upon which you have built. If you don't like anything about your house...MOVE.
The Bill of Rights and the basic tenets of the Constitution should be rock solid and inviolate.
@Dust Bunny:
Which are the "basic tenets"?
Self-defense? necessary and proper? The 14th amendment? 3/5ths of a person? The method of calling constitutional conventions?
What I thought was funny was how circular Hatch's definitions of "fundamental" rights are
" deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition, that it is necessary to an Anglo- American regime of ordered liberty, or that it is an enduring American tradition."
Tradition! [cue Fiddler on the Roof Music]
Anglo-american tradition no less.
"Both Sessions and Sotomayor are terrific, by the way. This is a classic confrontation, at the highest level. It's a real thrill to listen in."
I wish I didn't have to work! Hope it's on C-Span tonight.
Her response seems to be "I was just pandering to the activists." The first time and all the other seven times. I hope the world sees what a lie this tribalism really is.
"by your party"
IM, you were doing well until you reached that point. Though I don't necessarily agree with where you were going, you were making a coherent argument. You then relapsed into assuming I am a Republican. You are forcing me to be a Republican against my will and I'd like for you to stop.
I think Hatch meant to say "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."
Sotomayor either misunderstood the question, is playing dumb, or doesn't understand the fundamental rights issue/incorporation.
This is the one where you tee up the answer about the second Justice Harlan and the incremental approach and how Griswold was rightly decided and the parental right to custody and direct the upbringing of their children cases.
Bonus points if you discuss Hugo Black's position how only the rights listed in the Bill of Rights should be incorporated.
9:21: Sotomayor makes the powerful statement that her "wise Latina" remark "was bad," that it was an attempt at at a play on something Justice O'Connor had said (that a wise man and a wise woman would reach the same result) and that it "fell flat." The context of her whole speech was to inspire young Hispanic students, to make them feel that their life experiences were a valuable asset. ADDED: So she answered the first of the questions I asked in yesterday's NYT op-ed: "When you said you hoped that 'a wise Latina' would make better judicial decisions, did you mean it as a pleasantry aimed at people who had invited you to speak about diversity or will you now defend the idea that decision-making on the Supreme Court is enhanced by an array of justices representing different backgrounds?" The answer is: It was just a pleasantry that suited the feel-good occasion and not meant to be taken seriously.
Sotomayor is lying when she claims that the "wise Latina" argument was simply a one time riff off O'Connor. This same racist nonsense was a staple of her speeches for years.
Jason said..."National Public Radio NEVER allows both sides to be represented."
That's a bald-faced lie.
I listen to NPR seven days a week and they ALWAYS provide a forum for BOTH sides.
You're full of shit and know it.
So she wants a second chance because she "misspoke"?
Would someone explain how her saying, essentially, "my ethnic group and my gender make better decisions that the other gender and that other ethnic group" can be considered "misspeaking"? What was she trying to say when she "misspoke" those words? What idea was she trying to communicate that just came out wrong?
And again, if she said to me that she was just trying to inspire Latinos, I'd ask "so the way you inspire young Latinos is to tell them that their ethnic group is superior to another?"
She has no reasonable answer to the charge that she is a Hispanic racist. She let the cat out of the bag when she was feeling a little too comfortable in front of a group of her people. Thing is, she was probably used to the privilege that non-whites enjoy of speaking racially without fear of censure. And here, unlike most non-whites who talk that way, she happened to run into a rare situation where she's actually being held to account for it. Don't let her off the hook for this. There is no excuse, and she should not be held to a lesser standard than anyone, even a white man. We can find Supreme Court justices who aren't racists. We don't have to settle for her.
Bart - "Sotomayor is lying..."
No, it's YOU who is lying.
Right wing drivel...and it won't mean a thing once this is over and done.
You're grasping at straws because the GOP is folding up like their supposed "big tent."
@pduggie
I think the sentiment expressed was the original concepts behind the original construction.
Yes, I consider self-defense to be a fundamental tenet. It's one of those prima facie things about continuing one's existence.
No, I don't consider the 3/5th's thing to be a basic tenet. If you read anything about how it all came together, you will see how agonizing that particular phrase became. If memory serves, it was a compromise to keep the slave states at the table.
MnMark said..."Would someone explain how her saying, essentially..."
She didn't "essentially say anything, asshole.
Read the ENTIRE statement.
You're a liar.
@Scott M
Concepts very well can be timeless. But aren't always.
But documents never are.
We're governed by a mutable text, not the platonic form of government.
I have no quarrel with Living Constiutionalists if they mean that they want to amend it.
We can amend it tomorrow to add religious tests, take out presidential term limits or ban flag burning.
@MnMark:
She was trying to say that if we get enough people of color on the courts, we can possibly avoid bad discriminatory cases that have come along in US history because we only have had white males on the bench.
Enough people of color over time will lead to some things slowly changing, so Go, you latino prospective judges! Get out there and be latino as possible.
But be sure to aspire to neutrality when you do, since you're supposed to.
MnMark
You are over-interpreting her speech. You are also putting words in her mouth and sentiments she did not actually use.
She has had many actual cases on the bench which you [or any Republicans] are not citing - many of which explains where she stands. I do not believe that she somehow has restrained herself on the bench. Her rulings show who she is much more than a speech.
Let's all be honest just once.
NPR invented & patented the far-left liberal news slant. Whenever I hear the little pussy news readers they seem to find & hire, I want to stop payment on the check I send to the IRS.
You are forcing me to be a Republican against my will and I'd like for you to stop.
That's usually how most of us end up in the party.
Pushed kicking and screaming by the other side...
@pduggie
It's unfortunate that the Living Document concept has seemingly been contorted to mean those that read things in to the Constitution that aren't specifically mentioned.
I, for one, see it as a living document in as much as it is the original law of the land, but, unlike stone tablets, can be changed. There is a very clear process for making that change and the Founders, wisely, made it very difficult.
I do tend to be Constructionist in the sense that I see a lot of things we regard as law that aren't anywhere in the Constitution, particularly in regards to federal power. However, I am perfectly fine with the process for changing it. This is what amendments are for and yet administration after administration and Congress after Congress out-do one another trying to tap dance around the very document most of them swore to uphold.
Sotomayor's statement in context:
"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.
I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise.
Second, 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.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.
Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group.
Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care.
Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.
My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
Given how many times she has backtracked on what she actually said, and claimed to have used a poor choice or words, how can we be confident that her words as a SC justice will be any at all precise.
The one qualification of a SC judge is to write precise and clear law, and she is showing that she isn't precise or at all clear on what she says.
It's Obama's fault that he thinks "empathy" is what we need in a judge. Actually, we need judgement.
"Empathy" is what a mother needs. What criminals require is judgement.
Moms should always forgive and have empathy, and there is no other scale of values.
But a judge needs to have other criteria besides empathy: if Obama had used another word: equity, responsibility, reasonable, realistic, or just about any other measure aside from empathy we wouldn't have all these controversies about PRINCIPLES (I don't think Obama understands principles at all, he's totally unprincipled from the ground up, unlike his predecessor, who was all about principles!). The left has no sense of ethical norms, or any standards of any kind except tolerance and empathy. It's why they're so useless.
If nothing else, it would be great if Americans learned this much about the left during these proceedings. The left is totally unprincipled.
Ben (The Tiger) said..."That's usually how most of us end up in the party.
Pushed kicking and screaming by the other side..."
And good riddance, too.
Kirby - "The left is totally unprincipled."
Gee, thanks for the valuable insight...especially after watching Bush & Company over the past eight years.
Right wing drivel.
"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."
How is that not racist? "A better conclusion" because of her race and sex?
She's disavowed it in the hearings, because she KNOWS she'd actually not be confirmed if she stuck with it - yet she said it in prepared remarks on multiple occasions, including published speeches.
I think she's the one who's a liar and knows it.
Wow. It's not just an act. You really are a bitter, petty person.
Did one of your mothers slap you around too much, or not enough?
But be sure to aspire to neutrality when you do, since you're supposed to.
What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
All of the whining (nothing new there) and hand wringing about how Sotomayor will be an "activist" judge...
Well, 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 %
Looks like we've already got three doing a good job of that...
avwh said..."How is that not racist? "A better conclusion" because of her race and sex?"
It's only racist if you're a fucking dolt.
"Life experiences" add credibility and intellect to any decisions one makes...unless of course, as she says, you think judges are robots.
Is that what you think?
"Life experiences" add credibility and intellect to any decisions one makes...unless of course, as she says, you think judges are robots.
So Obama's decisions have no credibility. Nice to hear you confirm it.
Well, 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 %
Still pulling number out of your ass with no citations, I see.
Man, Graham really put her on the hot seat. My response to some of his questions was WTF? ("What, in your opinion is the best way for society to change?") And he gave her homework assignments to research international humanitarian law and the positions the PRLDEF took re tax-paid abortions some 30 years ago. 'Cause he's coming back and he'll need answers.
I haven't been allowed near a corn patch since the drought year I was put to weeding. Honestly, young corn looks exactly like Johnson Grass.
The whole "Wise Latina" thing was just a botched joke?
Sounds like she did some strategerizing with John Kerry before today's hearing.
fls -
"'Cause he's coming back and he'll need answers."
She should have been prepared to answer those questions today. Her "I was just a fundraiser" defense wasn't ever going to fly: since when does an advocacy group file briefs stating a position that its board didn't first approve?
If he had asked some arcane question about which cases were cited in the briefs, OK, then she gets a pass as a member of the board probably wouldn't have that level of detailed knowledge. However, like many other subjects today, Sotomayor simply wasn't credible on this subject either.
Jeremy @ 4:02
I listen to NPR seven days a week"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
I think I'm beginning to see the problem.
That SWOOSH sound you just heard was the sound of your own words going over your own head.
You have no f***ing idea what "the other side of the argument" even is.
Asking someone like you about your libtard groupthink is like asking a fish about water. It's just totally beyond your adolescent, pathetically limited frame of reference.
Too funny!
On the second, you pander to white's by making the "Ricci case" the most important case on the Supremes this year
Can you name a case more important?
You pander to businesses with the constant couplings with the Chamber of Commerce to gut common sense regulations.
Can you name the regulations that worked well? Sarbanes/Oxley is as close as you'll get and it's a laughable joke.
Republicans think that maybe African-Americans are too stupid to make a rationale decision or that there is some kind of mind control going on.
Invisible, yet it's Dems who refer to any black that doesn't agree to them as not being "really" black...or being self-haters...or being sell outs.
Take your pick of the open-minded epithets bandied about.
And the silly canard you throw out, that "charity" represents "government to take other people's money away from them to support the charity of your choice" is ridiculous.
Jeremy, when the gov't taxes you to "help others" is, in fact, the government taking other away people's property to support the charity of your choice.
Sorry if you're not able to comprehend a rather straight-forward argument.
We can both infer and imply.
Jeremy, the writer can only imply. Inferring is done by the reader.
Any minority that votes or supports Republicans should have their heads examined.
Remember, though, even though Jeremy wrote this --- it's conservatives who think minorities aren't smart enough to make their own choices.
Really.
Ask a progressive and they'll all say the same thing...right after they call Thomas Scalia's puppet or other such loveliness.
Maguro -
"The whole "Wise Latina" thing was just a botched joke?"
A joke she "botched" several times over a period of years at that....
scifinity -
"Ask a progressive and they'll all say the same thing...right after they call Thomas Scalia's puppet or other such loveliness."
Let's not forget about all the wonderful names that have been given to Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell and others...It's not like they're picky about to whom they direct their racism.
All you have to do is be a minority and conservative and you'll find out in very short order just how ugly and racist the Left really is.
avwh
>How is that not racist?
Here is something Sotomayor will not say - but I will.
There was a time when white males ran everything. As far as the law was concerned it was skewed toward a white male point of view and did not give as much credence or respect for other cultures, women or people of color. In time, women and people of color have made headway in various professions - such as in the Judiciary system. As a result, a different point of view [on SOME legal precedents] have came forward. Suddenly women and people of color were part of the equation and things began to change in society. Change for the better.
So, yes, there are times when being a woman or a person of color on the bench will help expand legal rights to many parts of our society. And not just because they are now there - but because they can bring to the bench something a white male MAY not bring.
It's not a white male world anymore. And that's a good thing.
This does NOT mean that laws should be changed or ignored for any capricious reason. It just means interpretations and conclusions can be different when you have people other than white males making decisions.
Matt -
"Suddenly women and people of color were part of the equation and things began to change in society."
I love this deus ex machina explanation of women and people of color "suddenly" becoming part of the equation. They became part of the equation expressly because of the decisions of white men to include them in the equation: not one bit of the progress that has been made toward equality could have taken place without the decisions of "wise white males."
Pretending that it was anything other than it was is something that race grievance merchants engage in, but it doesn't make it accurate.
Let's ask Michael Steele how open-minded the Left was when they kept tossing Oreo cookies at him when he campaigned for Governor.
But, it's OK. He's not REALLY black. Just like Palin isn't REALLY a woman. So said Prof. Wendy Doniger, and if you can't trust a professor for calm and reasoned dialogue, who can you trust?
It just means interpretations and conclusions can be different when you have people other than white males making decisions.
You're so right. For example, if the law says that you can't discriminate on the basis of race, it might take a Wise Latina to realize that what the law actually means is that you can't discriminate against anyone except for white guys.
As a white guy, I would have been too dumb to figure that out.
Jim
> They became part of the equation expressly because of the decisions of white men to include them in the equation...
Yeah, but you are only taking into consideration one half of the equation. Your view seems to be that woman and people of color are just caged cattle and the act of freeing them was the only thing that mattered.
Do you actually think when slavery ended [for instance] society did not change? Or when Civil Rights legislation came along things did not change?
When white males [bless them] were kind enough to 'give' women and people of color rights that was only a half step. The other half was for women and people of color to define what that meant and to share and spread their points of view [whether artistic or political or what have you] with the world. And that CHANGED things further.
In short, white males took off the chains but they didn't coordinate the trajectory of the freedom.
Woman and people of color still had to do that. And that diversity is a gift to all of us. It's also different than the white experience. [Not necessarily better, but different and ultimately better for society - due to that diversity].
A joke she "botched" several times over a period of years at that....
When you're being paid to present an Up With People speech, why change it? Boilerplate means money without having to work hard.
Rats! I missed gardening talk.
My cherry tree yielded enough cherries (Montmorency) for two pies this year, and now the leaves are yellow, so something is stressing it. I'm thinking all the rain and cool weather. My peach tree has about 6 on it, and very few leaves. It looks horrid. Peach leaf blight earlier this year. I have to make sure to get all the old leaves off the ground, and to spray it next Spring.
I tried okra this year, and it's cold cold cold here. Not going to work. My basil isn't even a foot high. The peas never even germinated (or they were consumed by chipmunks). BUT. My beans are thriving, and the tomatoes look surprisingly good for how cold it's been. Next year my garden will be bigger.
DBQ, edamame are great in a succotash. Saute red peppers in olive oil, add edamame and fire-roasted corn (frozen, from TJs), and then lemon juice and cilantro. Yum. I've never grown edamame, but we get it from our CSA, and it's pretty easy to work with.
If he had asked some arcane question about which cases were cited in the briefs
Dude he's asking about 1980. If you vividly remember corporate policies from 1980 I doff my hat to you. Sometimes I can't remember if I took my pills in the morning.
I had no idea Graham was that good; he asked good questions, framed issues well, didn't badger or bully her, but she sure was squirming on the hot seat (deservedly so).
No wonder - she's got a lot of backpeddling to do (mainstream, she's not).
Maguro...LOL! The affirmative discrimination has never been FOR White Men since the Mid 1960s and most of us SAWBs have enjoyed about all of it that we can stand. Using Sonia Sotomayor's nomination as a time to fight that stuff is understandable and predictable. Obama and Axelrod's knew this, and their stategery is to send her up for Confirmation Show Trials like a red flag in the face of some bitter bulls. It will work unless we use great self control and discern the trap. Since Sonia is not offensive in her person and since she does have near perfect Judge's credentials, our attacking her with our stored up anger at the Affirmative Action days is only sending an irrevocable message to the 2012 voters raised in an Hispanic Culture that we hate them. FYI Sonia seems more Caucasian/Spanish than indigenous American or African in her ancestry. Everytime we go off on Sonia for past affirmative action offenses against us, we have in fact sent a huge in kind contribution to Pres. Obama's re-election campaign that is already hard at work among the hispanic swing voters with our help. And, dang it, she will be confirmed anyway by the 60 votes owned by the Dems plus the usual votes from the RINOs. I posit that if GWB had nominated her, then the Dems would be fighting her, and we Repubs would be praising her latino wisdom.
You're grasping at straws because the GOP is folding up like their supposed "big tent."
And the cares that infest the day shall fold their tents like the Arabs and as silently steal away.
Let's ask Michael Steele how open-minded the Left was when they kept tossing Oreo cookies at him when he campaigned for Governor.
How about you use a real example instead of fiction.
Matt -
"Your view seems to be that woman and people of color are just caged cattle and the act of freeing them was the only thing that mattered."
I was going to take you seriously, but when you start categorizing my position as that of seeing women and minorities as "caged cattle" then I can see that you're not actually trying to have a discussion, you just want to be ridiculously asinine. Fine. You win. You're an ass.
It doesn't matter what women or minorities did or said, their rights ultimately depended on white men passing suffrage and the Civil Rights Act. Women and minorities could have banged on the door all day, but it was white men who decided to open it.
Your failure to recognize that destroys the credibility of your argument. No one would care what a "wise Latina" thought if white men hadn't already decided that the "wise Latinas" decision was worth being heard. Her "wisdom" stands on the shoulder of that of white men, and both your and her failure to recognize that shows your own prejudices and an overall inability to understand the subject whatsoever.
Invisible -
"How about you use a real example instead of fiction."
How about you figure out that just because the Democrats denied they did it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I live in Maryland.
IT HAPPENED.
I was here. You weren't. Next time, you get your facts straight.
Rats! I missed gardening talk
Sorry. Just got done shelling, blanching and de-skinning about 5 pounds of Fava Beans. Based on the ones that I ate....the smooshed ones...I think they are going to be a big success.
We have three sweet cherry trees that are still babies and haven't made any cherries, yet. Our sour pie cherry tree was loaded to the gills but the birds beat us to the punch and ate them all...the little bstds. Next year we are going to put a net on the tree. Every year, with the exception of this one, our neighbor's tree bears fruit earlier and takes the hit.
Gardening....something that everyone of any political persuasion (well except the avid organic fanatics) can get along on. Think of it like when you visit your relatives that are liberal/conservative and you can't have conversations without fighting. Talk about gardening...or cooking.
Even a 'wise Lantina woman' might have something to offer.
fls -
"Dude he's asking about 1980. If you vividly remember corporate policies from 1980 I doff my hat to you."
It was a central tenet for the organization she was an integral part of. She's lying. You can try to cover for her all you like, but she's a complete liar.
[Even if she didn't have an independent recollection of the subject, she had as much opportunity as her interlocuters to review the material. She knows what it said, and she cannot possibly pretend that - a la Barack Obama - she "never heard them say such a thing."]
Between Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Sotomayor and others, there seems to be the world's most incredibly outbreak of selective amnesia known to man. Your politics may make that palatable to you, but it does destroy any semblance of credibility any of them ever had.
avwh
> I had no idea Graham was that good.
But he wasn't good. He kept cutting her off. And then he kept going off on tangents that didn't actually yield anything.
Look it's all a horse and pony show. The Dems thrown soft balls and the Reps throw mild hard balls and then everyone goes out for tea and we move on. No harm no foul.
traditionalguy
You are partially right. The more the GOP hammers Sotomayor the more Hispanic votes the GOP loses in 2012. However to suggest this nomination was some kind of conspiracy on the part of Obama and Axelrod is odd. If you believe that then what you are saying is that if they nominated ANYONE other than a White Male then they had an ulterior motive. That's more than cynical. That's silly.
Matt -
Literally every single item in your last post was 180 degrees off from the truth. But you keep pumping out the talking points like they have any resemblance at all to reality if that makes you feel better.
Jim
Not sure what you mean by literally... 180 from the truth? I say the Democrats are throwing soft balls. Does that mean you think they are throwing hard balls?
You are overstating the case. Rethink that position, friend.
Anyway, forget the caged cattle reference. Look at what I wrote in total. It seems to me you actually believe white folks GAVE blacks their freedom... end of story. Are you kidding me? People are born free and with rights. It takes one group to take it away from them. White men brought slaves over to the US. Did you forget that part? By your reasoning the blacks should get on their hands and knees and thank their masters for freeing them.
By your reasoning any gains made by a black man or woman should be greeted with a loud shout out to all the whites who made it possible for them to achieve success.
Can you not see how odd that is?
I mean, yes, some white folks voted for civil rights and deserve great praise. But surely not ALL did so maybe black folks should just thank Hubert Humphrey and LBJ. You know, carry around a sheet of paper of the white dudes they can praise and thank. Heh.
Now, back to the conversation. People of color and woman CAN bring a different view to things. That is not a bad thing. That is all I am saying. But, yes, the law always comes first. However, you would agree the law does change over time - and hopefully for the better.
For instance gays will be allowed to marry legally one day.
she had as much opportunity as her interlocuters to review the material.
Review her entire life? Sure, her whole life is relevant. In fact, I have everything I ever did, and everything done or thought or hoped by every person or organization I was ever associated with on a series of 3x5 index cards in four shoeboxes that I keep under the bed. It takes me four weeks, six hours a day, every time I want to get ready for an interview.
But, you know, being able to go back to Seventh Grade and think about Sharon once more is well worth it.
Just take my challenge and tell me something, anything, about the policies of any association you were part of in 1980
Matt -
Since you want to get into the slavery issue, let's not forget that it wasn't white people who sold blacks into slavery in the first place: it was Muslims and their fellow blacks. So get off your "blame the white man" horse.
The point I was making was that your analysis magically skipped the part of history where it was white men who voluntarily gave up their accumulated political and economic power to women and minorities. It wasn't taken by force. Those evil white men made the moral judgment to do the right thing without having some mysterious "wise Latina" decide for them what the right thing to do was.
You seem to think that magically one day minorities and women just came onto the political scene and pushed white men aside unwillingly.
That's counterfactual, and I was pointing that out.
You can hector me all you want claiming that I don't believe in inalienable rights, etc., but you are the one who has failed to acknowledge that it was white men who wrote those concepts into our legal system and white men who ultimately did the right thing and extended those rights to women and minorities.
You can extol the virtues of an inclusive system without denigrating white men or conveniently failing to mention that if not for the wisdom of the white men that the Left is so fond of tarring as racist, then Sotomayor wouldn't be sitting in front of the Senate seeking confirmation to the Supreme Court.
fls -
"Just take my challenge and tell me something, anything, about the policies of any association you were part of in 1980"
I wasn't part of any racial grievance associations in 1980. And I surely wasn't sitting on their board. I can tell you what my political leanings were in 1980, and what the policy positions of those who I supported were.
You're making excuses, and they're pathetic ones. You're trying to say that a person on the Board of Directors of a corporation in 1980 should somehow not be able to recall what products they manufactured. That's so patently ridiculous it's hard to know where to begin.
I can only assume that you're playing games for political purposes because otherwise you're suffering from the same selective amnesia as your fellow political travellers - and that's not exactly a recommendation of your cognitive faculties.
Matt -
180 degrees wrong. Ready?
"But he wasn't good. He kept cutting her off. And then he kept going off on tangents that didn't actually yield anything."
Then I suggest you look at various analyses from both the Left (and I don't mean the fevered swamps of kosLand) and the Right. The consensus is that both Sessions and Graham were extremely effective in their questioning and exposed severe weaknesses in Sotomayor.
"The more the GOP hammers Sotomayor the more Hispanic votes the GOP loses in 2012."
That's a Democratic talking point and nothing more unless an explicitly racist comment is made. To even imply this is to assume that: a) Hispanics are a homogenous voting bloc (which they aren't), b) that Hispanics are stupid and can't tell the difference between a legitimate line of inquiry and racism (maybe you assume that, but I don't), and c) that Democrats paid some political price for opposing Miguel Estrada explicitly because he was a conservative Hispanic.
"However to suggest this nomination was some kind of conspiracy on the part of Obama and Axelrod is odd."
It's not "odd," it's been pretty universally recognized that Obama picked Sotomayor specifically because she was both a woman and Latina - even by the Left. That you choose not to believe it leaves you odd man out.
"That's silly."
If you're describing your "analysis," then I agree.
Jim expects Sotomayor to have a level of recall that he himself lacks. By his own standards, Jim is not credible, because he is not intimately familiar with the positions of an association he was part of three decades ago.
Bye, Jim.
Matt...I was not there when Axelrod/Obama picked Sotomayor, so maybe my speculations are silly. But I take as a given that the pick was politically driven. Since Sotomayor is not very liberal at all, why did they pick her? In politics you ignore the group whose vote is already in the bag...for Obama that would be the Blacks, the Jews and the Muslims. Instead you focus all your efforts attracting voters who can either chose to ally with you or with your opponent...for Obama that would be the Catholics and the Hispanics. Now what group is Sotomayor from? Bush I understood her value, being from Texas where the GOP's relations with hispanic voters is an art.So maybe I am silly for thinking Axelrod/Obama came to that same conclusion. But maybe not.
fls -
"Jim is not credible, because he is not intimately familiar with the positions of an association he was part of three decades ago."
Evidently you lack even the slightest credential to be a judge: you refused to listen to the evidence.
I said I didn't belong to any associations three decades ago. So, the answer to your question was that I remembered every single position of every single association that I belonged to three decades ago because there were none.
No wonder you're a "former" law student. How's flipping burgers working out for you these days?
Evidently you lack even the slightest credential to be a judge: you refused to listen to the evidence.
Oh he listened to it and just didn't like what he heard. Therefore he took his ball and went home.
Jim expects Sotomayor to have a level of recall that he himself lacks. By his own standards, Jim is not credible, because he is not intimately familiar with the positions of an association he was part of three decades ago.
I agree. Jim is not credible enough to be a SCOTUS justice.
Just like Sotomayor.
Now, who is up for that position?
Thanks for sharing this great content, I really enjoyed the insign you bring to the topic, awesome stuff!
Gaveet construction
Post a Comment