Video: Sessions attacks “empathy” standard

posted at 2:20 pm on July 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Politico pronounces itself somewhat surprised to see Republicans going on the attack against Sonia Sotomayor in the opening round of her confirmation hearing. If so, they must not have acquainted themselves with Jeff Sessions, who got Borked before Robert Bork by this very committee as a judge before becoming a Senator. Sessions promised tough questioning, and he showed his hand in his opening statement as ranking member:

Senate Republicans mounted a surprisingly tough attack to open Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing Monday, with Sen. Jeff Sessions calling her belief in the importance of a judge’s personal background “shocking and offensive to me.”

“I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court,” said Session (R-Ala.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. …

“Judge Sotomayor has said that she accepts that her opinions, sympathies, and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a fine organization, provides a clue as to her decision against the firefighters?” Sessions said. “It seems to me that… Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against the others.”

Sessions hits exactly on the problem of “empathy” as a model for judicial action. When judges start tweaking their rulings based on the relative sympathy of the plaintiff or the defendant, they deviate from the rule of law into the rule of whim — and even worse, the rule of politically-correct bias. Judges should impartially act according to the law, and not their sympathies.

Many will say that such a standard is impossible to meet in every instance, and I agree; humans see things through the prism of their own experiences. However, we should not use that as an excuse to make bias and sympathy the standard to apply rather than the potential for injustice that they will cause. That is the promise of the statue of Justice, which holds a scale while blindfolded to remind jurists not to tip that scale based on their personal passions.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Raaaaaaaaaacist!

lawtwin on July 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Finally, a Senator says what needs to be said.

Is that so hard? Is the MSM and the Democrats going to hate you any more than they already do?

NoDonkey on July 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM

You don’t set standards that allow perfection of result because no institution can be perfect. So, it is a cope out for people to argue that there is no way to have a disinterested standard of judging.

The whole point of our constitution was that perfection could never be attained, so we better ensure a balance of power among competing branches of government.

RedSoxNation on July 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM

May be true, Limey, but it is still fun to see some GOP’ers making her squirm a little. There should be some serious concerns with her and if they wanna go after her a bit, good for them. But yeah, she is a shoo-in. This is just pomp and circumstance for the Senate.

XWing5 on July 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Her confirmation may be a done deal, but it’s still necessary get her on the record regarding her positions.
I want to her what she officially says about international law as well.

redshirt on July 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Sessions/DeMint 2012! Seriously. Either way.

I’ve seen so much sense out of those guys that it’s scary.

TheUnrepentantGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM

“Empathy is not the Law”

No, but immigration “reform” will make sue that it is.

Fletch54 on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM

This is about Obama JUST as much as it is about her.

The public is watching.

And learning.

artist on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Because it’s on the record.

Jim Treacher on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM

Lady Justice is BLINDFOLDED. That is, unless a minority is sitting on the bench.

At which time the Socialists will become apologists, prostrate themselves, and defend the insertion of absurdities into the application of the law to the facts.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM

Go Sessions! Even squirrely-man, Graham has said some things that I totally agree with. Such as, “if I had said, a wise white man…I would be out of a job.”

JAM on July 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM

so we better ensure a balance of power among competing branches of government.

I see, so the goal is to make the Supreme Court as corrupt and incompetent as the White House and Congress?

Confirm this dingbat then, the goal is within our sight.

NoDonkey on July 13, 2009 at 2:30 PM

Ya know, even if it doesn’t make a dime’s worth of difference, I just really like the fact that she has to sit there and have her racist words thrown back in her face and she can’t respond until tomorrow. I can’t wait for that…

JAM on July 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Good gravy! Sessions came out swinging! And Sotomayor looks a little frazzled. He can break her.

Theworldisnotenough on July 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

That’s my feeling too except that it allows for speeches like this where Republicans get to make their case for why justices shouldn’t be allowed to break their oaths, and that just doesn’t get said often enough.

Esthier on July 13, 2009 at 2:34 PM

Lady Liberty is, in fact, wearing a blindfold for a reason.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

Lady Liberty is, in fact, wearing a blindfold for a reason.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

But apparently her vagina speaks volumes

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM

“I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court,”

Should be repeated, as a sort of unofficial oath of office before each and every Senator votes no on this nomination. It sums up perfectly why this woman is the Harriet Meirs of the Hispanic community.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Is shit-in an expression yet?

It should be after this.

NoDonkey on July 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM

That little smirk on her face is saying “I am so much wiser than you old white guy!”

txsurveyor on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Lady Liberty is, in fact, wearing a blindfold for a reason.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

She’s playing “Pin the tail on the donkey?”

Daggett on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Rational arguments on differences must be brought up. One day a Republican president will have a nominee and the difference in the behavior will be startling in contrast.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

Lady Liberty is, in fact, wearing a blindfold for a reason.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM

But alas, Sotomayor will be wearing a magnifying glass to hunt out a need for “empathy”.

Good for Sessions!

clnurnberg on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

She’s playing “Pin the tail on the donkey?”

Daggett on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

She’s going to be shot.

DarkCurrent on July 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM

I wonder what the atmosphere on the SCOTUS will be once she’s confirmed?

I reckon it’ll be like a chess club with a token down-syndrome member.

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Justice may be blindfolded, but the Democrats don’t seem to have a problem with her pushing down one side of her scales.

Ferris on July 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Maybe some twist of fate, along with a good dose of personal stupidity thrown in, will make Soto say something really crazy tomorrow and freak everyone out.

I haven’t even tried to keep track of this circus, but has anyone asked Soto what she meant with the “Wise Latina” comment?

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM

I just really like the fact that she has to sit there and have her racist words thrown back in her face and she can’t respond until tomorrow. I can’t wait for that…

JAM on July 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM

The filthy liar’s people who got her ready for these hearings knew this was coming (though they probably thought today would be a bit less pointed). Her responses will be inadequate. Leahy will get in front of the cameras and declare she answered the charges of being a radical racist to the satisfaction of her most avowed critics. Sessions will be more critical but the GOP will not really do anything other than make a statement before they almost all vote to alllow a racist on the court (not the first time, nor the last). This is all a show that before C-span would have been a couple days tops. Now the Senators all have to make their statements to fit their own agendas before voting precisely the way everybody knows the vote will go before it even started.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Sessions came out swinging! And Sotomayor looks a little frazzled. He can break her.

Theworldisnotenough on July 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM

Yes, yes he can. Plus, he’s stating issues far more intelligently than anyone else in the room (save but for Hatch and Kyl and the other GOP guy whose name, sorry, I forget at this point) and he most certainly has identified the objectionable and problematic, offensive areas as to Sotomayor’s character and intellect.

Sessions understands the issues very clearly and his objections are extremely important. Sad that so few are even aware of these issues, per Sessions complaints, but the Democrats in the Senate are keenly aware of them while trying to ignore Sessions (and those issues) altogether.

There’s no way ANYone can hear Sessions’ statements and then go on with honeydripping to and about Sotomayor, as the ever creepy Schumer is doing now.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Slam dunk for Sessions. That was exactly right on “empathy” = prejudice. Sotomayor knows it is right, too – you can watch her deflate as he speaks. He’s also dead-on about Ginsberg.

Marvelously done. Now, the party of character assassination shall commence its screaming din of “RRRRAAAAACIST!!!!” in 3…2…1…..

commenter on July 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM

I want to her what she officially says about international law as well.

redshirt on July 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM

The constitution violates it.

WashJeff on July 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

That’s sort of how I feel about it, though I hope I’m wrong. The Republican party of Hispanderers will pass her in spite of the fact that her judicial philosophy disqualifies her from the post. The Hispablicans want power more than they care if a SCOTUS judge will uphold Constitutional principles.

FloatingRock on July 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM

That little smirk on her face is saying “I am so much wiser than you old white guy!”
txsurveyor on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

The smirk says, “I’m going to pay your azz back, whitey.”

Soto has a chip on her shoulder almost as big as Ogabe’s; she has plans to get even just as he does.

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Schumer: “…women could be and SHOULD be outspoken and bold…”

So, I guess, then, that sets it, if you’re outspoken and bold and a woman, presto, you’re a cute Supreme Court girl woman Hispanic activist.

Schumer is such an idiot, I honestly can’t understand how it is and why that anyone would vote for him (or Leahy or Durbin).

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM

It’s must be tough for her to take this. She took a lot of deep breathes. She doesn’t look like the type who takes kindly to being lectured to well.

Rocks on July 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM

One day a Republican president will have a nominee and the difference in the behavior will be startling in contrast.

Cindy Munford on July 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM

We already did, and it already is, especially when contrasted with how our own president treated men who he admitted were more than qualified.

That this isn’t brought up more often, greatly bothers me, as it only proves that nothing will be learned from this. They take our goodwill and then spit in our face when it’s our turn to appoint someone.

But then we have to keep our temperament and not copy them, because it’s not only the right thing to do, we also can’t get away with the crap they can.

Esthier on July 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Schumer is just dripping with sexist statements, utterly prejudicial guy using “we are all equal” tag to try to justify his ugly speech glorifying how ~special~ to the office/appointment the woman-latina is.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The Hispablicans want power more than they care if a SCOTUS judge will uphold Constitutional principles.

Which is why they wont have either.

FloatingRock on July 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM

The smirk says, “I’m going to pay your azz back, whitey.”

Soto has a chip on her shoulder almost as big as Ogabe’s; she has plans to get even just as he does.

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM

Yep.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM

A Supreme Court Judge who’s decisions are based upon empathy is no different from a doctor who’s stated goal is to make people sick.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM

Why doesn’t anyone ask her to translate………..

” “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”, “?

Seven Percent Solution on July 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM

In a truly just and honest world, anyone who even proposed empathy as a judicial standard would be run out of the country on a rail. It is beyond parody to have a SCOTUS nominee who is put there because of, and actively champions, the use of empathy in jurisprudence.

Of course, after listening to that moron Franken act as if he has two brain cells to rub together, it’s clear that this nation is as insane and suicidal as any in history. We have become a joke that will only end with the bloodiest of punchlines.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM

DarkCurrent on July 13, 2009 at 2:40 PM

Ouch. Painfully true.

DrMagnolias on July 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

You ‘wasted’ time and bandwidth reading this post and wasted time and bandwidth responding to it.

gwelf on July 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Many will say that such a standard is impossible to meet in every instance, and I agree; humans see things through the prism of their own experiences. However, we should not use that as an excuse to make bias and sympathy the standard to apply rather than the potential for injustice that they will cause.

Bingo, Ed. Man is subjective. However, he has always been self aware of those limits and has sought to use his reason to both recognize and overcome them. This is why Sotomayor’s “wise latina” statement is so horrible. If you follow the reasoning down the logic hole, you’ll find yourself in a place where people don’t exist, justice is just another “natural” effect of a cosmic “process”, and might makes right. A white man brought up in a gated community has just as much ability to arrive at a just conclusion in a case in urban Atlanta as a black man from the “hood”. The idea that this is true goes all the way back to ol’ Euthyphro. The question of is something “just” because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it’s “just” is being played out before our very eyes.

Weight of Glory on July 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Because opposing the unqualified and the unsuitable is the right thing to do, even if it can’t ultimately succeed in this case. Judge Sotomayor’s opinions and ideals need to be disseminated as widely as possible, and the Obama administration needs to know that there will be a price to pay for each radical — or token — nominee who should not be confirmed.

No one should think this is borking. There should be no hysterical demagoguery about what will happen to the fabric of Western civilization if the nominee is confirmed. But the truth must be told, and the opposition party must learn how to stand up to racism (and the epithet of racist, wielded by the Left) in every case where it is the right thing to do.

Don’t forget Atticus Finch’s definition of courage:

I wanted you to see what real courage is, instead of getting the idea that courage is a man with a gun in his hand. It’s when you know you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.

(From To Kill a Mockingbird, courtesy of Wattpad)

Republicans in the Congress will need courage in the coming years, more than they have shown in the past. There’s nothing wrong with practicing it every chance they get.

brambo_42 on July 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM

You ‘wasted’ time and bandwidth reading this post and wasted time and bandwidth responding to it.

gwelf on July 13, 2009 at 2:50 PM

What a fascinating observation

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM

Seriously…why are you bothering to waste bandwidth on this pantomime.

She’s a shoo in

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Because it’s yet another reminder to all those independents/whatevers who voted for Obama and are somehow surprised that Obama is a liberal. Another example that elections have consequences.

gwelf on July 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM

There’s no way ANYone can hear Sessions’ statements and then go on with honeydripping to and about Sotomayor, as the ever creepy Schumer is doing now.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM

Uhmm, pardon me. Let me introduce you to Super-Schmuck-Shumer! Can bullshiite be laid on any thicker than what spews a$$es mouth!

Archimedes on July 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM

A Supreme Court Judge who’s decisions are based upon empathy is no different from a doctor who’s stated goal is to make people sick.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM

About your analogy, doctors, I’m going to go Schumer-sexist here and declare that in my entire lifetime of receiving medical care, I think I can reasonably and reliably state that men make for better doctors than do women, and, I’m thinking in this scenario (court), that that’s likely the case, too.

Women DO apply an elaboration to issues that males don’t, they do respond emotionally compared with many males (particularly among doctors, in my experience) and the conclusion is, with female physicians, the exchange becomes more about them than the patient by way of the emotional *something* they introduce to an appointment, while with male doctors, their focus (most of them) remains on issues. I had at some point an expectation that women would listen more astutely — empathy and all that — but they don’t.

I don’t know but all this sexist evaluation of Sotomayor has probably also set back standards by years same as the Black and Hispanic stuff has as to race and ethnicity.

I cannot see ANYthing about Sotomayor that merits the Supreme Court nor that her gender or ethnicity enable her in some mysterious as-yet unestablished way as to professional skill.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM

It’s must be tough for her to take this. She took a lot of deep breathes. She doesn’t look like the type who takes kindly to being lectured to well.

Rocks on July 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Do you know anybody who would take kindly to having their professional and personal careers scrutinized to this level- especially after having been through the process before? I’m guessing she and the filthy liar in the White House thought this would be a quick victory and though it will happen, I suspect this is taking a bit more political capital than the filthy liar had anticipated. He needed her to come out of this as the poor girl turned brilliant jurist. She’s going to come out of it as the racist radical. That doesn’t set things up well when Obama really wants to skew the court with the next nomination.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

I love how all the Dems are singing the praise of the Rule of Man, instead of law – in preference to the Rule of Law. This is certainly one for the history books … the section on the fall of great nations. These idiots don’t deserve civilized society, because they do nothing but try to destroy it. Savages.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Argh, she’s now speaking. Horrible voice.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

Gillibrand?! *gags*

pfamis on July 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM

Finally, a Republican with a pair. Her confirmation might be a foregone conclusion, but Republicans can at least get some points in so that America has an alternative viewpoint to the judicial activism, empathy and “wise latina” justice that are getting rammed down our throats..

JohnInCA on July 13, 2009 at 2:55 PM

It’s must be tough for her to take this. She took a lot of deep breathes. She doesn’t look like the type who takes kindly to being lectured to well.

Rocks on July 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Luckily, for her, most of it goes right over her head. Too many adjectives …

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Argh, Sotomayor’s now using the emotional “my mother” ploy. Stopped for stage-teary moment.

Now she’s going on about her “neediness”…I’ve known far more deprived persons in my lifetime who achieved great things and don’t go around beating their chests about their “neediness”.

Sotomayor’s crowing about her greatness now. Terrible.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM

She is going to be comically out of her depth on the SCOTUS.

She might yet be of some use to us

/darth

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM

Schumer: “…women could be and SHOULD be outspoken and bold…”

Senator, do you mean women such as Sarah Palin?

“Well uh…umm….noooo…uh…”

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Thx H.W.

pfamis on July 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM

Sotomayor is babbling about irrelevancies. What was with that silly smile about the baseball strike? Who cares?

This is a total joke.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Schumer: “…women could be and SHOULD be outspoken and bold…”

Senator, do you mean women such as Sarah Palin?

“Well uh…umm….noooo…uh…”

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM

If posed with such a question, Schumer would undoubtedly burst into flames, spontaneously combust.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:59 PM

A Supreme Court Judge who’s decisions are based upon empathy is no different from a doctor who’s stated goal is to make people sick.

Zetterson on July 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM

That doesn’t seem to be quite the right analogy. A Supreme Court Justice whose decisions are based on empathy is no different than a doctor who throws out everything learned at medical school in the treatment of patients.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

She is going to be comically out of her depth on the SCOTUS.

Not as long as Ginsberg’s there.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Sotomayor: “Fidelity to the law.”

Uh .. okay, Sonia. Lying in Senate hearings is right up there, too, I guess.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Argh, Sotomayor’s now using the emotional “my mother” ploy. Stopped for stage-teary moment.

Oh my…now I’m crying.

For my lost nation. Behold the disaster of demorat rule, personified by a fool about to be appointed to our highest court.

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

So, when is Sotomayor going to start thanking Perry Mason? Or quoting lines from various segments?

It’d make more sense than what she’s reading now.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM

Oh my…now I’m crying.

For my lost nation. Behold the disaster of demorat rule, personified by a fool about to be appointed to our highest court.

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

Yeah, me, too.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM

Great speech, and all very true.

tx2654 on July 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM

RECESS until tomorrow at nine a.m.

Her lies for today are now over.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Sotomayor’s crowing about her greatness now. Terrible.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM

To be fair, this is the mother of all job interviews and not the place to be overly humble.

That being said, I can’t watch much of these hearings. To see hypocrites like Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy, and Leahy lecture about morality, ethics, integrity, public service or any of the other concepts they don’t practice simply disgusts me.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Now she wants to “uphold the Constitution”. That empathy stuff disappears pretty quickly … huh. Or, maybe it was just a minor word play in that she wants to ‘hold up the Constitution … and strip it of all meaning.’

If she lies this blatantly now, in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, I can’t wait to see her wacky SCOTUS decisions. Whoopee!

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Her lies for today are now over.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Let the endless analysis and agenda-driven spin begin!

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Empathy is more important than the law. How can Sen. Sessions be so mean?

Cicero43 on July 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Schumer: “…women could be and SHOULD be outspoken and bold…”
Senator, do you mean women such as Sarah Palin?

“Well uh…umm….noooo…uh…”

Bishop on July 13, 2009 at 2:58 PM

PRECISELY!

Archimedes on July 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM

Wiley Coyote=”Hmmn, I like the way that rolls off the tongue
…Super-Duper-Scmuck-Shumer!

Archimedes on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Because it’s on the record.

Jim Treacher on July 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM

To be read by posterity, or something.

The country doesn’t care any more.

spmat on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Not as long as Ginsberg’s there.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I thought that’s who she is replacing

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM

She is as obsessed with her minority status like most other Diapercrats. It’s how they get places. Not through intelligence and excellence.

pfamis on July 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM

spmat on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Then give up. It’s never too soon to just give up.

Jim Treacher on July 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM

To be fair, this is the mother of all job interviews and not the place to be overly humble.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM

Her mother isn’t applying for any job and I strongly doubt Sotomayor is, either. Clearly, there’s this presumption of no-application necessary (and no one except Sessions, Kyl and Hatch are asking for and checking references).

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM

She is as obsessed with her minority status like most other Diapercrats. It’s how they get places. Not through intelligence and excellence.

pfamis on July 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM

That’s just one of the hallmarks of collectivism. Everything reduces to group dynamics.

This is the tribal nation we now live in.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM

She is going to be comically out of her depth on the SCOTUS.

Not as long as Ginsberg’s there.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

The requirements of her place on the SCOTUS will be to simply crib existing progressive rhetoric and take long meetings with the hive mind of Georgetown. The rest is giving commencement speeches and dealing with issues like finding the right gardener and help staff.

She’s there to promote and expand the influence of a worldview 120 years in the making. She’ll be fine.

spmat on July 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Let the endless analysis and agenda-driven spin begin!

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 3:04 PM

She patently lied in her reading of her statement moments ago. She said that the job was to apply the law, not interpret the law, this, after her many well recorded and laughing statements ridiculing NOT advocating from the bench. She’s a political activist who uses the judiciary to accomplish that primary goal. The very idea that we’re to believe today’s prepared, highly edited, if probably also coerced/”highly advised,” statement versus the many public statements she’s made that contradict that statement, is absurd.

She’s a political activist. The Democrats are putting on a show of theatre in this so-called “hearing”.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM

She looks like the anti-Roberts sitting there

phreshone on July 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM

Then give up. It’s never too soon to just give up.

Jim Treacher on July 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM

Already have. I’m just waiting for the persecution.

spmat on July 13, 2009 at 3:14 PM

the White House thought this would be a quick victory and though it will happen, I suspect this is taking a bit more political capital than the filthy liar had anticipated. He needed her to come out of this as the poor girl turned brilliant jurist. She’s going to come out of it as the racist radical. That doesn’t set things up well when Obama really wants to skew the court with the next nomination.

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

I agree with that completely. She was the safe pick, the “moderate” one, the one nobody could oppose because she was a latina, the same way he won because he was black. He was waiting to spring “the radical” on us next. Watch for next retirement very very quickly, before year end imo.

JiangxiDad on July 13, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Do you know anybody who would take kindly to having their professional and personal careers scrutinized to this level- especially after having been through the process before?

highhopes on July 13, 2009 at 2:54 PM

No, but Roberts and Alito SEEMED very relaxed and actually got into the process somewhat. These are just opening statements, she hasn’t even had to answer a question yet.

Rocks on July 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Not as long as Ginsberg’s there.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM

I thought that’s who she is replacing

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM

She’s up to replace Souter. Ginsberg’s hanging on until the Spring when Obama can nominate Ayers or perhaps David Geffen.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Kudos to Sessions for his statements.

Christien on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

With the empathy standard you could be perfectly fair in one ruling and way of base the next. It is why you have laws…that is the fairness.

tomas on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Her mother isn’t applying for any job and I strongly doubt Sotomayor is, either. Clearly, there’s this presumption of no-application necessary (and no one except Sessions, Kyl and Hatch are asking for and checking references).

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:11 PM

Established precedent. worked for Barry

JiangxiDad on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

My empathetic reponse caused me much embarrassment, as I watched Sotomayor lie like a fool while she knew that everyone knew she was lying. I’m thinking of suing Sotomayor for inflicting emotional distress on me, through my empathetic response. Being such a champion of empathy, she should have realized that the more sensitive of us would experience her immense embarrassment, as she made such a total fool of herself.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

With the empathy standard you could be perfectly fair in one ruling and way of base the next. It is why you have laws…that is the fairness.

tomas on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Laws? That’s whitey stuff.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM

My empathetic reponse caused me much embarrassment, as I watched Sotomayor lie like a fool while she knew that everyone knew she was lying. I’m thinking of suing Sotomayor for inflicting emotional distress on me, through my empathetic response. Being such a champion of empathy, she should have realized that the more sensitive of us would experience her immense embarrassment, as she made such a total fool of herself.

progressoverpeace on July 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

Yeah, I think — owww, my neck — I think I’m experiencing some post traumatic feelings, I could use a few lawsuits to bring about social justice. For my feelings. Ouch, my neck.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM

“Empathy for one group is prejudice against another.”

budorob on July 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Why doesn’t anyone ask her to translate………..

” “Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada”, “?

Seven Percent Solution on July 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM

Translation: “Herrenvolk”.

Johan Klaus on July 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM

She’s up to replace Souter. Ginsberg’s hanging on until the Spring when Obama can nominate Ayers or perhaps David Geffen.

Lourdes on July 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM

You’re right. Shit. I can’t keep track of these losers.

LimeyGeek on July 13, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Tough love is better than empty empathy.

JohnJ on July 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2