Sweet: Graham makes Sotomayor squirm over “wise Latina” nonsense
posted at 6:30 pm on July 14, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The money bit comes between 14:45 and 17:45 when he forces her to confront the egregious double standard in what she said but I’m giving you the full half-hour interrogation just because it’s that good. CNN’s analysts were raving afterwards about what an expert cross-examination it was but I’m struck less by the substance than the tone, with Graham lapsing in and out of his genial southern gentleman routine to land some withering shots. (Right at the beginning, he mocks her shameless lying about empathy by saying, “I listened to you today, I think I’m listening to Judge Roberts.”) The highlight comes at 7:30, when he goes out of his way to tell her how much he likes her personally — before dredging up lawyers’ comments about what a bully she is on the bench. Well played, counselor.
It’s not all about tone, though. There’s little to be gained politically for the GOP in the hearing so Graham, very shrewdly, seems to be using it as an opportunity to lay down markers for the next time a GOP nominee comes up for confirmation. Note well what he says about giving people who’ve misspoken a second chance. He’s bound to remind the Democrats of that in defense of some Republican at a future date.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2
All my life experience tells me that you’re a typical liberal, i.e. a complete moron.
Any disagreement with my assessment proves conclusively that you’re just intolerant and unempathetic.
malclave on July 14, 2009 at 7:44 PM
ckoeber on July 14, 2009 at 7:37 PM
It just occurred to me that maybe you think the Supreme Court writes Constitutional Amendments, but you should know that they do not.
myrenovations on July 14, 2009 at 7:45 PM
Ouch.
chemman on July 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM
I can’t believe my eyes and ears … Graham is doing exactly what a member of the Republican opposition should be doing in this case … whaddafuh?
thirteen28 on July 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM
And how is the Constitution amended? Hint: it’s not done by the courts.
Come back after you’ve passed your civics class.
Fallen Sparrow on July 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM
Good point. The Constitution makes provision for its own amendment. My concerns are (1) when empathy, life experience, or race replaces merit as the qualifying criterion, and (2) when subjectivity replaces the Constitution as the basis for the decisions in our courts.
jazz_piano on July 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM
You need an elementary civics class asap.
The legislature creates laws and it is their job to understand how the law affects people.
The judiciary interprets the law nothing more. In fact, when in doubt, the judiciary has to look at and defer to “legislative history” in order to find the “legislative intent” of a law when performing interpretation instead of using “feelings”.
In fact, our entire system of common law is based on stare decisis
You really should get an elementary education before you make such ignorant posts leftist.
elduende on July 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM
At 6:23,when Sotomoyer,starts into a ‘broad provision’,
that is a dandy torpedo strike by Graham!
canopfor on July 14, 2009 at 7:47 PM
@3:14
Okay.
misslizzi on July 14, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Most liberals hold the same views that Sotomayor expressed, what, 7 times? The thing is, they know the majority of the country isn’t cool with reverse discrimination or racialism; therefore when it comes to things like elections and confirmations they pull the “Who, me??” act.
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Bishop will send them a quarter and direct them to call their parish priest and see if he cares.
chemman on July 14, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Bingo.
bluelightbrigade on July 14, 2009 at 7:49 PM
Isn’t the 1/2 and 1/2 mutt CIC worth about 10 million bucks? But he gets to retain all his minority pride due to his black half.
I am sure he is privately ashamed at night for his white half & that he passed through a horrid white vagine at birth (ickkkkkkkkkkk)
I too am ashamed of my whiteness and pray for the day the libs announce BIG WHITEY WITH LONGSTANDING FULL TIME JOB KILL THYSELF DAY////
Ris4victory on July 14, 2009 at 7:49 PM
you admitted at the onset that you haven’t been following these hearings, yet you are intent on debating the issues pertaining to them. Do you usually engage in serious discourse about topics that you yourself admit that you know little about? Where were you taught to do this, school?
atinga on July 14, 2009 at 7:50 PM
^ And also even a little tu quoque by bringing in Sandra Day O’Connor to muddy the issue sufficiently.
ddrintn on July 14, 2009 at 7:50 PM
I have come to the conclusion that arguing with a fool is in and of itself foolish. TTFN
thomasaur on July 14, 2009 at 7:51 PM
Watch out your ignorance of history is showing. There was a rebellion and a civil war that settled that issue not some judge on the Supreme Court. Moron.
elduende on July 14, 2009 at 7:51 PM
To be fair, at school they probably tell her that she is very special.
myrenovations on July 14, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I don’t understand why Obama ‘counts’ as Black. His Kenyan ancestors never experienced slavery, lynchings, or segregation here. And his mother is white–for all we know, she could be the descendant of slave-owners.
Yet in the world of identity politics, he ‘counts.’ *All* that matters is the color of his skin–not even what his ancestors did (or didn’t) suffer.
It’s the very opposite of MLK’s dream.
jazz_piano on July 14, 2009 at 7:52 PM
Life experience.
:]
bluelightbrigade on July 14, 2009 at 7:54 PM
Sotomoyer at 2:23 states,”I don’t use labels”!
I guess the ‘wise latino’comment wasn’t a label!!
canopfor on July 14, 2009 at 7:54 PM
You really are a couple sandwiches short of a picnic. Two SCOTUS decisions (one in the 60’s and one in the 90’s) ruled that the police are not there to protect but are there to solve crimes once they have been committed. According to those decisions they do not even have to intervene while a crime is occurring.
chemman on July 14, 2009 at 7:55 PM
Could have saved you some typing there….
Although I would have tried to get ‘Brain Dead’ in there somewhere…
BigWyo on July 14, 2009 at 7:56 PM
All 4 of my immediate grandparents were illiterate; none went past 3rd grade due to family and work issues – my mom’s mother picked cotton for a decade instead of attending school (and we’re all GASP, WHITE!!) So I am one generation removed from total illiteracy yet I am somehow a bad greedy freak rethuglican b/c I choose to actually work the same boring job for 19 years and make good money. Somehow I owe other people. Owe them WHAT??
Ris4victory on July 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM
Yeah sure. He really got her squirming when the matter is already decided.
Cudos on a great debating society win there Senator.
And if anyone here thinks this will make one iota of difference to the Democrats if and when a Republican Pres. nominates someone for the SCOTUS, you’re nutz.
Randy
williars on July 14, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Empathy. And cash.
myrenovations on July 14, 2009 at 8:01 PM
Truly & honest-to-God, can anyone here tell me why this video means anything if the man votes to have her confirmed?
Actions speak louder than words. I am tired of “words” with nothing to back them up from the Republican party. I call that BS.
kg598301 on July 14, 2009 at 8:02 PM
I have zero empathy for lazy wankers and racist chatterers. If they want my cash, they can come by and visit with me and my bestest buddy AR-15 & we can have a hand to heart “reparations discussion”.
Ris4victory on July 14, 2009 at 8:05 PM
I wish a Senator would say that “America elected a guy who said that ‘White greed” was running America, so ‘Wise Latina’ is mild compared to that, so if America is OK with the former, then they must be OK with the latter.
WoosterOh on July 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM
Some things to think about in the biography below. My memory is not what it once was, but I believe Cardozo did claim (or, if you like, admit) that judges do, from time to time, “make” law. This is something of an open secret across the pond in England, but I imagine the USSC has its moments as well. The point is that judges should strive to avoid correcting the legislature.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/cardozo.html
Please read in full. There’s more than enough irony to chew on as these things go.
Grunchy Cranola on July 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM
I’ve never really seen a video of her before this one – my impression is that she’s slimy and thick. Listen to that “well, to me it means…” Deconstructionist codswallop!
My friends, this is what happens when you surround yourselves with like-minded people only. We all need to hear opposing ideas, if only to remind ourselves why our moral foundations are so important.
This woman preens in the marinade of her oh-so-PC status of the oppressed minority. See how high she has risen, even though she is a mediocre mind. She should fall on her knees and thank affirmative action every night before she goes to sleep.
disa on July 14, 2009 at 8:10 PM
‘An another thing! http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YzQ5Yzk0MzY2NmM1YmU3YjQ1NWFiNDI3NzhmNzU1N2U=
Grunchy Cranola on July 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM
Her put-on obsequious manner is disgusting in its transparent calculation. Disgusting.
I wish Graham had slapped her down for calling him “Sir” and asked to be referred to only as “Senator.”
benjamin on July 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM
she said “No Sir”. Shouldn’t she be calling him “Senator”?
ctmom on July 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM
Miss Lindsay will be first in line for a photo op with the latina racist as she dons the robe.
Fletch54 on July 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Is Latina a a label?
Is white male a label?
TheSitRep on July 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM
One paper cut at a time…
SouthernGent on July 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM
God, she is a FN idiot.
She is no Roberts.
She is a dullard.
TheSitRep on July 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM
No one (rational) cares.
Abby Adams on July 14, 2009 at 8:18 PM
“Senator”?
ctmom on July 14,2009 at 8:15PM.
ctmom: Very good point! I bet,Graham would get Senator if he
had a (D)!!:)
canopfor on July 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM
Glad you asked. Let Thurgood Marshall, pioneer jurist, answer that one for you:
Get it, white devil?
Imagine…some Republicans opposed this man as a Justice! Imagine!!
Chris_Balsz on July 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Sotomoyer has to go,she is an ‘ACTIVIIST’!
Just like Obama,who is a community agitator,
Presidential Activist!!
canopfor on July 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM
I mean he is the only member of that committee who was an actual…judge.
Squid Shark on July 14, 2009 at 8:33 PM
Chris_Balsz on July 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Interesting link on Marshall. Too bad Sotomayor didn’t read and take it into consideration on her own court before she “decided” Ricci.
misslizzi on July 14, 2009 at 8:36 PM
I think Graham missed the point in his remarks about the “wise latina” comments that Sotomayor has made at least three times in speeches. It’s not about the political consequences, career impact or offending anyone. The real point is that if the law is applied according to a strict reading of its intent, any judge would arrive at more or less the same decision. There’s nothing inherent in the life of a latina woman or a caucasian man that instills a wisdom that overrides what the law actually says. Sotomayor seems to think that wisdom, however derived, provides an ability to apply law beyond what the letter of the law actually says. That is rule not by law, but by fiat.
NNtrancer on July 14, 2009 at 8:37 PM
You connected the dots for me CB – I have been called white devil before and was puzzled by it….. but now I KNOW WHY. I am deeply, horribly ashamed that I work only one full time job…..I shall slurk away to obtain additional jobsies so I can GIVE MORE
Ris4victory on July 14, 2009 at 8:39 PM
Sssssssssoooooooottttooooooooffffffiiiiinnnnggggeeerrrrrr……….
(say it, I know you want to)
Sssssssssoooooooottttooooooooffffffiiiiinnnnggggeeerrrrrr……….
Sssssssssoooooooottttooooooooffffffiiiiinnnnggggeeerrrrrr……….
Seven Percent Solution on July 14, 2009 at 8:55 PM
And? We already know you’re silly and confused.
Jim Treacher on July 14, 2009 at 8:57 PM
I loved Graham during “Impeachment”…and I’m completely impressed with what I’m watching today.
Smooth as liquid silk.
Woolite, baby!
Shivas Irons on July 14, 2009 at 8:58 PM
After being apalled for years by the thought of someone being considered 2/3 of a human being, I finally got off my dead butt and looked it up again.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
Three-fifths of all other persons. Not other persons are three-fifths of a human being.
Dan. on July 14, 2009 at 9:04 PM
jazz_piano on July 14, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I wish people would quit referring to The Won as ‘black’, ‘half and half’, or other similar things. Half White? Yup. Other half? Mostly Arab. A majority of the Great Grandparents on his father’s side were Arab muslims. It was passed down the paternal side, hence the Arabic name, hence the father’s official Kenyan status as Arab.
Of course he had to lie about it, because in a post 9/11 world, ‘the first Arab American President’ isn’t quite as sexy as ‘the first African American President’.
bikermailman on July 14, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Well, well a moderate Republican’s doing great work for our cause.
Good work, Senator Graham becuz we better be the ones to replace Justice Kennedy. Better than Prez Obama nominating… his wife, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Tom Daschle or Rahm Emmanuel or some other hyper-partisan.
HotAirJosef on July 14, 2009 at 9:22 PM
Graham is excellent. Touch without being mean. Sotomayor seems out of her depth.
TrueNorth on July 14, 2009 at 9:28 PM
“Hmmm…I can’t find the Latina quote…can you recite it for me?”
Classic! She was sweating bullets!
jgapinoy on July 14, 2009 at 9:31 PM
I have no trouble at all believing it.
Boehner/Graham 2012
JetBoy on July 14, 2009 at 9:32 PM
Funny, I find some POS liberal from a big city in a blue state (Schumer, Durbin, Feinstein, Kohl) trying to convince viewers that Sotomayor is the most accomplished nominee since [name your justice]. (Don’t get me started on Leahy.)
Please don’t piss in my ear and tell me its raining.
BuckeyeSam on July 14, 2009 at 9:42 PM
I’m betting that you don’t realize how idiotic you are by making this statement in reference to slavery and your perception of bigotry…
The Constitution was written in this manner for the express purpose of preventing the Southern slave-owning states from gaining power from having people in their population that weren’t given freedom. For the sake of example, let’s say that for every 10,000 people your state got a representative in the House. Let’s then say that in Vermont there were 120,000 citizens so they got 12 reps. Let’s say in Georgia there were 40,000 citizens and 100,000 slaves, so they got 4 + 6 = 10 reps. In this manner, the slave owners of the South could be prevented from forming a majority just by buying more slaves (representatives), and making slavery last perpetually. It is for exactly the opposite purpose for which you thought (think?) its for, its not to state that blacks/slaves were sub-human, but instead it was used to place restrictions on the slave owners so that they couldn’t obtain more political power simply by owning slaves. The Constitution’s wording and design made it a certainty that some day slavery would be abolished.
Stupid libs, why don’t you just sell your brains to science, because you certainly aren’t using them. I bet you think you can spend your way out of debt, spend yourself out of a recession, that the government makes jobs, that universal healthcare will give free and super-dee-duper medical care to all and that cap-n-trade will not only save the planet but also produce millions of green jobs (without losing any jobs from the ‘old’ energy sectors)…just start practicing saying, “Baahhhhh” and go stand in line.
/facepalm
Geministorm on July 14, 2009 at 9:45 PM
I have to say, I came into this thread with a very low opinion of Mr. Graham and thought of him as a sycophantic boob. After watching him and listening to some of his comments, he came off as a fairly intelligent man with some very well formed questions and demonstrated an understanding of the system I thought was beyond him.
He articulated that Roe v. Wade was something that should have been left up to the states since it was not mentioned in the Constitution.
He mentions that people worry that Justices in lifetime appointments can affect society when the understanding is that society wants power over their government and that the legislative branch is the body that makes the laws and also is responsible to the citizens. In effect, he sets up that the legislature should take back the power grabbed by the SCotUS.
He asks her to define herself, and what that definition means. She certainly seemed reluctant to state that she’s either an originalist or a strict constructionist. She flubbed her way through and never answered him, but rather than wait for her to drone on, he moved right into the next question/topic, making sure that the impression she left was of a person without a good understanding of anything. This was a great demonstration that when someone doesn’t have principles, they must often search for what they think is the “right” thing to say, as opposed to their true stand.
He asks her to answer her critics, which is a smooth way of determining how she handles criticism without criticizing her. It also gets her to explain her behavior without accusing her of anything other than the stating the perceptions of others.
Kudos Mr. Graham, well played.
He
Geministorm on July 14, 2009 at 10:09 PM
Does anyone even mention the now seemingly deceased constitutional amendment process?
rickyricardo on July 14, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Sen. Graham didn’t get very good marks for his questioning yesterday so he cranked it up a couple notches today.
Cindy Munford on July 14, 2009 at 10:16 PM
I believe Sen. Sessions was a judge.
Cindy Munford on July 14, 2009 at 10:18 PM
The sad fact is that GOP senators will confirm this dolt. But absolutely nothing will change when a Republican is doint the nominating. Obstruction, obstruction, obstruction.
Where’s the democrat McCain organizing a Gang of 14? Yeah, I know….
Carolina Kat on July 14, 2009 at 10:32 PM
Graham did a helluva job…for whatever it’s worth.
Dr. ZhivBlago on July 14, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Another affirmative action fraud to fill a top government position in the once-great United States of America.
First we have the fraud-to-end-all-frauds, Barry O’Bonehead, Used-Car-Salesman-in-Chief, flim-flamming around the world, apologizing for the greatest country in the history of organized government.
Then we have his ass-clown Attorney General, Eric “Dick” Holder, who – were he all white instead of half white – would be in private practice for the remainder of his career, disqualified from further service in the Justice Department over his malfeasance in the Marc Rich pardon by the real Attorney General (The Clenis, who was banging Rich’s buxom ex-wife at the time).
We have the single stupidest Speaker of the House in modern history, “Crazy Nancy” Pelosi; no introduction required.
And now we will have Senora Sotomayor – who declares her agreement with legal opinions by asserting that she’s pretty sure she does not agree with the opinion – writing opinions in the Supreme Court of the United States as long as she continues to breathe.
Oh, my.
Jaibones on July 14, 2009 at 10:56 PM
I have seen Lindsay Graham at his worst (probably the La Raza Awards dinner), and at his worst he is just dreadful.
And I suspect we have just seen him at his very best, so much so that I never dreamed he could be that good. Remarkable.
Jaibones on July 14, 2009 at 10:59 PM
I watched the whole thing, and come away with two conclusions about the Judge. One is that she is evasive and does not appreciate being asked tough questions. The other is that she seems to have osme sort of speech impediment. What’s the story behind that? Anyone know if she has had a stroke or anything in the past?
MikeA on July 14, 2009 at 11:41 PM
Do you really think that will matter if or when the time comes for Graham to defend a GOP nomination, though? Conservatives have to stop thinking like this — that pointing out inconsistencies will force a Democrat or Big Media member to say, “You know, you’re right. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and push for confirmation.” Not a chance. There’s a reason that only conservatives get Borked.
Anyway, Graham was awesome today.
holygoat on July 14, 2009 at 11:47 PM
I’m just going to say it; she’s as dumb as dirt.
mr1216 on July 14, 2009 at 11:48 PM
She was smart enough to play dumb when Graham asked her to recite the wise latina quote. She seemd to know how that was going to look in the next GOP ad.
MikeA on July 14, 2009 at 11:52 PM
He was far to easy on this bigot and she is a racist bigot, she is just smiling now, she will be changing the constitution in two months. Good show voters.
workingforpigs on July 15, 2009 at 12:28 AM
Dems! Now is the time to show the “wisdom” of Sotomayor’s comments and send sixty wise Latina women to the Senate. Why, your present Senators would understand…
IlikedAUH2O on July 15, 2009 at 12:41 AM
Sotomayor:Obama::Incitatus:Caligula
daesleeper on July 15, 2009 at 1:45 AM
Yeah? SOO?!!
I still think she’s hawwt little GMILF liar. But I could teach her some things…
Ugly on July 15, 2009 at 3:33 AM
Sotomayor = like my old gf
Hot in the sack, cold in every other aspect. And a liar to boot.
Why is she so hot…I could help her retire.
Ugly on July 15, 2009 at 3:36 AM
Good questions from Graham. Frankly, she struggled.
They should press her on abortion to see if she knows what Ginsburg meant by using it to reduce “populations we don’t want more of”.
virgo on July 15, 2009 at 4:26 AM
This is first class, Graham should be a shoo in … oh.
This is dreadful, Sotomayor can’t even defend her own positions. Her absolute incapacity to reply to the bullying stuff spoke volumes. The more I hear of this woman, the more I think she’s not fit to be a judge let alone on SCOTUS.
And if I were to have to come up before her as a defendant, I would be very worried I would not get justice. What would happen if she empathised with my accuser for some reason (I don’t know because her “experiences” make her fancy him or something)?
Hope on July 15, 2009 at 4:47 AM
Mr. Rodgers has a good day of questioning. Big deal. He’s still part of the Casper Milquetoast branch of the GOP
Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 4:59 AM
Yeah, agreed on both accounts.
I do wish Graham had continued on, however, toward a “frisson” (hate to sound snooty but that’s the concept that works here), a one-moment, heightened-point of conclusiveness upon which the story pivots in tone and direction.
Graham had that in his sites but then trailed off, letting Sotomayor off the possible hook that’d been set already.
Kyl, Graham and Sessions have done quite well so far. I do wish they’d take these issues home with her, though. They began confrontations yesterday on so many important issues and then just let the potential win lapse.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 8:52 AM
After hearing and watching her yesterday, I’m convinced she’s not fit for the Bench, even moreso than I already was convinced of that. She is more suited to teaching “law” in a university where she’d be encouraged to be as loopey as she was yesterday but still be regarded as competent in a teaching capacity. Students would be feverishly going day to day trying to keep up with her wavy definitions and directions.
She does not belong on the Supreme Court. Thus, the Democrats will put her there.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 8:55 AM
Watching and listening to Sotomayor yesterday, it was like the Mad Teacher from Racist-Gender University. Like a twin to Ward Churchill or David Ayers: loopey, unspecific, non consistent, consistently inconsistent and routinely evasive.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 8:57 AM
We all know Graham can talk a good game; so can Bill Clinton. It is by their actions you will know them. Didn’t he already indicate he’s going to vote for her? If so, this is nothing more than pandering to conservatives and his vote will be pandering to minorities. Trust him at your peril.
SKYFOX on July 15, 2009 at 9:09 AM
Great Job Sen. Graham. Let her sink herself with her own words. She misuses her power as evidenced by peers evaluation.
Any Demoncrate who votes for her are doing so just to protect Roe and nothing more.
MSGTAS on July 15, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Just listened to this. Lindsey Graham did a great job. Very impressive.
zeebeach on July 15, 2009 at 10:35 AM
I don’t say this that often about my Senator, but Bravo Sen. Graham!
That is how you tear down the walls of Liberalism; calmly, intelligently and thouroughly.
MechEng5by5 on July 15, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Realizing that many on this forum hate Graham with a red-hot fury, I still think he can be and often is one of the best spokemen for conservative principles around, particularly, for some reason, when race is involved.
Second point, how can this country put such a blatant liar on the Supreme Court?
If she said “I regret the statements and repudiated the sentiment”, perhaps one could cut her some slack. But she obviously doesn’t regret or repudiate her views.
So I repeat, how can this country put such a blatant liar on the Supreme Court.
And, of course, the answer is that 53 % of the country sees nothing wrong with blatant lieing…as long as the liar is giving them what the other 47% owns.
notagool on July 15, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I understand that judges try to be careful about what they say and take everything into consideration, but how do you not immediately say that you don’t release the enemy back into battle?
I mean, Hollywood should have taught them that with ‘Saving Private Ryan’.
Nice job, Graham. Good stuff there.
ConDem on July 15, 2009 at 11:56 AM
He should have pressed harder and made her say the “wise Latina” quote again cause she certainly didn’t want to!
Advocate For Change on July 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Oooh. You know she didn’t want to. She was thinking, “please don’t find it, please don’t find it.”
ConDem on July 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM
The wise Latina lady simply misspoke – the same racist opinion four times over the last decade.
The fact that she has been mediocre on the appellate court shouldn’t disqualify her because after all she has the right racial identity for this administration.
That is all the qualifications she needs!
ObamatheMessiah on July 15, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I am not a fan of Graham but he is good here. Too bad as he said it won’t make a lick of difference.
RobCon on July 16, 2009 at 7:36 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2