Live stream from the Sotomayor hearings: day 3
posted at 9:28 am on July 15, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Today at 9:30 am ET, Sonia Sotomayor returns to the Senate Judiciary Committee to continue the confirmation hearings for her nomination to the Supreme Court. So far, Sotomayor has not garnered too many favorable reviews for her performance yesterday, the first time America got to see Sotomayor in action. Today should be easier for Sotomayor, though, as the Republicans undoubtedly fired their biggest guns in the first round of questioning:
Today, the hearings should progress past Sotomayor and onto the witness list for the committee. These should provide some fireworks and sound bites, but mainly consist of people submitting either character references for the nominee, or advocacy groups testifying against her. For the most part, it will be a rehash of policy positions with little connection to Sotomayor herself.
If the panel gets to Frank Ricci today, the New Haven firefighter denied a promotion in part because of Sotomayor will lend some drama to the hearings. Don’t expect tough questioning of Ricci from either Republicans or Democrats, though. The Democrats have nothing to gain from attacking Ricci. They’ll universally praise his service to his community and the manner in which he overcame dyslexia to succeed. They don’t need to demonize Ricci in order to get Sotomayor confirmed, and so Ricci should have a pleasant day in the national spotlight.
Andrew Malcolm and his partners at Top of the Ticket have done a great job in live-blogging the hearings. Keep up with the transcripts at ToT.
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 Next »
She’s a leftist, racist bully. She’s a perfect pick…if you’re initials are BHO.
jgapinoy on July 15, 2009 at 9:31 AM
“You certainly demonstrated your composure & patience.”–Leaky
Not according to all of the lawyers & fellow judges who say she’s a bully!
jgapinoy on July 15, 2009 at 9:33 AM
its a good thing I DVRed some shows that I wanted to see! This country is meandering toward oblivion.
grapeknutz on July 15, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Live stream. Yeah, that pretty well sums it up.
whitetop on July 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM
She’s a lawyer and a judge, and claims she can’t speak straight and that she’s unclear. Great.
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Lie stream.
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Why does she keep arguing that her words mean something different than they mean?
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 9:43 AM
she does not sound very wise to me, but alas, I am a white simpleton
Ris4victory on July 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Will she be able to top 9.76 seconds for the record for longest awkward pause?
(For those unaware, it came yesterday on a question that is only thismuch tougher than “What is your name?”)
Abby Adams on July 15, 2009 at 9:44 AM
She’s really not that bright. I feel bad for the other justices who have to hang out with her for the rest of their lives. Really, who wouldn’t run as far as they could from her. She’s creepy.
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 9:46 AM
An appalling dearth of gravitas on display. Plus, she’s not really a very good liar.
hillbillyjim on July 15, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Another simpleton (non-lawyer) here.
Could someone enlighten me on a tenet of the law that I’ve had a hard time researching?
As a citizen, I have a right to “know” what the law is before I act on something. To me, that says justice can’t be “arbitrary”. What is that tenet?
——————————————————–
[As a white person, do I "know" how the law might be applied to me vs. how it might be applied to a minority? Is my pre-action "knowledge of the law" sufficient?]
jeanneb on July 15, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Even my 87 yr. old widow-neighbor who is quite deaf asked why Soto is lying so much.
OmahaConservative on July 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Pretty obvious this women was selected because of her skin color and ethnic background. She’s a dolt and everybody knows it.
Hummer53 on July 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
She must have had a chat with Rahmbo yesterday. She’s a little testy today.
A bit more aggressive.
This is the perfect time to trip her up… if the Reps. keep up the temperature!
katy on July 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM
I have wondered if this lady was chosen because of her supposed aggressive attitude. I would think that most of the justices are extremely polite but I don’t think this nominee’s bulling tactics are going to work as planned. That said, I am as impressed with her brilliance as I am of our president’s reported intellect.
Cindy Munford on July 15, 2009 at 9:54 AM
She’s proving her lack of judicial temperment.
katy on July 15, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Hummer53 on July 15, 2009 at 9:52 AM
she was also picked for politcal reasons, wich is a big reason why the republicans have to play super nice to her, or else the’ll scream non stop racisim…
SHARPTOOTH on July 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
If there is one thing I have learned this week it is this:
If our republic is to be saved, it will NOT be the republicans that will save it.
-Dave
Dave R. on July 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM
FIFY. That’s no lady. Nothing ladylike about her composure or deportment.
OmahaConservative on July 15, 2009 at 9:59 AM
So she is milk toast. Who comes next? Ginsberg is obviously on the way out, and Thomas and Alito will never make it to 2016 before they lay down the gavel. I seriously doubt Thomas will make it to 2012. If identity politics is the model then the Thomas replacement will be our knife in the throat.
Limerick on July 15, 2009 at 10:01 AM
Riiiiiight. Like there’s any way to avoid that.
Abby Adams on July 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM
On what are you basing this opinion?
zeebeach on July 15, 2009 at 10:06 AM
Cornyn’s dumping on her for relying on the district court opinion in Ricci, which acknowledged the political pressure brought to bear to get the test results dumped.
Her response is very unpersuasive.
Leahy enters for the record Hispanic chamber of commerce shows of support. I can’t believe they’re pleased with her performance.
Sessions countered with a letter from the NRA.
BuckeyeSam on July 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Now the Democrats are using the public hearings to go on about baseball and how it is that “Maryland” considers Sotomayor “a hero.” How selfish of Senator Cardin (D-MD).
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Alito? You mean Scalia. Alito is fairly young. Thomas is fairly young too.
BuckeyeSam on July 15, 2009 at 10:09 AM
Laura Ingraham says she’s not going to call Lindsey Graham a soto-jerk.
She should…
OmahaConservative on July 15, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Just my gut. My belly has been right more times then my brain. My gut speaks, I listen.
Limerick on July 15, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Hehehe, thanks for sharing that, I laughed aloud when I read it, it’s an encouraging comment.
Seems all of the country can easily see that Sotomayor has bad character (she’s lying, and I agree that she is and has) but that somehow, the Democrats expect the nation to join with them in weeping about the joys of ethnic supremacy, racism and loopy judges.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Yes, sorry, Scalia. The 107d days here are obviously effecting my keyboard ;)
Limerick on July 15, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Yeah, it’s remarkable that that “Hispanic” group — there they go again, ethnic segregationists — are gungho on Sotomayor and they don’t cite specifically why; can’t we all recognize what it is they’re not spelling out, though.
SESSIONS introduced both a letter from the NRA Pres., LaPierre, but ALSO one from the Southern Baptist Association, both of which OBJECT TO SOTOMAYOR’S STATEMENTS FROM YESTERDAY.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 10:13 AM
That’s what all liberals do. They change the meaning of words to fit whatever argument they are trying to advance at the moment. They also do the same with positions of those who oppose liberal ideology; they take what you say, twist it all around, then demand that you defend something you did not say.
Skandia Recluse on July 15, 2009 at 10:15 AM
This dear old gem of a lady is African American, so she can hardly be labeled a racist.
OmahaConservative on July 15, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Where are these kinds of men in the GOP? The participate in this circus and pretend the tent isn’t on fire.
Limerick on July 15, 2009 at 10:21 AM
Never crossed my mind to think about her race, to any degree.
I find her remark refreshing, encouraging, due to, mostly, her advanced age and candor. She also isn’t likely to be someone keyed into party politics too closely of today since most of that is occuring on the internet, not that the neighbor isn’t using the internet, either.
It’s an encouraging statement to read that, is my only point, that she’d be candid and quite so observant as that.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM
Ahh two soundtracks! Anybody else experiencing this?
I wanna hear about how diversity is important!
Joe Caps on July 15, 2009 at 10:24 AM
How come she always looks like she is waxing the desk when she talks?
Star20 on July 15, 2009 at 10:25 AM
Got two streams open?
Ronnie on July 15, 2009 at 10:29 AM
LOL I had two windows open! D’oh!
Joe Caps on July 15, 2009 at 10:29 AM
The current Senator wants a judge who will stick up for the teenage girl who was gangraped because some guys thought she was a lesbian. I don’t know about anyone else here, but if there’s no doubt about guilt in that kind of situation, will Dems join in calling for summary execution immediately following conviction?
BuckeyeSam on July 15, 2009 at 10:30 AM
I want double secret service protection, a food taster, and daily physician-monitoring for Scalia until we get a non-Dem in the White House.
Maybe, if nothing else, this stuff might remind voters that elections have consequences. I can only pray that Obama just gets to replace liberal justices–Stevens and Ginsburg–and that’s it.
BuckeyeSam on July 15, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I met Justice Scalia last year and he still has 10+ years in him.
Wolftech on July 15, 2009 at 10:37 AM
Notice that these Democrats NEVER refer to homosexuals who commit sexual crimes against others as with other violent crimes.
Lourdes on July 15, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Why is she answering with “I can’t answer that in the abstract”. He’s giving pretty specific scenarios.
sherry on July 15, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Anyone know if this woman has ever married or had children? Her views are telling me NO AND NO
Liberal hags often choose to be barren (or maybe they aborted all their pre-existing kids?) – just curious……someone who may never have borne a child deciding if others can casually “off” their own babies. Grotesque/barbaric
Ris4victory on July 15, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I believe she is divorced but don’t quote me on it….
cmsinaz on July 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM
AP running that Sotomayor Refuses to Renounce Wise Latina Remarks.
tree hugging sister on July 15, 2009 at 10:49 AM
dumb
crash72 on July 15, 2009 at 10:56 AM
“constitutional right to self-defense”…..
dancing… dancing… tap dancing
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Mumbo Jumbo … is she just stupid? She can’t stay focused on answering a question. A simple direct question.
ORrighty on July 15, 2009 at 10:57 AM
+1
bill30097 on July 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM
She was married out of college, but got divorced after 7 or 8 years. No children. Apparently it was amicable, and not one of those ugly divorces you sometimes see.
Abby Adams on July 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM
Has she answered a single question?
Joe Caps on July 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I think I want to move to Oklahoma now :) Go Coburn, go!
Wolftech on July 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
She cannot answer a question on her opinion on self-defense.
She quotes NY law–imminent threat–allows lawful use of force to defend…
she responds with how “imminent” is the threat…
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM
She just can’t get herself to answer if we have the right to self defense.
That is some scary sh!t!!!
katy on July 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
let the citizen decide then let the court rule…
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
I think she answered what her name is. Does that count?
Wolftech on July 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
She is proving what a danger she poses to society. This is just incredible.
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
excellent question by coburn on foreign law.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:01 AM
purposeful ambiguity.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Why doesn’t she just sit there with her eyes closed, her hands cupping her ears, and loudly saying, “Tra la la, tra la la … I can’t hear you. Tra la la, tra la la … I can’t hear you …”
At least she’d be honest.
This moron poses an imminent danger to our society. She finds a right to privacy, but no right to individual self-defense.
I could just scream.
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Tom C’s taking her to school. Go Dr Coburn.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:04 AM
She’s taking the Clinton defense. Redefining “use” like he redefined the definition of “is”
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
I guess Coburn should have asked the moron if she finds an individual right to protect privacy … The whole “self-defense” thing seems to have thrown her for a loop.
Sheesh. This is like a Monty Python skit. Twit of the Year.
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Colburn would be an AWESOME president !!!!
stenwin77 on July 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
“Is it important that we ‘look good’ or should we have a jurisprudence IAW the Constitution?”
good question Dr. C
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
In conflict with her denial to admit that “public purpose” is not the same as “public use” from yesterday’s questioning about Kelo.
This is all a joke, right? Please say, “Yes.”
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
Liar. BS artist. Complete disaster for the US.
Oh God…
233 years in the making… destroyed in 6 months.
katy on July 15, 2009 at 11:06 AM
you don’t rule to please any crowd, you rule to get the law right…–sotomayor…
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:07 AM
who is this senator up now?
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
goosebumps?
goosebumps////?!?
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Is this guy crying?
sherry on July 15, 2009 at 11:08 AM
piel de gachina…(sic)
what a pandering fool
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM
What is it with libs…. leg thrills and goosebumps.
These poeple are sick.
katy on July 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Go kiss her Senator, go kiss her.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:09 AM
give her cover.
are you giving her an oath?
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Her dancing around the states’ rights to define death was a cute part of Coburn’s questioning .. especially considering that states have been where death has been defined for the duration of our Republic. All so that she didn’t get caught in the obvious hypocrisy of not stating that the determination of life clearly belongs in the same level of government as the determination of death.
But, those ideas of a Republic are so passe, these days.
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Simple pledge? Save it for a Hallmark card, you fool. Drill her with questions. Our future is at stake, jackass.
sherry on July 15, 2009 at 11:10 AM
That droning voice kills me. Now I know why she’s divorced.
JiangxiDad on July 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
PLDEF–board member.
Did atty’s make it a practice to vet legal findings w/ board?
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Future? What future?
The US was declared to be without a future on Nov 4th.
progressoverpeace on July 15, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I turned it off. I got sick of her doing this -
Coburn: Do you use foreign law to influence your decisions?
Sotomayor: Depends what the use of “use” is.
Emily M. on July 15, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Here’s the real “secret” of the Ricci case.
Assume you are a judge (doesn’t matter what court). Your caseload exceeds anything you ever thought possible. One person cannot do it alone. At least half of it is criminal, which takes precedence over civil cases.
You hire law clerks that you know from your time as an attorney. You set up a screening policy for assessing the civil cases as they come in. Part of that screening policy is dividing the cases into easy and hard.
Easy cases are those that are fact heavy – like custody cases, garden variety fraud cases, and your basic tort cases. Hard cases are those that involve mixed questions of fact & law. (There are more details but you get the drift)
Once the cases are divided, NO FURTHER JUDGE OVERSIGHT IS GIVEN TO THE EASY CASES. The law clerks are instructed to write the opinion according to “settled law” which usually means that the trial court is upheld (affirmed).
Out of the hard cases, a few are selected for “full” review which means that the rules saying that all cases get reviewed the same is complete crap.
In my opinion, Sotomayor never saw the Ricci case. She had already delegated the decision-making of the easy cases to her law clerk.
I don’t know how the dissent came to be but the case would likely NEVER have gotten certiorari without it. Most of these types of cases never go beyond the summary blowout.
The problem is that the law clerks have the delegated authority of the judge plus their own prejudices and bias which they either don’t control or actively use to decide cases.
Unchecked power plus lazy judges equals Ricci cases. Most of them never see the light of day and they sure as heck didn’t get justice. The result is forever used to deny them redress under the rubric of “you had your day in court.”
platypus on July 15, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Emily M. on July 15, 2009 at 11:12 AM
that’s the clinton defense–redefining words…
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:13 AM
LOL
txsurveyor on July 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
get to your question Senator–you’re filibustering.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
her answer: jury is important
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:15 AM
what a sad story… broken leg—big woop
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:16 AM
I know, that’s why it kills me. “You stupid people, with your ‘gun rights.’ You just don’t understand the meaning of ‘fundamental.’”
Emily M. on July 15, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Neither I nor she gets his question
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:18 AM
there’s a good question. Unchecked power
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:20 AM
It’s sad to see how ill informed and untrustworthy that this candidate views the Constitution.
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:21 AM
define “implicitly”
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:23 AM
sucking up to her service in some guy’s office.
“Stellar academic record” thanks to AA
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:25 AM
sucking up to Leahy…
Search/Seizure: Warrant Question–
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:26 AM
I wouldn’t trust this leftist at ALL!
Every person Obama picks is CRAP!
Leadership not fit for Office.
Obama is an embarrassment
JihadKiller1s1k on July 15, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Experience of society, vs technology of society
Notes: sheriff, return of evidence. Copies..archives progression of technology. Notes e-data, e-search functions. Matters that would’ve been returned to citizens are now eternally available to government.
raises privacy questions.
good question
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:28 AM
How does Constitution address “privacy envelope” and how she’d analyze that? good question
ted c on July 15, 2009 at 11:29 AM
I am hopping mad !
any one see warren hatch ask sotomayor about the second ammendment ?
The way I understood hatches q , was that HE thought that gun owner ship was still an OPEN question and wanted to know if she felt the same way.
STILL OPEN?
WTF. No wonder this country is in such trouble.
“SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
I guess getting a LAW degree makes you a retard!
ColdWarrior57 on July 15, 2009 at 11:30 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »