Live feed from Sotomayor hearings, Day 4

posted at 9:26 am on July 16, 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. Sotomayor herself will finish today, followed by witnesses to testify for and against her appointment to the Supreme Court, including my friend Dr. Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life:


Sotomayor’s confirmation is a foregone conclusion, but that doesn’t mean that the Republicans haven’t been effective in their questioning of the nominee — and in painting Barack Obama as a radical activist on judicial philosophy. Sotomayor threw Obama’s empathy standard under the bus in an attempt to save herself, James Taranto concludes at the Wall Street Journal:

It’s easy enough to explain away Sotomayor’s repudiation of Obama’s judicial philosophy as a nominee’s saying what she must in order to ease her confirmation. It would be politically unwise, to say the least, for Sotomayor to say, “When deciding a case, I follow my heart.”

This explanation, however, is incomplete. You would expect someone who managed to get elected president to be at least as politically savvy as someone who’s spent the past 17 years on the bench. Why did Obama say he wanted judges with empathy–a statement so embarrassing that his own nominee was forced to repudiate it? …

Empathy denotes an awareness and understanding of the feelings and experiences of others. But because it has become an intellectual conceit, its connotations are the opposite. When people say that they have or value “empathy,” they end up conveying an ivory-tower detachment or disdain.

In Obama’s case, the paradox is compounded. By saying he wants judges with “empathy,” he demonstrates his lack of awareness of the actual experience of being a judge–that is, of serving in a role that requires one to adopt an attitude of detachment from the parties affected by one’s decisions.

If the GOP can drive that point home in these hearings — and they’ve managed to get Sotomayor herself to agree with them on it — then they’ve had as much success as they can get with only 40 members in the Senate Republican caucus.


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

Good analysis, Ed. They must be tough and they must be confident…this coming from a conservative Latina. Ooh…this live stuff starts off with tension.

RepubChica on July 16, 2009 at 9:41 AM

The average person in America thinks “following your heart” is the appropriate course of action in any situation. This is a result of decades of Hollywood movies and general liberalism.

While some success was made to reveal Sotomyaor for what she really is (to the few who notice,) I unfortunately have a hard time believing any of it will make any sort of difference.

Grafted on July 16, 2009 at 9:43 AM

Heh she is blinking like Baby Doc Duvalier…..

funny stuff…

sven10077 on July 16, 2009 at 9:46 AM

I better not watch, I’m at work atm and it might look a bit odd if I keep falling asleep at my desk.

Dreadnought223 on July 16, 2009 at 9:48 AM

More filibuster BS.
It’s like listeing to Obama.
Unadulterated BS!!

She is driving me crazy with her obfuscation!!!

katy on July 16, 2009 at 9:49 AM

this guy has her frazzled – which senator is that??

Ris4victory on July 16, 2009 at 9:56 AM

Sonia’s shuffling invisible dominoes again.

txsurveyor on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM

If observing legislating is akin to watching sausage making, then this is like watching sausage being digested.

whitetop on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM

Here’s a conspiracy theory for y’all-Jack Cashill has an interesting column about how she and two other Judges went after a journalist investigationg TWA 800.

http://www.cashill.com/twa800/sotomayor.htm

Del Dolemonte on July 16, 2009 at 9:58 AM

txsurveyor on July 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM

lol…so she is.

RepubChica on July 16, 2009 at 10:00 AM

Oh good, more of this gender pay gap nonsense. I guess the Latina thing isn’t coming through, so they’re going to shift to her muliebrity for victim group status.

TouchingTophet on July 16, 2009 at 10:05 AM

I like how her speeches are irrelevant to the dems during these hearings. Only her body of work over the last 17 years matters.

Yet, this nation “elected” a moron with NO BODY OF WORK whatsoever, only speeches. Typical liberal oxymoronic logic.

Ris4victory on July 16, 2009 at 10:11 AM

Kyl seemed particularly fired up today. Want to keep throwing around stimulus threats, Barry?

Kid from Brooklyn on July 16, 2009 at 10:12 AM

What she says in the hearings will be irrelevant to the decisions she makes from the bench.

Vashta.Nerada on July 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Did she just say she’d never support a group which advocated for something that ran contrary to the well-being of America? Wasn’t she involved with La Raza???

highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM

What she says in the hearings will be irrelevant to the decisions she makes from the bench.

Vashta.Nerada on July 16, 2009 at 10:13 AM

She hasn’t said a damned thing.

highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:21 AM

Another thing that bothers me is how often she says “different than.” I wouldn’t mention it if not for her “bristling” comment previously noted by HA.

TouchingTophet on July 16, 2009 at 10:24 AM

If she is such a wise Latina woman, why did she make such a stupid “better decision” statement? I’ll tell you why; it’s because she is not such a wise Latina woman.

What she is is just another minority woman that slopped at the government handout trough to game her way through free school. Anyone else that happened to be white would have had to pay their way.

If she was truly smart, she would have been resourceful enough to make money and pay her own way and not burden the taxpayers with her bills.

saiga on July 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM

Graham is firm and bringing up great issues but what he and other Reps don’t get is that she is NOT.. NOT going to change who she is.
Why do they preach and HOPE… she will do the right thing.
When will the Reps. learn these people are entrenched in radical ideals!
God! This is so aggravating.

katy on July 16, 2009 at 10:26 AM

Why is this lady filibustering with all of these associations?

ted c on July 16, 2009 at 10:29 AM

The kerphluffle over the empathy remark simply makes no sense to me. Judges aren’t just robots. We do want judges with a strong sense of empathy, which means nothing more than the ability to perceive where people are coming from and why. Law precedents are the bedrock, but obviously, the Supreme Court isn’t dealing with cases where there are already precedents. They pass on ruling on such cases.

More important, this type of harping seems to me to be firmly in the category of nitpicking.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

What she is is just another minority woman that slopped at the government handout trough to game her way through free school. Anyone else that happened to be white would have had to pay their way.

You kidding me? I’m white, and I would never have gotten through college without government programs.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Amy What’s Her Last Name from MINNESOTA just dropped my IQ 5 points.

SouthernGent on July 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM

Iowahawk has a hilarious article out about Sotomayor:

A Wise Latina Will Add Spice to the Menudo of Justice

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/07/a-wise-latina-will-add-spice-to-the-menudo-of-justice.html

yogi41 on July 16, 2009 at 10:35 AM

SouthernGent on July 16, 2009 at 10:34 AM

No kidding; that woman is boring and sounds suspiciously like Susan Collins, with that same quivering voice.

yogi41 on July 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM

You kidding me? I’m white, and I would never have gotten through college without government programs.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

I’ll bet you had to pay yours back.

saiga on July 16, 2009 at 10:38 AM

I’ll bet you had to pay yours back.

Only grad school GSLs. The rest? No. Scholarships are government programs, remember. So are student jobs.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM

She’s very plodding. Where is this sparkling personality I heard about?

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:46 AM

You kidding me? I’m white, and I would never have gotten through college without government programs.
AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:32 AM

No kidding? You must not have a lot of faith in yourself, you sound like a quitter.

Pretty sad and far too typical in today’s America.

Bishop on July 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM

We do want judges with a strong sense of empathy, which means nothing more than the ability to perceive where people are coming from and why.

The law is the law. All decisions made by judges should put the law before the motives of the people involved in the case. Brown v. Board of Education was a courageous decision, but it was emphasizing the legal definition of equality over empathy.

Law precedents are the bedrock, but obviously, the Supreme Court isn’t dealing with cases where there are already precedents. They pass on ruling on such cases.

Sen. Lindsay Graham and Sonia Sotomayor just had a lengthy discussion about the Second Amendment where there obviously are precedents and there were several specific examples given. Are you even watching this?

More important, this type of harping seems to me to be firmly in the category of nitpicking.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Well, yeah, AnninCA, the devil is in the details and stuff. Though Republicans are in no position to block her confirmation, it would be kind of nice to vet a candidate who will be appointed for life, not elected, and determine whether that person is reasonable and ethical or an idealogue.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

No kidding; that woman is boring and sounds suspiciously like Susan Collins, with that same quivering voice.

yogi41 on July 16, 2009 at 10:36 AM

Collins always reminds me of Katharine Hepburn in On Golden Pond: “Norman Thayer Jr., you old pooh.”

BuckeyeSam on July 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM

She can’t discuss same-sex marriage anymore than any of the other candidates have done in the past.

Why do these guys bother to ask these questions, other than for the public?

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM

Is it just me or does she have sure signs of osteoporosis? That may shorten her time on the Supreme Court.

journeyintothewhirlwind on July 16, 2009 at 10:51 AM

The law is the law. All decisions made by judges should put the law before the motives of the people involved in the case. Brown v. Board of Education was a courageous decision, but it was emphasizing the legal definition of equality over empathy.

Of course. That’s why I said, law is the bedrock. However, you still don’t want judges with no ability to empathize with people. They’d never grasp the issues underlying various cases if that were the case. I personally think that’s the problem with Thomas today on the bench. When I call people “clueless,” I mean just that: They don’t seem to grasp the people part of cases.

Those who DO grasp and still act in accordance with the law make total sense to me. Take the case where the woman was denied same pay, denied information about it until after the limitation passed on suing. That was, to me, a fair ruling.

The problem was the law, not the court ruling.

Hope that clarifies.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM

The kerphluffle over the empathy remark simply makes no sense to me. Judges aren’t just robots. We do want judges with a strong sense of empathy, which means nothing more than the ability to perceive where people are coming from and why. Law precedents are the bedrock, but obviously, the Supreme Court isn’t dealing with cases where there are already precedents. They pass on ruling on such cases.

More important, this type of harping seems to me to be firmly in the category of nitpicking.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Jeeze, you are clueless. The law, the Constitution is the bedrock not precedent. If precedent was the bedrock, we’d still have seperate but equal. What a dumb post.

Here’s a tip, go read Mark Levin’s book and report back on your findings.

Youngs98 on July 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Scholarships are government programs, remember. So are student jobs.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:45 AM

Depends on the scholarship. Alumni merit aren’t. Local women’s clubs or Kiwanni’s aren’t. Dependent of employee aren’t. I received a state board of regents scholarship, which could be characterized as a state government program.

In short, I’d speculate that a significant number of scholarships are not government programs.

BuckeyeSam on July 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

Sen. Lindsay Graham and Sonia Sotomayor just had a lengthy discussion about the Second Amendment where there obviously are precedents and there were several specific examples given. Are you even watching this?

I just turned it on. I’m sorry I missed it. I like his questions.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:55 AM

She can’t discuss same-sex marriage anymore than any of the other candidates have done in the past.

Why do these guys bother to ask these questions, other than for the public?

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:50 AM

That is exactly why they’re asking these questions. Haven’t you heard them asking “what am I going to tell my constituents” all throughout these hearings? The people need to know what this woman stands for because it’s the people at large who will be on the receiving end of her pronouncements.

TouchingTophet on July 16, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Well, yeah, AnninCA, the devil is in the details and stuff. Though Republicans are in no position to block her confirmation, it would be kind of nice to vet a candidate who will be appointed for life, not elected, and determine whether that person is reasonable and ethical or an idealogue.

Well, this confirmation hearing is pretty calm and a lot of the questions are good. Too many compliments on silly stuff from the Dems. Too many pointed remarks about Wise Woman from the GOP. Overall, it’s better than most in the past.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:57 AM

You kidding me? I’m white a liberal, and I would never have gotten through college without government programs voted for obama if I knew he was going to be such a moderate.

You, Anna in CA, are an embarassment to fellow californians, but I am used to living amongst your ilk.

jbh45 on July 16, 2009 at 10:59 AM

Here is Arlen Specter, one of the most senior members of this committee…

…You may proceed, freshie.

TouchingTophet on July 16, 2009 at 11:01 AM

She really wants that job.

bbhack on July 16, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Ed Morrissey, thank you so much for the live stream. This even gets past my company’s brute-force firewall and proxy. Many thanks!

ricer1 on July 16, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Sotofinger……..

Seven Percent Solution on July 16, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Poor Arlen has to sit next to Franken.

myrenovations on July 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM

She seems out of sorts answering even Specter’s questions. Cornyn questioned her right before Specter. I think Cornyn’s questions, especially the one about whether she believes MLK’s statement, really got to her. She really spit back the answer to that one.

labwriter on July 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM

” By saying he wants judges with “empathy,” he demonstrates his lack of awareness of the actual experience of being a judge–that is, of serving in a role that requires one to adopt an attitude of detachment from the parties affected by one’s decisions.”

Kinda like electing a community organizer who never had any executive experience as President of the United States…..?

Seven Percent Solution on July 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM

Poor Arlen has to sit next to Franken.
myrenovations on July 16, 2009 at 11:09 AM

Yep–at the kids’ table. And well he should.

labwriter on July 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM

I watched about 5 min this am with lindsy graham. What a Jerk *ff he is, he pretty much sounds like she is IN THE SEAT ALREADY. and she is going to be anti 2nd ammendment, yet in the ricci case she claims it was settled law, wasnt slavery settled law?
arent the bill of rights settled law?
She is playing both sides against the middle.
Woa is US/us if she gets in.

ColdWarrior57 on July 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Yep–at the kids’ table. And well he should.

labwriter on July 16, 2009 at 11:11 AM

LOL excellent

cmsinaz on July 16, 2009 at 11:13 AM

Franken looks completely out of place here.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:22 AM

… he pretty much sounds like she is IN THE SEAT ALREADY.

The GOP cannot block her, and on what grounds? She is being appointed by a Democratic president and his rubber stamp Congress.

Woe is US/us, if she gets in.

ColdWarrior57 on July 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Elections have consequences.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM

… he pretty much sounds like she is IN THE SEAT ALREADY.
The GOP cannot block her, and on what grounds? She is being appointed by a Democratic president and his rubber stamp Congress.

Woe is US/us, if she gets in.

ColdWarrior57 on July 16, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Elections have consequences.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM

On the grounds that she is INEPT, a bigot( La Raza “The Race ” MALDEF, If she were a white man with ties to the KKK she wouldnt even be there, a liar and a judicial activist.

ColdWarrior57 on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

ITA w/RepubChica b/c I am one as well.

ProudPalinFan on July 16, 2009 at 11:41 AM

On the grounds that she is INEPT, a bigot( La Raza “The Race ” MALDEF, If she were a white man with ties to the KKK she wouldnt even be there, a liar and a judicial activist.

ColdWarrior57 on July 16, 2009 at 11:37 AM

The Democrats are racists. Now they are appointing one of their own.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:48 AM

Is it just me or does she have sure signs of osteoporosis? That may shorten her time on the Supreme Court.

journeyintothewhirlwind on July 16, 2009 at 10:51 AM

Speaking as someone who has osteoporosis, how would that shorten her time on the SC? Might make it more painful, but shorten? I think not.

zeebeach on July 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM

She’s feeling her oats. Starting to pose questions herself.

She’s dull as dishwater, plodding and boring, as well as wrong. I don’t envy Roberts et.al. having to deal with her

JiangxiDad on July 16, 2009 at 11:50 AM

She is for Puerto Rico’s independence (in one speech she wrote) and with other issues I disagree with, this definitely killed it for me.

The problem with Newyorricans is that they can decide on what Puerto Rico should be, what it can become in the outcome of statehood vs. independence when that has been discussed ad nauseaum since the beginning of last century. That’s why PR is unstable right now.

There’s a bill right now brought out by RC Pedro Pierluisi, with voice and no vote – PR has no say on what POTUS does to the island – and if this bill goes thru she will vote AGAINST IT!!! Like I tweeted yesterday, POTUS can send troops to wars and PR has no say about it, even tho we support our troops. I am not in PR btw. I have a say on what PR can become b/c of other circumstances. Descendants of PR parents that exiled to the US born in the US HAVE NO SAY ON PR’S DESTINY!

Example: Jose Serrano, and the other two loons that are of the likes of Rev Jackson. Camera time, advocate for decisions that only the 4 million of Puerto Ricans have to make.

Abortion being discussed right now. Stomachache.

ProudPalinFan on July 16, 2009 at 11:53 AM

The issue of Puerto Rico as a whole will not be brought up by Rep or Dems b/c they are gonna approach her on other issues; they don’t care about what happens with PR because they would lose seats in House and Sen; then 4 million of Puerto Ricans CAN have voice AND vote.

This is a disappointing assessment since electoral participation in PR is approx. 86%. Why Obama and Hillary campaigned in PR for primaries? Because the Democrat Party allows that to happen. OTOH, Republican Party does not have that rule. Primaries are bound only to USA. Too bad. In PR, multiple trips from the Clintons gave Hillary the victory. Take it for what is worth. Digest it and if you care to discuss, go ahead and do so.

Besides my love, admiration and support for Sarah Palin, this matter is near and dear to my heart. Haven’t posted recently due to Twitter addiction but Ed and Allah (especially Allah) know me on Twitter.

Whatever decision is made in the US regarding the island of Puerto Rico, affects directly all benefits that PRicans have right now. Obama “might” look into this.

ProudPalinFan on July 16, 2009 at 12:00 PM

Leahy on the Second Amendment. He target shoots “all the time” for relaxation. Swell. Leahy, like Sotomayor, seems to think that the Second Amendment is about squirrel hunting. Good Lord.

labwriter on July 16, 2009 at 12:01 PM

The Dems have lowered the bar for the SCOTUS. This will come back to haunt the entire country.

d1carter on July 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM

Is it wrong to call a woman a tool?

Oh, well. Tool!

madmonkphotog on July 16, 2009 at 12:35 PM

Sotomayor’s confirmation is not quite a foregone conclusion. There is still a possibility, however faint, that the GOP’s questioning can so taint her that at least a few Dems will peel away. I don’t think that a few will, because they will be destroyed politically. But if fifteen or more are willing to do it, the numbers might just give the individuals cover. One other thing: it probably can’t be just the known Blue Dogs.

Ironically, if the GOP can find things that the Trial Lawyers Assn. (yes, it has a new name) dislikes, they may be able to do it. (In questioning potential jurors, lawyers ask questions that will get the OTHER side to use up their peremptory challenges.)

njcommuter on July 16, 2009 at 12:39 PM

She’s untouchable. But her ponderous rambling along with her incongruous table rubbing indicates the very real possibility that a functional idiot is about to become a supreme court justice.

Low scores, indeed.

mr1216 on July 16, 2009 at 12:44 PM

Has anyone else noticed that she says “SUPREEN COURT”?

I know I know, but I have really good ears and it bugs me.

LimaLimaMikeFoxtrot on July 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM

Has anyone else noticed that she says “SUPREEN COURT”?
I know I know, but I have really good ears and it bugs me.
LimaLimaMikeFoxtrot on July 16, 2009 at 12:53 PM

More irritating is this habit of treating monosyllabic words like “kind” as phonemic roller coaster rides.

Kiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnuuuuuuunnnnnddddduh. New Yorkers talk like this?

mr1216 on July 16, 2009 at 12:57 PM

Are the firefighters testifying?

stenwin77 on July 16, 2009 at 12:59 PM

It isn’t that Sotomayor doesn’t know better, its that she has no intention of doing better.

Speakup on July 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM

To me, the fluttering of the eyelids is a sign of a lack of confidence – this lady is accustomed to being the bully, not being bullied. This lady is dangerous.

Ris4victory on July 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Not a lawer, but I think you are simply wrong about the “precedents” issue. SCOTUS take up cases all the time that are similar to previous cases- that’s why stare decisis is such an issue.

cs89 on July 16, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Sotomayor’s goofy sweeping hand motions are as studied and practiced as her ponderous answers. It’s interesting to see the contrast of the way she has used her hands in these hearings and how she uses them in this 2005 clip.

labwriter on July 16, 2009 at 1:14 PM

If liberal Justices felt compelled by the plain language of our Constitution “Shall Not Be Infringed” would not have been a 5-4 decision.

Speakup on July 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM

he pretty much sounds like she is IN THE SEAT ALREADY.

The GOP cannot block her, and on what grounds? She is being appointed by a Democratic president and his rubber stamp Congress.

alliebobbitt on July 16, 2009 at 11:27 AM

That doesn’t mean that he has to vote for her, though, and he sounded like he would. And if he does, I’d find that a pretty stunning and incomprehensible action given how effective he was yesterday in highlighting her disingenuousness and/or failure to address core issues.

BTW, I find her voice really irritating!!!!

ProfessorMiao on July 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM

I can’t get today’s video, but has anyone been watching when people spend so much time praising her? Here’s what it all sounds like to me:

“Your story is so inspiring. We’re all so impressed that an ignorant Puerto Rican Latina could grow up to be a big fancy judge. In fact, we’re so impressed, that we’re going to put your diploma right here on the refrigerator so everyone can see it. Let’s have a big round of applause for Ms. Sotomayor because she’s done such a good job. Hasn’t she, everyone? Huh? Aw.. so round and cute, too.”

Daggett on July 16, 2009 at 1:51 PM

Who are these retards from the ABA? Do they get their positions with cereal box-tops, or what? This is pathetic.

progressoverpeace on July 16, 2009 at 1:58 PM

Not a lawer, but I think you are simply wrong about the “precedents” issue. SCOTUS take up cases all the time that are similar to previous cases- that’s why stare decisis is such an issue.

Well, they pass up a ton of cases because the issue has already been addressed. Usually the cases heard bring up a point that was not clarified or has caused trouble in implementing/applying, etc.

Hope that clarifies. I don’t recall them taking up a case just to reverse themselves. Even Dred Scott didn’t get reversed by the Court. It called for a constitutional amendment before it was addressed, unless my history here is way off.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM

You, Anna in CA, are an embarassment to fellow californians, but I am used to living amongst your ilk.

No doubt we disagree politically on many issues, but I voted for McCain/Palin.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 2:58 PM

“Your story is so inspiring. We’re all so impressed that an ignorant Puerto Rican Latina could grow up to be a big fancy judge. In fact, we’re so impressed, that we’re going to put your diploma right here on the refrigerator so everyone can see it. Let’s have a big round of applause for Ms. Sotomayor because she’s done such a good job. Hasn’t she, everyone? Huh? Aw.. so round and cute, too.”

Yes, they are condescending. It reminds me of how people used to talk to me when they learned I’d worked my way up a corporate ladder. There were a lot of “gee, for a woman…” type remarks.

The good news for those of you who dislike her, I betcha bucks that she’s gritting her teeth through these “compliments.”

I sure did.

AnninCA on July 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM

If Americans walk away w/anything from this,.let it be:
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION NEEDS TO GO!!
oh,..and crack is bad!…MmmKay!

christene on July 16, 2009 at 3:46 PM

WTF is David Cohn blathering about? He’s up there because he’s a union schmuck?

Jaibones on July 16, 2009 at 4:44 PM

Basically, it comes down to this:

Obama nominated her to the supreme court so he could gainer (more) support from the latin community. Doesn’t matter what her racist views are or her views on the 2nd amendment, etc.

That’s the only reason he nominated her. Period.

That and she can spin and lie through questioning with the best of ‘em.

RedbonePro on July 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM

Basically, it comes down to this:

Obama nominated her to the supreme court so he could gainer (more) support from the latin community. Doesn’t matter what her racist views are or her views on the 2nd amendment, etc.

That’s the only reason he nominated her. Period.

That and she can spin and lie through questioning with the best of ‘em.

RedbonePro on July 16, 2009 at 5:57 PM

More evidence that Obama really does not have any understanding of – in the respectful sense – our U.S. Constitution, he just has a type of gorging experience with it in his past. He gorged on what tasted good, he never digested it in any way that the “calories” incorporated as better stature on the man.

He does have and admire political scheming. That explains everything about him, and certainly explains the Sotomayor nomination, as also the Democrats’ preposterous chanting over her. I thought the classic example of such, the epitome of the Democrats’ political hunta, so to speak, was Feinstein simpering about being a woman and that “this has nothing to do with the law (her emphasis)…”

Here we have United States Senators and there the Democrat-kind among them are using this hearing process to evidence their awe about non-applicable characteristics. It’s an extremely sad thing to see.

I’m proud of and rather impressed with the Republicans, particularly Sessions, Kyl and even Graham. Cornyn has had a few moments but mostly, he’s passed on challenging nearly anything.

Lourdes on July 16, 2009 at 7:11 PM

And it’s sad to see the entire testimony from those from New York are quite so set in what appears to be a form of urban hypnotism. They really are clueless as to greater perspectives beyond their quite didactic perceptions.

Lourdes on July 16, 2009 at 7:14 PM

Among the witnesses, highly understated but certainly should be one more profoundly escalated as to the issue he presented as his main concern was Nick Rosenkranz (“Georgetown University Law School Professor”).

He raised the very important issue of HOW our U.S. Constitution is or would be “interpreted” by Sotomayor should she be on the S.C., in reference to a speech she just delivered not too long ago on the merits and importance of the influence on the U.S. justice system of “foreign law” (about which, she says it “gets [her] juices flowing” about which I add, ewwww).

Rosenkranz made a clear complaint about his concerns in this specific regard, saying that he “is concerned about how Sotomayor would interpret the law…in interpreting the meaning of the Constitution (his emphasis).”

He raised the speech by Sotomayor, that she consults and finds of interest to her as also other “judges” she interacts with, “foreign law.”

Which Rosenkranz pointed out, “changes all the time.”

He continued, “(with) this contemporary reliance on foreign law…it follows that one can alter the meaning of the (U.S.) Constitution.”

He then said, “why would one NEED to even READ/consider the laws of…other lands?”

Sotomayor was asked earlier, I believe by Sessions, about the issue of the laws of other nations and how that might influence Sotomayor, she never clearly answered that except to go back to her “rulings” and the Constitution, etc.

BUT from her recent speech, it’s revealed there, as Rosenkranz clearly pointed out, Sotomayor herself declared in that speech her enthusiasm for “consulting” “foreign law” and active enjoyment in discussing it “with other (judges).”

So we have here, yet again, another case of Sotomayor revealing details about her inherent and quite troublesome biases in her speeches about which she declined to comment, avoided admitted or utterly clouded as to the issue in her testimony in these last few days.

The ISSUE here is how one defines our Constitution: it’s either what it is, or, one considers it “in flux” and changeable by the bench, which is judicial activism and it’s a highly popular desire by the Left that that’s what the courts do, they “make law” which they don’t in reality when the Constitution is respected.

The Constitution can only be changed — as one of the Republican Senators pointed out yesterday — “by Amendment by the people” not by anyone from the judiciary (who does not make law anyway, the Constitution defines them as not being able to do so or endowed with that capability).

But for those who consider foreign law — Sotomayor in her recent speech admitted as much and even defined it as a well enjoyed activity and practice — it suggests that they are, indeed, exploring behavior from other nations in reference to our own, and in that, considering the notion that our Constitution “can be” or may be changed (from the bench) or, how they might accomplish that, to be specific.

I got numerous of these contradictions from Sotomayor, despite what’s supposed to be her glowing academic skill, I heard from her many, many confused, confusing, illogical statements, also many that contradicted herself from one statement to the next, and, apparently, which stridently are contradicted, also, by her speeches (off the bench).

This reveals a (very problematic) state of mind. I don’t know at this point “which Sotomayor” is being lucid and which one is her “alter personality.”

Lourdes on July 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM

Did she just say she’d never support a group which advocated for something that ran contrary to the well-being of America? Wasn’t she involved with La Raza??? [emphasis mine :]

highhopes on July 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM

That’s yet another of her intellectual conceits: thinking that her involvement with La Raza *was* enhancing the well-being of ‘America’, as she sees it. (Whether or not ‘America’ refers to the two continents or just to our nation.)

RD on July 17, 2009 at 10:05 AM