• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    eurobrat on One Tiny Mistake…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Evil people want to shove a so…
    riverdaughter on Evil people want to shove a so…
    campskunk on Evil people want to shove a so…
    eurobrat on D E F A U L T
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Tina Turner (1939-2023)
    jmac on D E F A U L T
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    jmac on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    William on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    Propertius on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
    Propertius on Does Game Theory Even Help Us…
  • Categories

  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

  • Top Posts

Sonia Sotomayor: Live Blogging the Confirmation Hearings

Sonia Sotomayor

114 Responses

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions#Federal_judgeship

    Federal judgeship

    In 1986, Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship by President Ronald Reagan. The nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which refused by a 9-9 vote[3] to let the nomination come to the Senate floor for a vote. Sessions’s opponents accused him of “gross insensitivity” on racial issues.[4] Sessions allegedly made a variety of comments that opponents pointed to, when he jokingly said that the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana.[2][4] Sessions also allegedly referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as “un-American” and “Communist-inspired” because they “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” At his confirmation hearings, Sessions said that the groups could be un-American when “they involve themselves in un-American positions” in foreign policy.[4][4] Sessions claimed that the remarks had been made in jest.[2][4] One of those voting against him was Democratic Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama.

    Well, I would have one question for Senator Sessions, what did he do to work for ‘equality for all Americans’ during the Civil Rights Movement. His flippant remarks causes me to wonder how he got re-elected all these years with such views.

    Sessions was one of only nine opponents of Senator John McCain’s anti-torture amendment. Sessions supports former Vice President Dick Cheney’s proposal to exempt the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from any ban on the use of torture.[14]

    This is very interesting…

    • Sessions is a joke.

      • I couldn’t believe he had the gumption to sit there and try and paint her as a ‘racist’.

        • he is one of those pathetic white males who think reverse racism is an actual problem. Maybe it would be if Obama were racist, or I should say obviously racist (his typical white woman grandmother remark leaves no doubt in my mind he has some problems) but in general reverse racism hurts no group.
          Now I will say that I do not think affirmative action is appropriate anymore. I think she voted the wrong way on that case about the firefighters. But I think it will take a long time for the AA and guilty white liberal communities to see that the program has not worked the way it is supposed to in years and that in many ways it has in some ways crippled the black community in certain places. It is either time to get rid of it or change it.

          • That’s my own beef with AfAc in its current incarnation. Not that the poor white males are now victims (puhleeze!) but that I think it now causes more problems for minority communities than it solves.

  2. Sotomayor says abortion rights are “settled law” :


    Here’s some video:

    • If so, that’s definitely in her favor.

      • She didn’t express on opinion on whether she agreed with the results in Roe, etc. She just made a statement of fact that Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled on it.

        John Roberts gave basically the same non-answer. That doesn’t mean she agrees with Roberts, but it means that both refused to answer the question when asked.

        • Ah then, not so good.

          • *shrug* It’s neither good nor not-good, it’s meaningless. Hard to tell anything about reproductive rights in these hearings, because the LAST thing that the democrats want her to do is come out in full-throated support of abortion rights. Just as the repubs didn’t WANT Roberts to come out in full-throated opposition.

            Anything said/not said in confirmation hearings re: Roe is useless and scripted – whether they are R or D nominees, they are ALWAYS under orders to tiptoe around that and say precisely nothing. There is no way to get any sense of their opinions on it, because that’s the way the game is played. If the woman IS pro-choice, the worst thing she could do is draw attention to it. There is simply no way to evaluate that taboo subject anymore, not in kabuki hearings.

        • I disagree that it was as vague as Roberts’ non-answer. All Roberts said was that it was precedent of the court and entitled to stare decisis. Sotomayor gave a standard Dem nominee answer. She stopped short of saying whether she agrees with the precedent of Roe v. Wade, but at least she did say that there is a constitutional right to privacy.

          • Roberts may not have said that during the hearings, but it [settled law] is the way he responded on several occasions to the question of abortion.

          • Well, I certainly don’t think she has given an answer that should make any liberal senator vote for her. If I were a senator I would refuse to vote for her until she answered the question.

            In my opinion, this is Al Franken’s first test. Is he a liberal, or not?

          • Franken will vote to confirm her.

          • Well, then he will fail his first test, and any hope that he would be a true liberal in the senate will start to fade.

          • which considering we know she was “coached” and they had practive hearings for her makes sense.

          • Well, I certainly don’t think she has given an answer that should make any liberal senator vote for her.


            What for example should she have said in response to which question?

          • This is what I expect from any nominee before any liberal senator would vote for her:

            Question: Do you believe that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided.

            Answer: Yes

            Question: So, you believe that the constitution grants women a fundamental right to decide for themselves if they wish to have an abortion.

            Answer: Yes

            See, is that so hard?

    • Didn’t Roberts say that too?

  3. She is not making me comfortable with her similarities to Roberts and Alito in the hearing.

    I’d love to know how long “Jane Roe” has been working with pro-life organizations and whether or not she was voluntarily protesting the hearings yesterday or if she was paid to appear.

    • Norma McCorvey…or Jane Roe as you know her, changed her position on abortion in 1994 while at a book signing for her book, “I am Roe.”

      She later wrote a book,” Won by Love” where she wrote:

      I was sitting in O.R.’s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. ‘Norma,’ I said to myself, ‘They’re right.’ I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that’s a baby! It’s as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth–that’s a baby!
      I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn’t about ‘products of conception.’ It wasn’t about ‘missed periods.’ It was about children being killed in their mother’s wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear

      I’m sure she wasn’t paid to protest, I saw an interview with her a long time ago and she really is against abortion now.

      Just passing along the information…not passing judgement on the subject of abortion.

      • She may indeed be against abortion. That doesn’t mean she isn’t collecting speaking fees and Lord knows what else to spout her opinion.

        Just as I feel certain she didn’t do the book for “gratis”

        • Well, that may be true…although many people collect speaking fees when they promote a cause. I don’t begrudge her that. I’m not sure what she does with the proceeds from her books. I do know that she is active in the anti abortion community…but then again, there are many that are active in the pro-abortion community, in fact she was active in the pro-abortion community for a long time and she did receive money for the book that she wrote, “I am Roe” which was pro-abortion rights.

          I don’t know the woman personally, and I don’t go around promoting that cause, just putting out info because you asked about it.

          • It was meeee2 that asked and the question still stands

            Is she collecting a fee for standing outside and “protesting”?

            The question wasn’t whether she believes in what she is protesting but whether she is deriving financial gain as a result of it.

            While I have no problem with someone making a buck I find it personally abhorrent that there is not any disclosure of any sort as to how much money she derives from having her opinion whether it be pro or anti choice.

          • What is the “pro-abortion community?” Did you mean people who are pro-choice? That means it is the individual woman’s choice–not favoring abortion. Jane Roe has decided that she has the right to substitute her beliefs for another woman’s in ways that could affect that woman’s life dramatically.

      • Ok, but Roe v Wade is about privacy and a woman’s right to choose. Roe now believes she cannot support abortion for herself, and she’s also willing to remove the rights of women to make their own decisions?

        Seems she feels she made a mistake giving women their right to privacy…I hope she doesn’t continue trying to make a second mistake by taking those rights away now.

        I’m thinking she isn’t of the belief she will need to use this law again for herself.

        The women who absolutely oppose abortion are not forbidden by any law to follow their belief. What drives them?

        • well some of it may indeed be the position that a fetus is a life and that abortion is murder. I don’t think it is the totality though because there are an awful lot of people who are anti choice that are pro death penalty and have little to no problem with war. Thou shalt not kill doesn’t have any disclaimer listing exclusions that I am aware of.

          • Anyone who believes that abortion is murder should be lobbying for laws that will lock up women who have abortions. The fact that anti-choice people don’t do that is clear evidence that they don’t, in reality, see the fetus as equal to an adult woman. IMHO, anti-choice is about controlling women’s sexuality and their societal roles.

          • But, in those moments when they forgot to put a new protection unit in their wallet, they risk the outcome being conception because from there on out, the problem becomes the woman’s.

        • Right on, meee2 – I don’t think many are “forabortion” but rather they are for a woman’s right to choose
          The government should keep its hands off our bodies, period!

      • Roe never has had an abortion, but I don’t know if she raised the baby she claimed she conceived by being raped (admitted later that was a lie).

        Personally, I think she’s cashing in on the 40 year use of “Roe v Wade”. She revealed her identity to make money off the case with her first book. When that was short-lived, she decided to change sides for more publicity. Just my opinion, but I think she’s seeking personal promotion on this….has she ever done the talk show circuit, or wouldn’t they pay her?

        This just seems really contrived. She did something selfless and magnificent for the women of this country once and now she wants to take it back. How self-serving is that?

  4. Just another obama puss. No one can be involved with something unless they have the same feelings and attitude.

    • I disagree. Many people will take positions to either try to get some good things done, or for their own political reasons, or both. But that doesn’t mean they’re 100% aligned with their boss. Hillary might be a good example.

    • GHW Bush nominated her for her first judgeship. Bill Clinton her second. Apparently, they both found her to be qualified. SCOTUS is not part of the Obama administration. She hasn’t been involved with Obama in the past and likely won’t be in the future. He could have chosen someone close to him but he didn’t. I think he wanted a fairly smooth confirmation his first time so he didn’t try someone closer who might be more difficult. At the same time, he creates some good will with Hispanics and women. I shudder to think who might be next if more seats open up.

      • I agree with your shudder. Somehow, I expected him to do it with this first nomination but your view is the likely reason why he chose Sotomayor this time.

        Either that or it was just the easy thing to do since other presidents had already nominated her for other judgships – and we all know how PBO often takes the easy way out!

        • She was the one the media was pushing. He was more or less forced into appointing a woman.

      • I agree! She is most likely the best we can hope for I’d rather have Sotomayor than one of Obama’s U. of Chicago buddies.

        • yeah, at least his pandering to political allies probably works for us some what on this one … but I’m waiting for her votes to really hold that thought near and dear

  5. I just watched a little bit of the hearing and I muss conclude: I hate Rightwingers.

    I’m sorry, I can’t take these guys. They repulse me.

    • I feel the same about the extreme right as I do about Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Draw whatever conclusions you like from that inference.

  6. you are not alone.they repulse a lot of us.

  7. Grassley admits on NPR yesterday that he is holding Sotomayor to a different standard than he held Alito:

    GOP are bozos.

    • No kidding.

    • Time for a little intellectual honesty though. Do you believe that the people who opposed Alito might ALSO be holding Sotomayer to a different standard?

      Partisans are bozos. Regardless of which side of the aisle they are standing on.

      • I have a long history against Republicans. These people have savaged my country and always stand AGAINST everything I and others like me are for, starting with civil rights.

        I don’t know what point you have been trying to make.

        Chose a policy (if you’re a Liberal, which I am) and you’ll find them exactly on the opposite side. Chose a politician you like and you’ll find them savaging him/her.

        You can hang around with some neutral politicians and agree on some neutral issues if you like, but that’s not the case with me.

        • My point is both sides(GOP and Dem) play their base for suckers.

          The Democrats want you to make stupid statements like the GOP is bozos(despite the fact that some of them have voted for the very things you wanted at one point or another).

          Savaging politicians? Pulleaze. It was Clyburn who accused the Clintons of racism. Is he a Republican? I think not. Which side of the political aisle was wearing Palin is a c-nt Tshirts? Oh that’s right, that wasn’t the GOP either.

          It’s one thing to take a side on issues.(I doubt I’ve ever been accused of being Switzerland on anything from a gas tax to health care). It’s quite another to take a side on politics and pretend that one party has the moral high ground.

          Go ahead and despise FISA but recognize it took Democrats to get it passed. Go ahead and holler Iraq, it also took Democrats to get that passed. Partial Birth – uh Democrats voted for that as well. When you are passing blame for “bozos” make sure that you note that there are a considerable amount on BOTH sides of the aisle.

          • Have you noticed that you’re vigorously fighting a straw man?

            I have a long history of comments here. I challenge you to come up with up where I state that the Dems were perfect.

            If I say Republicans are bozos, do I HAVE TO say in the same breath that Democrats are bozos too simply to please you?

            I’m frustrated with the Dem “leaders” because they are not as Liberal as I wish they were. It’s a fact that I’m more likely to find people I like and agree with among Democrats.

            But there’s no question that the GOP and all their leaders (in Congress, in the media and so on…) are AGAINST all the policies I stand for. You bet they are the enemies.

          • I’m not the one presenting a strawman. You made a blanket statement. I challenged it.

            Refute my point that there aren’t bozos on BOTH sides of the aisle.

            I too have a long history of commenting here.

            Just as it took Democrats to enact bad policy like FISA , it took Republicans to enact good policy. There were Republicans who voted for equal pay for women(even if the wheels were taken off the bus in the process). I will not savage them as all bad. Not when reality doesn’t support that position. I refuse to play the partisan game.

          • I didn’t say anything about Democrats and I don’t have too.

            I don’t have to say there are Dems bozos too just because I just agreed with someone who just illustrated what bozos Republicans are.

            Who wants to go through life speaking in caveats.

            I don’t know your ideology but if you are left to center, can you tell me any policy you are passionate about and Republicans agree with you?

          • From what I’ve observed of CWaltz, I have to conclude that she is very liberal–also quite knowlegeable about issues. I guess I agree with both of you. I find Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions repulsive. But I have to agree with CWaltz that I don’t think Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are my friends. The Democrats could have stopped much of the Bush agenda the same way the Republicans have–by filibustering. Why they never do it, I don’t understand.

        • Bingo!

        • That’s all true but I don’t see what is to like in the Rep ideology.

          I just have to listen to their leading voices, see which type of issue they still trying to advocate, remember what we go through when they have the power, especially in the last 8 yrs, and I remember why I can stand those guys.

          Just listening to some of them in today’s hearing makes me want to be violent.

          I will not come invent some equivalences where there are none. That doesn’t mean I’m in full embrace of the Dem leadership.

        • There’s the problem. They entrap us with ideology.

          They don’t entrap me. I have my own ideology and some specific policies I’m passionate about:
          Being disappointed with the Dems who claim to be on my side is one issue, but thinking the GOP will EVER be on my side on anyone of those policies is self-delusion.

        • Bill Clinton’s “candidate X and candidate Y” ideology is the only one I’m now passionate about.

          And then of course I’m still passionate about Big Dawg too! 😉

        • Tell you what, I’d give up EVERY other policy in my ideology if we could vote in candidates whose ONLY platform was to change our system to publicly funded elections.

          I’d give it ALL up temporarily, if we could get that. That’s the key, and the only thing IMO that can save this country. The rest is posturing and hogwash and ineffectual, on BOTH sides.

        • There’s the problem. They entrap us with ideology. They can speak in tongues about their ideology, but if their actions betray a different tale, what good is it to follow them?

        • The only message I hear from both sides is

          “nothing to see…move along…here, look at some shiny things…aren’t they pretty?”

        • Bill Clinton was bashed for seeking balance and ensuring that prosperity was experienced across the spectrum.

      • If you are implying that I am a fan of the bozos to the left, you are sorely mistaken.

        • I am implying that making blanket statements about either party isn’t helpful. If you dislike Grassley, blame Grassley. Likewise with any politician. Hold each of them accountable for their individual actions.

          • I think you are picking a disagreement here where there is none. I don’t like Harry and Nancy, either.

            I think the GOP as a whole is behaving rather obnoxiously about the Sotomayor confirmation. If you want to read more into it than that, that’s up to you.

    • Why? Double standard here, I say.

  8. The Litmus Test of Roe vs. Wade is launched by Lindsey Graham and he is inserting prayer in school.

    • I disagree with Graham on prayer in school. If one wants to pray they can do so at any time without making a huge display. Religion and anything involving the state should be seperate.

      Furthermore, if we are going to be doing prayer at school then why not pull out those prayer mats, get rid of pork products, etc etc and give each of the religions that the first amendment their time in the sun. We are not a Christian nation, Patrick Henry took a governorship and Jefferson’s statute of religious freedom prevailed.

  9. “Lets talk about you”-Lindsey Grahma

    Then he proceeded to repeat gossip about her being an ‘angry’ judge.

    • Well, gee, lets go digging around and find some choice words that “someone” has said about Sen Graham. I am positive we could find plenty.

    • “They find you more difficult, than your colleagues”-Lindsey Grahma”

      These are some of the words used to describe her and it doesn’t include all of them.

      Out of Control

      Did he consult with Gordon Liddy?

      • It’s too bad she couldn’t shoot back with something like this


        I’d love to see the look on ol’ Graham’s face for dealing in gossip and innuendo.

        • As I said below, SC has a DADT policy where their Senator is concerned.

        • The one I’d really like to see outed is Mitch McConnell.

          • I don’t really desire anyone being “outed” per se. I just would like to see Graham see how it feels when the shoe is on the other foot. It isn’t like he hasn’t had his share of people who have opinions on him that may or may not be factually accurate.

      • In other words, she’s an uppity woman.

        • Yup! Just think where that has gotten her. 😆 I liked one article where it described her with her uniform a bit out of sorts, because she was too busy studying to take notice.

          Funny, but if she were man, she would be OH, sooo smart, assertive, strong, take charge… etc.

    • The best he could come up with is she’s “angry”? That’s pretty darn weak. Is there some sort of litmus test now on “feelings” for judicial positions. How would he charecterize Alito or Roberts if Sotomayer is “angry”? Are they the “happy” twins?

    • ‘Cause having a sunny disposition is what Supremes are known for!

  10. Oh, now he’s getting her because La Raza advocates for government paid abortions. Uh-oh.

    • She’s on the record as stating that the government has the right to use taxdollars to support the anti choice position. He’s really, really reaching. This is kabuki theater for the base of that I have little doubt. He’s hoping they are too stupid to actually have done their homework and he can earn some brownie points by playing the partisan.

    • http://www.nclr.org/section/about/
      The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.

      Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund
      Our Founding

      In 1972, when the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund began its work, Puerto Ricans had no voice and were almost totally excluded from participating in public life. From the courts to town councils, from boardrooms to classrooms, Puerto Ricans were simply invisible.

      Three young attorneys— Jorge Batista, Victor Marrero and Cesar A. Perales—decided to establish an organization that could challenge the nation’s barriers and provide Latinos with the legal resources to overcome the obstacles that frustrated their dreams and limited their lives. In 1972, in a non-descript office on Second Avenue, PRLDEF was born.

      Now on Justice for Justice Sotomayor you can sign our petition calling for a fair confirmation for Sonia Sotomayor.

      The Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund is not The National Council of La Raza and La Raza simply means ‘The People’ and/or ‘The Community’. The Latino people by and large are bi-racial and there is no ‘race’ therefore which has been a misnomer of some folks on the Right in trying to paint Sotomayor as a R@cist.

  11. Ya know, I really wonder sometimes why a “confirmed bachelor” like Lindsay Graham gets chosen as the abortion attack dog.

    • Gotta establish those Republican creds so that he doesn’t get challenged during the primary no doubt. Look what happens when folks like Specter don’t tow the line.

    • Why is a male a ‘confirmed bachelor’ but a woman is a ‘spinster’?

      • LOL!

        I’m from SC originally, and the whole damn state tiptoes around Sen. Graham’s status. It’s weird. You’d have to live there. I’d dare say that around 70% of the population there assumes he’s gay, but you aren’t supposed to say that out loud. It’s a DODT policy.

      • If the woman is a lesbian, she probably gets called something else. Lindsey Graham may think he’s in the closet, but he’s probably the only one who does.

    • He’s against repealing DADT too, LOL!

  12. It gets tough going from here onward for Sotomayor:

    “What did September 11th 2001 mean to you?” …”What do they have in store for women?”…”Do you believe we are at war?”…”Are you familiar with Military Law?”…”Do you believe right now there are people out there plotting our destruction?”…

    Then onto the Puerto Rican Legal Defense, Litmus for abortion funding using some flaming language, in a brief filed on behalf of women refused medicaid funding for abortion. Lindsey stated that the PRLD believe that denying said funding was tantamount to a form of slavery.

    • the PRLD believe that denying said funding was tantamount to a form of slavery.

      Call me a radical leftist if you want, I agree with that. Choice on whether to have an abortion is a legal right. If someone is too poor to pay for health care, and Medcaid provides health care for other procedures it should do so for abortion. Being forced to remain pregnant and give birth is “tantamount to slavery.”

      • OK, you radical you! There you are ‘Officially’ radical now.

        • I’m against forced abortions too.

          • Yup, I recall reading about the one in Afghanistan that left the sister (rape victim) near death and I don’t think the press reported on it again. OK, well it was the foreign press but I still didn’t hear about it.

            The brother and a relative tried to do the procedure themselves to save the family name and they used some crude equipment to do it. The poor thing must have gone through such torture.

            We Must Divest From Misogyny NOW!

    • None of it is going to be tough going. The Republicans don’t have the votes to block her and the Dems are all going to vote for her.

  13. Will Sotomayer actually be allowed to serve on the Supreme Court? Guess the good ole boys and girls will allow her, so long as the female justices are kept in the severe minority. Guess there is going to be opportunity for several more female justices before we ever have our female president…
    My theory is this: When mainstream America chooses to worship a divine being who has feminine qualities equal to the accepted masculine, then both sexes will be able to understand that a female is perfectly equal to a male..
    And the sooner the better!

    Anita learntoreadnow

  14. Half of Canada’s Supreme Court is women.

  15. I don’t thing I could survive a confirmation process with these buffoons. I will be so adversarial and so belligerent that I’ll literally be thrown out.

    What a bunch of pompous jackasses!

    Jeff Session wonders why Sotomayor didn’t vote like the other Puerto Rican.

    • Jeff Sessions is a racist, bigoted moron. I couldn’t go through a process like that either, but that’s why only certain people aspire to those kinds of jobs.

      • Sessions is a smarmy outright bigot. And I mean that. And no, I don’t say that about all conservative repubs from the south. Graham, for instance, is a clueless pretending tin-soldier who is for almsot everything I hate, but I don’t think he’s a race bigot at heart.

        Sessions is.

        • I agree! Really, it turns my stomach to hear his voice, much less look at him.

    • Oh, even the best of them are ridiculous. Feingold’s mutual admiration exchange with her was hardly good use of the time he was supposed to be using asking questions.

      This woman is going to sit in a position that is extraordinarily important to the people of this country. Just maybe the vetting process needs to have questions submitted in advance from a judicial committee in every state…equally represented by D’s R’s and I’s. The questions need to be about the law, the constitution, and the role of the court….not about her temperament!

      • I missed that particular exchange, but I don’t see what is so wrong with humanizing her since the gasbags on the right have been trying to paint her as some kind of ill-tempered, low-intellect far left radical.

        • I don’t have a problem with it either. All the Dems are going to vote for her. That’s a foregone conclusion. It’s their job to defend her. I’ve been impressed with her performance so far.

          • Well, I still will always hold out the hope that someday some liberal senator will puncture the kabuki aspect of these hearings and actually try to get the nominee to answer real questions about real issues.

            I realize it’s a pipe dream, but it doesn’t mean that as a citizen I shouldn’t wish for it.

        • I’m talking about her on several occasions telling him he must have been a fantastic attorney. They already had their quiet time during the private get-to-know-you meetings last week.

    • I once got thrown out of a deposition. 😯

  16. I missed this exchange between Sessions and Sotomayor.


    Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.), seeking to discredit Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy, cited her 2001 “wise Latina” speech, and contrasted the view that ethnicity and sex influence judging with that of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, who “believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices.”

    “So I would just say to you, I believe in Judge Cedarbaum’s formulation,” Sessions told Sotomayor.

    “My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here,” Sotomayor riposted, to Sessions’ apparent surprise. “We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts.”

    Cedarbaum agreed.

    “I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no effect on her approach to judging,” she told Washington Wire. “We’d both like to see more women on the courts,” she added.

    • Like I said in the Gotcha thread–Sessions got punk’d by a Wise Latina.

      • “We’d both like to see more women on the courts,” – Judge Cedarbaum

        Cedarbaum is the WOMAN! Yea, as if women were happy to own 1% of titled land in the world, being over 70% of the worlds poor and often killed for just being women and lacking in representation in governmental bodies, to want to block a woman for the Supreme Court.

        What a beautiful thing to see distinguished women supporting each other!

        We Must Divest From Misogyny NOW!

    • boomer — myiq has a post up about it already.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: