Checking In With Sotomayor
We are not live blogging the Senate confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor today; we’ve already weighed in on what we’ve learned from this process. But we are keeping an eye on the proceedings just in case somebody says something stupid.
Today they are finishing up with the questions from the senators. Then they will move to the witnesses. They are just getting to that now. SCOTUSblog reports that there are 31 people on the witness list. The witness list is surprisingly light on attorneys or judges. But the stars include Frank Ricci (of Ricci v. DeStefano fame), former Mets pitcher David Cone (he played for some other baseball teams too), and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
But before they get into the witnesses, let’s check out the highlights from the Senate’s last round of questions.
More after the jump.
As he did on Tuesday, Arizona Senator Jon Kyl was the most aggressive questioner of the morning. But this time he was more on-point from a legal perspective. He hammered Sotomayor about the Ricci case, and her explanation that she was “bound” by precedent on the matter. For some reason, Sotomayor didn’t want to admit that there was an issue to be judged; instead, she tried to convey the impression that she had no choice. Kyl essentially suggested the case was one of first impression. But he was right to be unsatisfied with Sotomayor’s implication that she had no choice.
Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn continued this ridiculous suggestion that Sotomayor will use “foreign law” to overthrow the American system of government. Sotomayor (again) tried to explain that as a judge she can read whatever she wants if it helps clarify her thinking on a subject. Foreign law has no precedential value, and it is of course not binding on any U.S. court. I think deep down Coburn knows this. But I guess Coburn’s Oklahoman constituents are terrified that they’ll be governed by German law or something. I don’t understand it, Germans gave us the ShamWow, and I’m positive Coburn’s constituents love that.
But the biggest news was made by Lindsey Graham. He acknowledged that Sotomayor wasn’t a crazy, Bill Ayers loving radical. Instead he said that her views were “generally mainstream.”
The Democrats asked a few questions too. But they didn’t use all of their time, and they certainly didn’t say anything particularly interesting. Instead, they sat back and looked like they were wondering about the long term health of current SCOTUS Justices.
The witness testimony is underway. If anything interesting pops up — say, Frank Ricci saving the entire Senate Judiciary Committee from a flash fire — we’ll keep you posted.
Live Blog of Judge Sotomayor’s Confirmation Hearings-Day 4 [SCOTUSblog]
Sotomayor’s rulings ‘generally in mainstream,’ Republican says [CNN]
Sotomayor won’t be judged by a jury of her peers [True/Slant]
The Sotomayor Hearings: A Waste of Time? [NYT: Room for Debate]
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings
(30) Comments
Comments
First?
First to say that Ellie without the benefit of time to proofread (liveblogging) is about the same.
I will repeat a comment I made yesterday.
She is hideous looking and her face reminds me of a canned ham.
3 - You mean canned jamon.
2 = fail for not proofreading your own post
3 = fail, just because you suck
4 = fail for lack of accent mark
Elie, get the peanut butter out of your keyboard. "Buy"? Shouldn't that be "but"?
After law school I feel OK with arguing about this minuscule of an issue...
B
O
R
I
N
G
#5 - Are you a victim of incest?
Folks, let me explain it to you in terms that a child can understand. The natural enemy of a mouse is a snake. Regardless of how friendly or "cool" the snake can appear, the snake is still the enemy of the mouse. Life is not a Pixar animated movie. Life I assure you, is very REAL. That being said, the liberal agenda and any politician looking to advance it, is the natural enemy of the legal profession. If you are a lawyer and you voted for Obama, you essentially, as the mouse, ran into the mouth of the snake and steamrolled down its digestive tract. As reported in various journals this morning, Obama unleashed his war on the wealthy and business base. When you are taxed close to 60%, what incentive do you have to work or produce? None! Stalin would be proud of Obama. The whole Sotomayor confirmation proceedings are a costly smoke and mirrors show. Of course she will be confirmed. There was never any question about that. The numbers (i.e., votes) say she cannot lose. The confirmation proceedings are nothing more than a red herring. All the while the liberal house introduced Obama's nefarious plan to obliterate business and destroy America's capitalist spirit. If you voted for Obama and are in the legal profession, you basically committed career suicide. It is no coincidence that our business model is slowly dying as a result of Obama's miguided agenda. Obama is your Dr. Kevorkian and undertaker. Enjoy rigor mortis.
your mom checked out the highlights from the Senate's last round
Way to stick with it. Good lesson for the kids--"I'm going to live blog the hearings"...."I'm going to summarize the day's goings on"....."Meh, I don't really feel like it anymore"......That's good work. That's good lawyering.
I wonder what Congressman Peter King has to say about SotoMAYOR
Emeritus -- your fear-mongering drivel is misguided, uninformed, and completely unnecessary. Do everyone a favor shut the f--k up.
9, too long, didn't read. Please provide an executive summary next time.
If the "government option" is going to compete on its own against the private insurers (i.e. we can keep our current health plan if we want to), then why do we need to raise taxes to pay for it? Will the private insurers be allowed to tax the wealthy if they lose money?
I have it on good authority that commenter No. 5 is a victim of incest.
14- Here is your exec. sum.
If you voted for the "One," you fucked yourself.
David Cone is a 'former Mets pitcher?' Excuse me, but he won 4 World Series rings with the Yankees, and threw a perfect game with the Yankees ("27 up, 27 down baseball immortality,"). Additionally, he is a YES broadcaster, and not an SNY broadcaster. At minimum, please have the decency to acknowledge he played for both the JV and Varsity baseball teams in New York.
PE - Do you wear ugly golf pants like John Daly (British Open is today)?
15: The government option is going to be disproportionately subscribed by the poor and those with serious health problems, jacking up the costs to run such a program. And of course, when the program is horribly bleeding in the red, they're not going to get rid of it, but make the rest of us pay higher taxes to subisidize it. Eventually, being sick of effectively paying twice for health insurance, people will have no choice but to shift over to the government plan. Thus, all this crap about choice, compete on its own, is BS unless the government offering is spun off and required to be self-sustainable.
16 = 5's father / uncle.
I hate this cu#t more than Hitler.
Dr. Louis Ziccareli Esq LLM
20, can you elaborate on what you mean by "subisidize"? Thanks.
PE = Rove's taint.
20, thanks for making a case for a completely single payer national plan. I don't agree with your case and neither does the current administration though. A single-payer system is not the natural conclusion of the creation government insurance, as reference to many non-UK health systems clearly demonstrates. You are aware the people can and do buy private insurance in those horrible socialist countries, right? This talking point that a public option will end in centralized ownership of the means of production is inconsistent with the facts.
At the end of the day, as one of the "rest of us" you only have a choice as to how to pay for the healthcare of the poor---through direct, ad hoc transfers to existing healthcare retailers for the benefit of the others, or through funding the capitial of a risk-spreading agent to do so at lower cost. Only one of these options creates some potential for controlling marginal costs, whereas the other focuses on marginal revenue.
PE, I am a management-side labor and employment law attorney and my business is thriving with the Dems' legislation.
As for German law, it criminalizes homeschooling. I am sure Coburn's constituents worry about the overturning of Meyer v. Nebraska.
25: Yes, and they pay for both private insurance and national health care expenses, wasting countless amounts of dollars and stifling everyone's income levels. This is not a good thing for national productivity and explains in part why European economies are in such stagnation -- socialist programs skim off a lot of productivity to prop up the lower class, which then sees no reason to improve their own situation.
I don't see things as "only having a choice as to how to pay for the heathcare of the poor" -- there's no fundamental right to free health care (sans an emergency, life or death situation and even that's not necessarily free). Just because Obama and company have put nationalizing health care on their agenda, doesn't mean that it's an eventuality. If you want health care, get a job that provides benefits. I have no problem with improving the benefits for those who are earning them (perhaps some floors and additional regulation), but don't accept the premise that we have to provide everyone with free health care to the detriment of the national economy and hard workers.
Why is the whole notion of "looking to foreign law" so terrifying? It's not like American judges would lose their free will when confronted with foreign law. The thought process goes more like this: "Here's this interesting bit of foreign law. Its differences from American law remind us that American law is not 'natural law,' but rather, resulted from a series of decisions made by Americans over time - and not all Americans, either, but mostly white, mostly male, mostly well-off Americans. If American law chose to go in a different direction, this foreign law presents one option, among many." Ohhhh, scary!
28: American judges are more likely to use foreign law as justification for radically changing something (i.e. not following precedent as they should) vs. just as another point of comparison. For example, with the whole death penalty issue -- it's pretty easy to cite a variety of foreign laws outlawing the practice; however, that has nothing to do with its validity in the United States.
And finally, your diatribe about "mostly white, mostly male, mostly well-off Americans" suggests you have no interest in abiding by precedent or maintaining equal treatment under the law, so I'll leave it at that. American law is supposed to determined by LEGISLATORS not judges. Judges interpret the law; legislators write the law. If you don't like how the law looks compared to foreign laws, talk to your legislator, but don't attempt to legislate from the bench.
To Partner Emeritus:
1, Lawyers are generally parasites and inhibitors of capitalism
2, Why did the White elite vote for Obama, i.e., against their own interests? Have they all lost their minds?
T Elie:
You "weighed in" on what you "learned" from the proceedings? How could you be more full of shit? You merely regurgitated your usual inane views, which had nothing to do with the actual facts of the farcical proceedings that transpired.