Sonia Sotomayor Day 3: How Many More Questions Could They Possibly Have?
It’s the third day of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings and we’re still here. We will be liveblogging until all the Senators on the Judiciary Committee have been given a chance to ask one round of questions. We’re hoping that will be accomplished by lunchtime.
Yesterday, Sotomayor found a bunch of different ways to backtrack from the “wise Latina” comment.
But the real difference between the Republicans and the Democrats during this hearing has been the Republican focus on Sotomayor’s speeches, against the Democratic focus on Sotomayor’s 17 year record on the bench.
Which aspect of Sotomayor’s history should be the focus of the Senators’ questions? On the one hand, focusing on her judicial record seems appropriate when confirming somebody to be a Justice. On the other hand, we’re talking about a person who is asking to be appointed for life to a job from which there is no further promotion. Could her personal views be more indicative of her future judicial philosophy than her past history of moderate jurisprudence? Remember, this is the person that will be replacing David Souter.
Take our reader poll below. After the jump, check out our live blog updates for the rest of the first round of questioning. Highlights will include Arlen Specter (who is used to speaking a lot earlier at these confirmation hearings) and the newest U.S. Senator, Al Franken.
9:35: Former Texas Supreme Court Judge, Senator John Cornyn, will lead us off.
9:42: Cornyn asked if Sotomayor was “standing by” her wise Latina statement (yes, we’re still talking about this) or if she was “disavowing” the statement. It sounds like Sotomayor is trying to say that the quote was a “bad” idea, but she’s seems to be standing by the point of the entire speech. “My message was different than I understand my words have been understood,” she said.
Cornyn pressed on. She said “I stand by the words, it fell flat … I would hope that in the context of the speech they would be understood.”
9:57: Sotomayor is trying to explain the importance of how a life experience might be important to the process of judging.
I have to ask, is there a person in any job that doesn’t believe his or her “life experiences” makes them better at their job?
10:05: Cornyn just launched into a long question about whether the white firefighters in Ricci “deserved” a longer opinion about their case, in part because of the hardship they went through to study, take, and past the firefighters exam. Is he suggesting that Sotomayor wasn’t — oh what is the word — sympathetic enough to the disgruntled firefighters?
10:14: Who the hell is Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)? So far I’ve learned that he’s an Oriole fan, and Wikipedia tells me he beat now-Republican Chairman Michael Steele for Senate in 2006. I want Tommy Carcetti to be asking these questions!
10:25: Cardin is talking about the importance of diversity. He’s the son of Russian Jewish immigrants.
10:37: Cardin is asking about the right to privacy in the 21st century.
Sotomayor affirms that the right to privacy is part of judicial precedence. But then she says: “That’s what precedents do, they provide a framework. The Constitution remains the same, society changes. The situations it brings before courts change, but the principles are the words of the Constitution, guided by how precedents has applied those principles to each situation.”
It’ll be a lot of fun when Scalia hears about this.
10:40: Tom Corbun (R-OK) had this strange question “You’ve said that Roe v. Wade is settled law … where are we today, what is the settled law, in America, about abortion?”
Oh, the settled law “in America.” Well, that changes everything …
10:45: Coburn is asking if viability should be considered when looking at the right of privacy. Sotomayor can’t answer that question. Essentially, she is trying to educate Coburn about the concept of ripeness.
Now he’s asking if states can define what constitutes death. Are we trying to pick a Justice of the Court, or a Pope?
10:50: Having talked about life and death it’s time to talk about … guns!
If there was ever a judicial nominee who supported a woman’s right to choose and supported a fetus’ fundamental right to bear arms, Coburn’s head might explode.
10:58: I’m sick of Coburn. He’s asking Sotomayor if he has a right to personal self defense. Brilliantly, Sotomayor said that she can’t think of a Supreme Court case that specifically addresses a Constitutional right to self-defense. Then, almost condescendingly, she explains that these laws are handled on the state level.
Let’s move on from Coburn. Instead let me highlight a comment on this thread. It’s what the Republican Senators have been desperately trying to say, but haven’t figured out quite how to put it:
Growing up on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, I would hope that as a wise white male with the richness of my parent’s actual net worth would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latino female who hasn’t lived that life. My exposure to multitudes of cultures, high society, and easy access to different cultures around the world via travel has given me the toolbox that a poor indigent minority just simply could not understand.
If you are going to pound on the wise Latina comment, that is how you do it.
11:11: Danger Will Robinson. Sheldon Whitehouse asks Sotomayor to make “a simple pledge.” It was judicial boilerplate stuff, but you don’t want Senators asking nominees to make “pledges.” It’s an easy soundbite that media outlets can discuss in a “yes/no” manner, without any subtlety.
11:25: Whitehouse, you are not helping the “Rhode Island is interesting” cause. Cable news channels are showing Activia commercials. I think the dancing Six Flags guy just ran across the bottom of the C-SPAN feed. More flags, more fun.
11:38: Technically, the Senate just broke for 15 minutes. I think it was unintended, but they needed to bring in the EMTs to resuscitate members of the gallery that Whitehouse was trying to bore to death.
11:58: Okay, I’ll say it. I think Senator Amy Klobuchar is charming and engaging. And attractive. She’s probably my favorite Senator from Minnesota.
12:05: Talking about being a prosecutor, Sotomayor brings up how much she loved and was influenced by Perry Mason. When I’m 70, are there going to be SCOTUS nominees who say “I was influenced so greatly — growing up — by Jack McCoy, the fictional prosecutor portrayed on Law & Order?” Is that really what the future holds? And if it does, should I just take the hemlock now?
12:10: Mid-western charm > Southern charm > West Coast charisma > pure evil > whatever the hell we do out here on the East Coast.
12:13: The lights just inexplicably dimmed in the Senate chamber. Senator Leahy said: “You shouldn’t take that as a word from above.”
12:22: Some interesting stats from Klobuchar. She says that Sotomayor was more likely to hand down harsher sentences to white collar defendants than her judicial colleagues at the time. Maybe this is where the comment I posted at 10:58 comes into play?
12:31: Senator Kaufman is up. Any chance we’ll get a Joe Biden memorial, eight-minute question? Leahy just said that the air conditioning has gone off in the chamber.
This is the U.S. Senate right? Why is maintenance acting like it’s a summer school class at the Rocco Globbo School for Women.
Meanwhile, Sotomayor explains to Kaufman that she didn’t go to a Biglaw firm because she didn’t “want to be the fifth guy on the totem pole.”
12:40: Sotomayor seems much more cool and easygoing today. Must have something to do with all the drool dripping out of the Democratic Senators’s mouths today.
[Alex Rex adds: She may be cool b/c of all the painkillers she’s on for her foot too.]
12:45: Sotomayor: “I can’t answer that.” Kaufman: “Yeah, I know. (smiles)”
Sotomayor is starting to look like a guest on the Chris Farley show, with Kaufman playing Chris Farley.
12:59: Who knew, an interesting question from Kaufman. He asked if a court should consider whether a corporation is too big to fail — or its overall impact on the economic system — when figuring out what to do. Sotomayor didn’t really answer, but she did suggest that courts have to look at all the facts.
Given the, you know, huge recession, I wish more people from both sides of the aisle had brought this up.
Anyway, time to break for lunch.
(99) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
shizam
why do we have to pick between cases and speeches? aren't both in play?
because elie is a fat liberal fuck.
Both, speeches and opinions, should be in play. Look, we can all have our worldview and take on things and still be impartial attorney's and judges when discussing black letter law. The Supreme Court rarely, if ever, hears black letter law cases for anything more than clarification issues. The appeals courts often have more "say-so" on grey areas. As a Sotomayor fan, I think she strikes an almost perfect balance between being an impartial judge and seeing the bigger picture.
2, The question was which was one should they "focus" on, not which one would you pick.
David Souter was the biggest disaster of a nomination in the history of the Court. His botched nomination has completely changed the "vetting" process. Leave nothing to chance.
your mom goes for three days
She was not the most qualified judge for the Supreme Court. She was the most qualified judge of a particular demographic that Obama was looking to gain favor with.
She is too fat for the SC. How will they fit her in the group photo of the justices?
Lat -- Why are you letting this clown liveblog the hearing again, especially after yesterday's "Rowe" fiasco?
MysTTTal - Just report on the proceedings today. Don't ask lame questions of the commenters; they don't actually distract us from your ineptitude.
At least Republicans have backbone -- when Bush nominated an under qualified candidate who fit the demographic and idealistic qualifications, his own party went after her.
Elie,
Just stop. Stop. Please stop.
Thanks,
Society at large
7 - Who is more objectively qualified?
The reality is that there is are several dozen people who are "qualified" to be on the Supreme Court. To say Sotomayor is not among those who are "qualified" to be on the Supreme Court is borderline retarded.
With Sotomayor, clearly they are looking at quantity over quality.
10 - Bush's party also went after her because there were fears she wasn't conservative enough. Backbone my ass.
12 - Just like law school admissions, if she checks the right box on the application, thats all the "qualified" she needs to be for the job.
Mystal, you are a discredit to your race.
--Jeff Sessions
I bet fatty loves himself some PATRICK CHEWING.
Could Ellie be more of a partisan hack? It is really annoying. And not very flattering for the dems.
Is Mystal the gay one?
She's no Harriet Miers.
How bout an article on Upenn allowing its students to apply to an umlimited amount of clerkships????
These are some of worst comments ever. You all fail.
Comment removed by moderator.
#22 = Roxana's gynecologist
Comment removed by moderator.
Does she speak English?
How about looking at both. What a stupid question.
Very, very provocative article below about Sotomayor's controversial judicial philosophy and the "Wise Latina" comment. A must read considering the incessant line of questioning by Republican senators!
"Through the Sonia Sotomayor Looking Glass"
http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/06/through-the-sonia-sotomayor-looking-glass
#23 - Oh my god lets hope so!
Antonin
I am clinging to my stocks and bonds. I gave up on guns and religion.
Perhaps they should focus on having her explain why judicially protected racism is acceptable so long as it operates to the detriment of whites.
What's wrong with commenters. Being childish and critical does not equal humor. If you bash Elie, be creative.
She is clearly not telling the truth.
Cardin is a hack and a tool. It used to be that any Maryland Democrat could run on an "I am a Democrat" platform and win. All that's changed since Ehrlich/Steele is that now they have to run on an "I am a Democrat and I am not Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend" platform. Needless to say, one party rule doesn't exactly breed the most impressive leaders.
Also, 30, everyone knows that guns don't exist.
#4 - from where I sit, "seeing the bigger picture" is a euphemism for voting in accord with your political preferences, whether or not the constitution or statute in question contains a textual basis for that preference.
I have a fetish involving Sotomayor chewing food for me and then feeding me like a baby bird. I am fine with this.
Bob Costas
I hope some laid off attorney founds a legal blog with a conservative slant. We need a fox news to respond to elie's cnn.
I hope some laid off attorney founds a legal blog with a conservative slant. We need a fox news to respond to elie's cnn.
Growing up on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, I would hope that as a wise white male with the richness of my parent's actual net worth would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latino female who hasn't lived that life. My exposure to multitudes of cultures, high society, and easy access to different cultures around the world via travel has given me the toolbox that a poor indigent minority just simply could not understand.
Elie's fupa is HUGE!
Sotomayor's speeches all have the same thread to them. It's as if she gave the same speech over and over again as you can see them all compared. http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=apoke.com&l=1
Elie you bring pain to the universe with every word you write.
Sotomayor's speeches all have the same thread to them. It's as if she gave the same speech over and over again as you can see them all compared. http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=apoke.com&l=1
Elie you bring pain to the universe with every word you write.
28: That article sucks, it could have been written by a 1L. It added nothing new to the dialogue.
I get the distinct impression that Sotomayor does not like whitey. Anybody else feel this way or am I just taking crazy pills?
sex panther
I can't take the poll. Both options seems to be the same.
I'll be here all morning liveblogging Elie's spelling mistakes. And I won't be making any jokes about Elie hoping the questioning ends by lunchtime.
"He's asking Sotomayor if he has a right to personal self defense. Brilliantly, Sotomayor said that she can't think of a Supreme Court case that specifically addresses a Constitutional right to self-defense. "
Uh, yeah, that's a brilliant response. Except for the fact that she's completely ignorant of the discussion in Heller founding the fundamental right to keep and bear arms on the inherent right to self defense. It's ok to be a partisan a$$hat, but at least do so in a way that doesn't display a complete ignorance of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence when you're commenting on a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.
Was Tom Coburn invoking Ricky Ricardo in that response to Sotomayor's hypothetical?
Can someone please point me to the clause in the Constitution that guarantees abortions? The only thing I can think of is an expansive reading of the Third Amendment - quartering soldiers in the womb.
Stop being so partisan, Mystal. 39 = fail. Elie quoting 39 = epic fail.
47 is right. I'm surprised she missed that since it was such a big point in Heller.
What about a man's right to choose??
Elie:
Instead of trying to gloss over the significant substantive problems Sotomayor has, why not read up on the matter a bit:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_07_12-2009_07_18.shtml#1247600807
Money quote: "To this point, it is impossible to tell from her responses whether she knows anything about constitutional law OR whether she simply does not want to offer any opinions that could possibly be criticized. I do not recall a confirmation hearings in which so little of substance is revealed by a nominee."
She gets cases wrong and can't even properly explain what a fundamental right is. Even if a wise Latina reaches a better conclusion, she's not a wise Latina.
Tommy Carcetti? How about Avon Barksdale?
I don't think my life experiences make me better at my job than a particular racial group.
31, Carolene Products fn. #4 . Zing! Can I get a Korematsu too? Tough crowd today. Elie might need to get that Korean dude to be his body guard.
Look, even Elie "Black Side" Mystal would not want Kash to stay in a hotel room on the outside of town without mixing taps when she travels. But perfect neutrality is not good public policy, which was common sense even back when Elie would have been subject to open racist abuse on a legal blog (or I guess, it would have been masked white people in a publc square ), and, as a result, its not the law.
So the idea that our law does not put a thumb on the scales for discrete and insular minorities, in an expansive thatchwork or substantive laws and standards of review, is not a good place to begin the discussion. Have we even finished up with disparate impact---would Lat have to close his laundry because its still made out of wood under the same wacky law from back in the day? Reasonable peolpe are still disagreeing.
EVERY SINGLE HUMAN has their personal opinions, biases, outlooks, perception of reality, etc. Otherwise we'd be amoeba instead of human. The mark of a good judge is to set the aside and be as objective as possible (being truly objective, is, by definition, impossible). Thus, speeches are relevant only in that as a comparison tool, they indicate how successful a judge is in setting aside their personal feelings when on the bench. And viewed that way, a person with "extreme" views (which, come on, Sotomayor doesn't have) but still a moderate judicial record, is arguably actually a better judge. So, Republicans, by emphasizing a few stray remarks that supposedly show how racist she is, are actually making the case for confirming her, because her "racist" personal opinions have clearly not influence a very moderate 17-year record!
53, if you expect MysTTTal to engage in substantive non-partisan non-racist commentary, you must be new around here.
2.) You are a reactionary pig-dog for calling into question the Editor's decision. We must play the game of EITHER / OR so that Sotomayor looks good.
"Brilliantly, Sotomayor said that she can't think of a Supreme Court case that specifically addresses a Constitutional right to self-defense."
Or she's just dumb. I can't think of any case that deals with interstate commerce right now either, but that's only because I was an affirmative action admit to Harvard.
She is awful. I watched ten minutes of the confirmation hearings and her responses were brutal but none of the Senators have the balls to take her to task. The blatant ass-kissing by the Democratic committee members is truly disgusting. Your job is to vet her not to try and get her in the sack. Our country continues its downward slide from greatness.
59 - Bingo! We need to avoid logic and force people into a box. Once in a box they can be controlled and manipulated.
57, except for that whole Ricci thing.
If the city of New Haven had discovered that too many blacks and Hispanics passed the test, and not enough whites, so they decided to scrap the test, she would have issued the same one-paragraph affirming opinion, right?
59: It really annoys me. People who poll "decisions" make the Republicans look like idiots. Those who poll "speeches" are obviously wrong because the decisions are clearly relevant.
The true answer should be "decisions and speeches" because both are relevant... we should also be paying attention to her acting job before the committee. I really would laugh if someone documented a situation where she (1) wrote one thing in a decision ["we follow the rule"], (2) said another thing in a speech ["we make law"] and then (3) said another thing before the committee ["my job is to uphold the law"].
Oh wait... she did.
What a load of political posturing poop this piece is. Did I say piece? Piece of crap.
Why don't you just come out with it, or are you struggling with how to say, " My name is Elie Mystal and I hate Republicans because they are Repblican".
Elie is the classic case why affirmative action has failed.
Hmm,
I always thought that affirmative action was a woman/ any woman choosing to date a white skinny guy, when black guys were available.
Was I wrong?
63-
First of all, she wasn't the senior judge on that panel. In any case, yes, there probably would have been an opinion if the facts had been reversed. Because, let's be honest, it wouldn't be "politcally correct" to let a city throw out a test because not enough whites scored high enough. They'd feel compelled to explain themselves, even though the decision, under existing precedent, would have been correct. In 17 years, Ricci is the only case conservatives can get upset about (and even that one is a stretch), so they're obsessing over it. She'd be screwed either way--throw the test out, she's a reverse-racist, keep the test, she's a regular racist and an activist on top of that.
-57
Mystal, being a fat minority is no way to go through life son.
Mel G.
67 - Only if she wants a future. Imagine the halfing that will settle for MysTTTal. Here's to holding out for fugly at best.
Comment removed by moderator.
She may have graduated summa but she fails to demonstrate an analytical legal mind.
Comment removed by moderator.
ELIE, please post your law school transcript. You are a “journalist” and a legal commentator; you should have nothing to hide. I think we would all like to know what kind of grades you received. ELIE, please post your law school transcript.
ELIE, please post your law school transcript. You are a “journalist” and a legal commentator; you should have nothing to hide. I think we would all like to know what kind of grades you received. ELIE, please post your law school transcript.
These are seriously the worst coments I've seen in a while. Did ya'll agree to flood the comments today? Seriously racist shit going on here. What the f*&k?
73, a "bottle of pig's feet"?
Is there any doubt that most of the Elie bashers are white graduates of TTT schools who simply resent their own lots in life? The type of people who think Mexicans are "taking 'our' jobs."
Who CARES about Elie's grades? Seriously?! Havent you seen the top 10% of your class FLOUNDER when litigating against scrappy B students who have a grasp of what the world is like? (because I assure you the ones killing themselves for As have serious social impediments)
Ah, wait. The top 10% of your class has never litigated anything in their entire careers, right? They do doc review, highlight sentences and tab pages with pretty markers.
Grades are so high school.
Without even reading the tagline I knew this was an Elie post as soon as I saw the ridiculous poll. Talk about a false dichotomy. Wow.
77- They tuk er jobs.
Reference to a totem pole is racist.
37/38 - It is unlikely a laid off attorney would start a conservative blog; most laid off attorneys are liberals. They were laid off because they spent time trying to fight the power, doing pro bono work, etc., rather than "selling out to the man" and billin' like a villain.
@78: Without comment as to the merits of your assertions, they are irrelevant. Elie is not a practicing lawyer. While I have every reason to believe he would be as incompetent at that task as he is as a journalist, it's his legal analysis at issue here. I think his performance in law school is material when considering his consistently inane commentary on legal issues. I would very much like to see his undoubtedly bottom 25% grades.
#63:
There was only one "Hispanic" in the Ricci case, and he was aligned with the (white) plaintiffs.
Elie, DAMMIT. Some of us are at a desk, following this thing through YOUR blogging. Which our mistake, I know - I am going to jump to Underneath Their Robes or something after this.
But for god's sake! "12:45: Sotomayor: 'I can't answer that.' Kaufman: 'Yeah, I know. (smiles)'"
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? Didn't Lat give you a study guide or something to follow about how to do this?
5 - only a disaster for the Republican who nominated him.
I for one think Elie is doing a pretty good job blogging this today.
Apart from Alito, how many of the current justices have tried a case?
Mexicans are taking or have took poor minorities and working class white jobs... They will be getting pretty pissed awful soon and at odds with each other as unemployment skyrockets... Latins are normally against abortion and pro free trade with latin american countries... African Americans and Latins are not particularly embracing of homosexuals... Maybe some trouble will be brewing in the Dem party sometime soon if the great one BHO cannot turn this ship that be sinking faster than the pansy baseball toss from last night!
85 - Here's the link to UTR:
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2009/07/the-sotomayor-confirmation-hearings-top-of-the-third.html
88 - Have took???
The poll is a partisan attempt by Elie (classic push poll) to criticize the Republican senators by saying they're more fixated on her speeches ("wise Latin woman") than her decisions. As many other posters have said, both are important, and it's pretty obvious that the Senate should be considering all relevant information in making its confirmation decision (even though we know it's inevitable she'll be confirmed)
She is a disgrace to the United States Judiciary. She is a lying, racist, intellectually-wanton waste of fresh air. A Goddamned disgrace. She literally looked into the camera yesterday and lied to the entire civilized world. She said she didn't agree with O'Connor's comment and then turned around yesterday and told the entire world that she does. Really? Are you fucking kidding me? You're even dumber than I thought, you dumb racist piece of shit. If you're going to be a bigoted, affirmative-action-tit-sucking, make-law-as-you-go cunt, at least have the ovaries to stand up for the filth you believe in and admit it.
77 - Indeed, there is a reason to think that they are white males at TTT schools. There is even more reason to think they're there because of the racist admission programs supported by racists such as Sotomayor. And bitter? Well, they have brains so yes... they're probably bitter (ugh! what pussies! it's just a little discrimination!).
Whoever said that didn't obviously learn much about humility from his parents or from his school or from his travels. What a pompous ass!
Does the Constitutional standard require an Ivy League education or world travel to reach a Constitutionally correct decision? I don't think so.
Just what does a female Latina who grew up in the Bronx learn that has any merit at Princeton or Yale anyway?
Just what does a female Latina who grew up in the Bronx learn that has any merit at Princeton or Yale anyway, much less on the Supreme Court?
Just what does a female Latina who grew up in the Bronx learn that has any merit at Princeton or Yale anyway, much less on the Supreme Court?
Just what does a female Latina who was born and grew up in the Bronx learn that has any merit at Princeton or Yale anyway, much less on the Supreme Court?
Just what does a female Latina who was born and grew up in the Bronx learn that has any merit at Princeton or Yale anyway, much less on the Supreme Court?