We hope you’ve been enjoying our liveblogging of Day 2 of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. If you missed the morning session, you can check it out here.
To bring you up to speed. The “wise Latina” comment has indeed been the big ticket item of the day. Sotomayor has backtracked from it all morning. She stated clearly that she didn’t mean to imply that Latina’s were better at judging than other ethnic groups. She then doubled down and said of the comment: “It was bad.”
Pretty high rhetoric from a potential SCOTUS Justice, don’t you think.
Sotomayor hasn’t apologized for the remark, so there’s still something for Lindsey Graham to do when he gets his turn.
Meanwhile, on the Ricci front, Sotomayor has been sticking to the point that she was simply applying the law and that SCOTUS changed the law when it reversed the Second Circuit’s opinion on that front. So far, the Republican Senators seem massively underwhelmed by that proposition. I don’t recall a Senator asking her flat out if she thought that the test administered to the New Haven firefighters was racist. She probably wouldn’t answer, but isn’t that really the heart of what people want to know about her opinion here?
Coming back from lunch at 2:00 p.m., Chuck Grassley is up first. He should provide the first serious discussion of a woman’s right to choose. But let’s hope he suggests that somebody should hang themselves again.
Check after the jump for live updates of the hearing.

2:10: Grassley zooms in on Kelo v. City of New London and property rights. I liked Sotomayor’s response: “I understand the questions,” while she was refusing to answer the issues on point. She’s been well trained.
It’s now blown into a full discussion on the takings clause. It’s fun, I remember this from real property … zzzzzzzzzzz …. huh? Oh yeah. Can we get to adverse possession now?
2:15: OUTBURST. I didn’t catch all of the ravings and lunacy. After order was restored, Grassley had the winning line “I’ve always had the ability to turn people on.”
2:25: MSNBC is now so bored with property rights that they’ve cut to commercial. Classic liberal media bullcrap. There are Democrats that own land too, Chris Matthews! … I think so. Luckily, CSPAN is still available so we can hear Sotomayor and Grassley drone on about Chevron now.
2:35: Grassley ends with more environmental law questions. No abortion issues today.
Feingold starts off by asking if 9/11 changed Sotomayor’s view on individual rights. She said no. “The Constitution is a timeless document.”
3:00: FISA Court questions! FISA Court questions! Feingold clearly wanted Sotomayor take a stronger stand about the issue, but she was very evasive. She repeatedly said that she’s never served on such a court, and therefore couldn’t imagine what kind of things could be published without a threat to national security, and what couldn’t. It was a very moderate answer, all the Senators look pissed.
But when Feingold asked about the Korematsu case, Sotomayor had this winning line: “A judge should never rule from fear, a judge should rule from law and the Constitution.
Earlier, Feingold asked if Sotomayor — a New Yorker — could empathize with Mid-westerners. She said yes. But when Feingold asked her to point to Wisconsin on a map, Sotomayor seemed to vaguely point to western Massachusetts. (just kidding).
3:20: What the heck is Jon Kyl doing? First he asked if Sotomayor would recuse herself from every case involving the incorporation of the Second Amendment. She did not promise to do so. Then he said that Roberts made such a promise on a different matter when he was up for confirmation. She said that Roberts did not. Then Kyl asked her to explain what Obama thinks about how judges should decide cases. Sotomayor told Kyl to ask Obama (good witness, do not succumb to hearsay).
And now, now Kyl says that he has read all of Sotomayor’s speeches and is questioning her about them. Has Senator Kyl read all of Sotomayor’s, you know, cases?
3:25: Jon Kyl: “the clear inference is that this [influence by your Latina heritage] is a good thing … that is the basis of concern a lot of people have.”
Sotomayor pivots to her 17-year record on the bench.
Boo. I was hoping that a “Sotomayor L. Jackson” moment was going to happen: “Yes I’m a wise Latina and I hope you burn in hell!”
3:35: Okay, so Sotomayor is now officially blaming Sandra Day O’Connor for the wise Latina comment. After explaining that she was going back to the SDO statement, she again said “the words I chose, the rhetorical flourish, was a bad idea.” Then she goes back to her record.
And it’s time for another ten minute break.
3:55: And we’re back. With Chuck Schumer. I don’t think Schumer is going to actually ask any questions, I think he’s just going to use this opportunity to bash his Republican colleagues for 30 minutes. Put it like this, Chuck Schumer would not do well on Jeopardy.
4:03: Okay, if I’m reading this right, Schumer’s entire point is to bring up heart wrenching cases where Sotomayor had sympathy for the litigants before her, but ruled like a hard-ass against them. How is this helpful? I half expect Schumer to throw a baby seal onto Sotomayor’s desk just so Obama can order her to club it to death and Sotomayor has to reluctantly “follow the law.”
4:10: In fairness, it does appear that Schumer read a lot of the cases, while Kyl read the speeches. Which do you think is more important?
4:25: It’s time for Lindsey Graham. He immediately dismisses Schumer’s case based analysis and goes back to the speeches. Then he insults her with “don’t become a speech writer if this law thing doesn’t work out.” This is going to be real nice.
4:36: Graham: “Do you think you have a temperament problem?” He’s been laying into her about her temperament for the past couple of minutes. But he also said that he liked her. Southern charm?
4:40: Lindsey Graham just tried to get Sotomayor to recite the wise Latina quote. She totally refused. He read it himself. Now he is saying that if he said anything like that, his career in politics would be over.
4:47: Graham now questions Sotomayor about her knowledge about the laws of war. Next time, Obama should nominate Sun Tzu.
4:55: Graham: “What’s your view of the death penalty, personally?” Sotomayor said that it has been consistently upheld as constitutional. She’s trying to make the point that what one does as an advocate is different than what one does as a judge.
5:04: Sotomayor is having a choking fit during Dick Durbin’s questions about the death penalty. This hearing is starting to feel like cruel and usual punishment.
5:10: Durbin wants Sotomayor to grant a federal right of access to DNA evidence. Since the Court just decided the case, Sotomayor wisely didn’t answer the question. But she did point out that people like Dick Durbin should be answering this question long before people like Dick Durbin ask the question of Sotomayor.
5:18: Durbin — Senator from Illinois — doesn’t know how to pronounce Judge Posner — also from Illinois. It’s not a big deal, Durbin seems to know that Posner is a much more important legal authority than Durbin is.
5:25: Mercifully, Durbin doesn’t use all of his time.
Jon Kyl absolutely wins the afternoon award for the most aggressive frontal attack. Schumer wins the award for most effective sucking up.
Tomorrow, junior Senators get to ask questions. But because of the balance of power in the Senate, there aren’t many Republicans left to go. We’ll see if any of the junior Democrats have interesting things to add.