Add RSS RSS

The Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings: A Preview

Sonia Sotomayor Above the Law small.jpgIn a few hours, at 10 a.m., the confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2d Cir.) to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court will get underway. We will be liveblogging today’s proceedings (as will others — e.g., Clerquette of Underneath Their Robes).

Although polling suggests the nation is closely divided (or perhaps largely undecided) on whether Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to SCOTUS, most analysts expect easy confirmation. E.g., Dahlia Lithwick; Adam Liptak.

But you never know; there could be some surprises. One small glimmer of hope for lovers of political theater: Judge Sotomayor is taking pain medication for her broken ankle. Might the meds make her a little loopy?

Some of the most compelling confirmation hearings ever, those of Robert Bork, owe their dramatic nature to the fact that the chain-smoking Judge Bork wasn’t allowed cigarette breaks — which made him irascible under questioning from the senators. Bork performed poorly, and his nomination was defeated by a 58 to 42. (Of course, it didn’t help that Bork refused to participate in so-called “murder boards,” i.e., practice hearings — a mistake that Judge Sotomayor, who has been preparing diligently for over a week, has not made.)

Check back here around 10 a.m., when the hearings and our coverage get underway!

Update: Our liveblogging is underway. See here.

Confirmation in 60 Seconds [Slate]
Path to Supreme Court: Speak Capably, Say Little [New York Times]
Nominee Wraps Up Rehearsals [New York Times]
CNN Poll: Do Americans want Sotomayor confirmed? [CNN]
Poll: Most Undecided About Sotomayor [CBS News]

Comments

avatar
1 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 7:50 AM

FIRST to predict that she WON'T be confirmed!

Tune in, there are going to be surprises!

avatar
2 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:04 AM

1 = idiot

avatar
3 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:10 AM

1 = Jeff Sessions

avatar
4 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:15 AM

rehnquist was loopy on drugs while on the court.

avatar
5 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:22 AM

Rhenquist was also once quoted as saying that he hoped that, as a white privileged male who had an extremely high IQ, unrivaled judicial pedigree and attended Standford, he believed he could make superior judgments to any Latina in the country. Look it up.

avatar
6 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:33 AM

Given how close the polls are, why aren't the Republicans fighting this more?

7 Posted by David Saint Hubbins | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:35 AM

I'm sure Judge Sotomayor would feel much worse if she weren't under such heavy sedation.

avatar
8 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:38 AM

DSH = Worst ATL Character


Go away dude...

avatar
9 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:42 AM

Lat's desperate for some drama queen action. I thought he would get enough of that at home.

avatar
10 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:44 AM

9: You forgot that Rehnquist too was also described as "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary.

avatar
11 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:47 AM

10 - Rehnquist was not a judge before his appointment to the Supreme Court.

avatar
12 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 8:59 AM

tell ya what, if I were on the committee I'd ask her who her dentist is-- 15 grand is a bargain for choppers like hers.

13 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:00 AM

I predict that Judge Sotomayor will be easily confirmed as the next associate justice of the US Supreme Court. At this point, it has nothing to do with her qualifications. Ms. Sotomayor, like Clarence Thomas, are successful products of affirmative action. The media and the liberal members of the judiciary committee (i.e., Schmuck Schummer) will obfuscate the public of Judge Sotomayor's lack of jurisprudence by continually citing to her "rags to riches" story ad naseum. Since it was the Chosen One who tapped Sotomayor's shoulder, all liberal members of Congress will snap into line and vote for her confirmation. The numbers don't lie, she will be confirmed. I personally will not watch the farce spectacle of the hearings. However, if I were a Republican senator on the judiciary committee, I would bring up how inconsistent her views on abortion are when compared to the backdrop of her upbringing, which is mostly a Catholic one (she did attend Cardinal Spellman High School). Sotomayor will be replacing another liberal vote on the high court. The balance will still remain in favor of conservatives.

avatar
14 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:03 AM

I'm looking foward to Sens. Sessions et al. embarrassing themselves in front of a large audience. Too bad Inhofe -the craziest one of all - is not participating.

avatar
15 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:10 AM

Sotomayor is a nutcase. This is the worst case of identity politics in American history.

Also, I would like to say that I too agree that David Saint Hubbins is the worst ATL personality. He hasn't added anything of value to a single thread. Spinal Tap? Really, dude? Get a life geek...

avatar
16 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:11 AM

PE, how was the Tour de France?

avatar
17 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:12 AM

DSH = BEST ATL character

avatar
18 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:15 AM

17 = DSH?

19 Posted by Partner Emeritus | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:16 AM

This comment is addressed to post no. 16.

Thank you for asking. It was great catching a stage while enjoying the local scene at Tarbes. Lance Armstrong looks good but that Contador fellow will be tough to beat in the mountains. The tour winner will be decided by the individual time trial on July 23. I may be going back to France just to catch that stage.

avatar
20 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:17 AM

Manny Acta's firing was clearly motivated by race. Another Latino beatend down by the man,

-- Sotomayor

avatar
21 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:17 AM

16 = PE

avatar
22 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:24 AM

PE, best poster by far.

avatar
23 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:24 AM

Yes, Lat, it was Bork's lack of nicotine that caused him to perform poorly. Or maybe it's because he is a grumpy, irascible man. Either way.

avatar
24 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:37 AM

What a fat ugly woman. I guess if I looked like that, I would hate white people too.

avatar
25 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:39 AM

Bork performed poorly because conservative legal thought is a joke and cannot withstand the force of even poor cross-examination by non-practicing lawyers (most Democratic members of Judiciary).

avatar
26 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:43 AM

I am a Seton Hall summer at Orrick. Should I be scared about this?

avatar
27 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:44 AM

what happened to Mystal? She's been quiet lately

avatar
28 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:45 AM

Mystal wants moar breafast. mooooooar!

avatar
29 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:47 AM

Latham NY laid off over half the first year class.

Latham NY laid off 45% of associates in 2009.

These layoffs followed Latham's "no layoffs" promise and a salary freeze supposedly designed to prevent the need for layoffs.

avatar
30 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:49 AM

26 yes, hell yes.

all the cali firms but Gibson (Latham, Orrick, OMM) are fucked due to poor management.

avatar
31 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:53 AM

PE is an alum of Orrick.

avatar
32 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 9:59 AM

True or false: Sotomayor will be questioned as harshly as Thomas or Bork?

avatar
33 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:01 AM

What's going on over at Latham? Something seems off.

avatar
34 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:03 AM

Elie is dead. Long live David Lat.

Seriously, is there any way in hell that Elie would have gotten out of bed at 7:00 in the morning to right a post about Sonia Sotomayor?

Nope.

avatar
35 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:03 AM

Elie is dead. Long live David Lat.

Seriously, is there any way in hell that Elie would have gotten out of bed at 7:00 in the morning to right a post about Sonia Sotomayor?

Nope.

avatar
36 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:10 AM

34/35: "Right" on!

avatar
37 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:13 AM

Lat's live blogging:

http://abovethelaw.com/2009/07/sotomayor_liveblogging_1.php

avatar
38 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:18 AM

Or maybe Bork wasn't confirmed because he would have been the swing vote in overturning Roe v. Wade. He admits as much today.

Cigarette breaks? Get real.

avatar
39 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 10:43 AM

Bork wasn't confirmed b/c it's PC to bash / persecute conservatives, but not PC to bash / persecute liberals, especially liberals who are minorities. Ex, Thomas -- if he were a black liberal and Republicans pulled the crap that Democrats did, there would have been riots in the streets.

avatar
40 Posted by guest | Permalink Monday, July 13, 2009 11:03 AM

We're elevating a racist to the Supreme Court -- someone who actually believes her race makes her better (wiser) than people of another race. Are leftists so hypocritical that this doesn't make at least a few of you a tiny bit uncomfortable?

It's been said before, but it bares repeating. If a white person said the experience of being white makes them wiser than a Latino they would have been rightfully labeled a racist and stricken from consideration for the SC. Why does that fact Sotomayor is latino give her a free pass for racism? I would love to see an intelligent argument to justify the double-standard.

avatar
41 Posted by guest | Permalink Tuesday, July 14, 2009 2:22 PM

Comment removed by moderator.

Post Your Comment