FIRST to wish Sotomayor good luck!!!

Who cares - as a wise man once said, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I have a question for Sotomayor: who the f is Bert Agrela and why does he keep sending me emails about his allegedly raped wife? He obviously is an unwise Latino.

I have a question for Sotomayor: who the f is Bert Agrela and why does he keep sending me emails about his allegedly raped wife? He obviously is an unwise Latino.

Is Elie on vacation, or has he been fired?

GO SOTOMAYOR!!!!!

Pat Leahy is still bald.

Is SotoxtraMayo even willing to take questions from whitey?

Is there any conservative lawyer not embarassed by Sen. Sessions' speech right now?

Sessions just doesnt have the richness of expirence to come up with a wise result

Sen. Sessions: Results which go against my backwards, reactionary policy preferences are [activist], [against the rule of law], [blah blah blah]. What a joke. I am embarassed this guy is in the Senate.

I live and work in Texas.

What does a look of "concern and amusement" look like?

And people wonder why it takes the legislature so long to get anything done? Apparently every friggin' a-hole on the committee just HAS to make a pointless, longwinded speech.

14, like you're about to drop some major ass.....you are concerned because people around you might notice, but you're amused because they won't say anything and it will feel good once it's over.

I am proud to be a white male working in America. There, I said it, Soto. What, that makes you angry?

Mystal had a look of concern and amusement after he devoured an entire 6 foot party platter sub before any other guests arrived at the party.

19th!

Thank you Lat for taking over this! Elie's idea of "live blogging" is waiting for the WSJ or the Tax Prof to make a posting, and then copy and paste the major excerpts on ATL.

14 - Look at the picture Lat added.

I am better than pretty much everyone on this blog. Who am I?

Are the two younger boys Asian or Hispanic? Only caught a glimpse...what's the story there?

This is such a waste of time, of course conservatives don't like her, but she isn't crazy or unfit to be a justice. They should just confirm her and move on.

Good point about Miguel Estrada by Sen. Hatch. Estrada got a raw deal.

Excellent article below on Sotomayor's controversial judicial philosophy.

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/06/through-the-sonia-sotomayor-looking-glass

22 = Kash, if by "better" she means "richer."

For the sake of the entire TV audience and Ms. Sotamayor as well, it would be best if all TV outlets agree -- no close-ups. Just brutal, especially with today's large screens and needless to say, HD is not her freiend.

the supreme court? ATL you are missing the real news; Timmy Ho's is now in NYC...Further proof the Canada is Rawking your world!

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2009/07/13/tim-hortons-new-york-manhattan-united-states-expansion.html

Not only is our coffee awesome, but..

-Bay Street is Awesome!

Who was that screaming guy and what the heck was he saying???

It is a sad day in America when a mediocre jurist is elevated to the Supreme Court solely because of her race and gender.

sotomayor looks like she is going to cry. God I hate her. Why are democrats so idiotic? This woman is NOT qualified!

I just read yet another article extolling Sotomayor for her "compelling life story" and for "reflecting the changing face of America." Flip that around and it an implicit statement that white men are now a disfavored class, all of whom have the same life story, and whose faces should be phased out of American life.

I love seeing tradition continued in appointing and confirming very ugly women to the court.

Washington Post said protestor was anti-abortion

heckler outburst was re: abortion, this via NanAron: http://twitter.com/NanAron

Awesome live blogging. I asked what a look of "concern and amusement" looked like, and lo and behold, a picture showing a concerned and amused Judge Sotomayor appeared. Nice work.

If that were true, 33, don't you think that white men have had a nice 250+ year run in the U.S.?

Yup, anti-abortion. From Lat:

"MSNBC just replayed the outburst. The man shouted: 'What about the unborn?' Presumably an anti-abortion activist."

If racism is an evil per se, then why should anti-white racism be any more acceptable than anti-black or anti-latino racism. Or is it that you actually endorse racism when it serves your own self interest?

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 no one has come up with a satisfactory answer. If this were a white person who said the experience of being white makes them wiser than a latino person, does anyone doubt that person would have been screened out long before this stage?

41, try getting the statement at least 2% correct and someone will answer your incredibly stupid question.

"don't you think that white men have had a nice 250+ year run in the U.S.?"

Yeah, that run in the 220 years before I was born really does a whole helluva lot for me. Idiot.

43 - are you serious? Systematic oppression of everyone who is not white for centuries has most certainly helped all whites - at least relative to minorities. Idiot.

I just love how the conservative white Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are alienating Hispanics as a viable Republican voting demographic, minute by minute.

when do these introductory "statements" end?

It is a sad day in America when a mediocre jurist is elevated to the Supreme Court solely because of her race and gender.

31 - See Thomas, Clarence, supra. Idiot.

41: You know what the answer is. In fact, some really crazy liberals (usually in the academy) believe for racism to exist, there must be power + some act. Of course, the same liberals also believe that it's absolutely impossible for a minority to have any power in today's society. Thus, it's impossible for any act by a minority to be racist. Totally ridiculous, but that's the type of mentality we're dealing with.

42, 41 here.

Okay wise guy (or should I say wise Latina woman?), here is the exact quotation:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

No imagine Justice Roberts had said:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

I'll ask again, do you have any doubt that if Roberts or any white person had made a similar comment that he would have been rightly labeled as a racist and hounded out of the nomination process?

If no, explain. If yes, why the double standard?

It is a sad day in America when a mediocre jurist is elevated to the Supreme Court solely because of her race and gender.

if she cries will it help her or hurt her?

She will not cry. She has a heart made of chalupas

48 - Race AND gender. Thomas was just race.

For 41 and 50:

In singling out and criticizing Sotomayor for the remark -- "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" -- you are completely ignoring the point of Sotomayor's speech. She made the comment in question while discussing the importance of diversity on the bench and the effect of background and personal experiences on judicial decision-making, a point made by such conservatives as Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

You completely miss her broader point, which is amplified in her words immediately following the statement for which she is being criticized. From Sotomayor's 2001 speech:

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice [Benjamin] Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

[...]

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

AS IS CLEAR, Sotomayor does not talk only of the benefits she derives from her experiences; she also notes the challenge to her as a judge "to be greater than the sum total of my experiences," and "continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Sotomayor is not the first Supreme Court nominee to make the point that judges are influenced by their background and experiences. Indeed, conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have each acknowledged the significant impact that their personal background and experiences have had on their judicial thinking. Alito asserted during his 2006 confirmation hearing:

ALITO: I don't come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn't experience those things. I don't take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it's my job to apply the law. It's not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country."

When I have cases involving children, I can't help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that's before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who's been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I've known and admire very greatly who've had disabilities, and I've watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn't think of what it's doing -- the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

IN SUM, you are an idiot. This is why conservatives speak in talking points. Careful, rigorous analysis of facts and data is not their strong suit.

38: The problem with the argument that "white men" have had a nice 250 years is the same problem with the "changing faces" argument. It assumes that everyone from the same race has the same experience. The fact that white men have held positions of power for centuries is no advantage to a poor white kid growing up in poverty in a trailer park somewhere. But your philosophy would treat him as though he were a Rockefeller with great inherited wealth.

The problem with all forms of racism is that it strips people of their individuality. It judges them by the color of their skin and NOT by the content of their character. That's the nightmare that modern liberals have made of MLK's dream.

It is a sad day in America when a mediocre jurist is elevated to the Supreme Court solely because of her race and gender.

48, so two wrongs make a right? Great liberal logic.

Conservative: X is wrong.
Liberal: But but-- people who share some of your ideology did Y which is somewhat analogous almost 20 years ago!

55 for the win.

Conservatives: just shut up and stop embarassing yourselves further.

I just would like to know why she ate my burrito supreme and then never said thank you or even offered to pay for said delicious burrito.

55, in various earlier versions of her speech, she left out the words "Latina" and "white." You know, kinda like Alito's statements, which makes no presumptions based on the color of one's skin. Do you understand how her race-based speech is just a little bit different?

Wait, I wasn't listening closely. Did Sen. Graham just say the "other side" of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense is the NRA?!

1. Seriously, Lat, enough with the royal "we". That convention is as tired as "jumps."

2. Nice meta-reference to someone else's liveblog.

wow - leahy and sessions fighting. awesome.

55, 41/50 again. Two points.

One, you never actually answered my question. I suspect the reason you avoided answering my question is because you know that no matter what the "context" or post-hoc rationalization a white male would never get away with saying that his experience as a white male allows him to reach better conclusions than latina women.

Two, you completely missed the point. In fact, with your reference to Alito's comments, you proved my point. Alito was talking about his personal individual experience. Sotomoyar attributed her ability to reach a "better conclusion" to the fact of her race and gender. The former is called "learning from experience." The latter is called "racism." No one would have any problem with the comment if Sotomayor had merely said her personal experience influences her decisions.

Well said, 56, unfortunately the limousine liberals in the academy and the halls of Congress that have indoctrinated those who blindly embrace the full arsenal of liberal talking points don't care about reasoning issues, especially this one. The result of an intelligent person actually thinking about it, it's plain to see, is not good for them.

Quite simply put, to a Democrat today, to express any doubt about the need for continued use of race-based preferences is racism. Don't ask why. You're not allowed to debate it. It just is.

These are the principles that we hold self-evident:

The only type of "diversity" that is worth achieving is racial diversity. The only way to achieve racial diversity is the use of race-based preferences. It is not unfair to anyone who may be denied opportunity based on a lack of skin pigmentation due to the need to uphold these principles. And besides, over 100 years ago, when the vast majority of today's pale faces' ancestors probably lived on another continent, there was slavery. Their immigrant forefathers came here to be denied jobs as immigrants because in doing so they benefitted from white dominance. This all makes perfect sense and represents the principles on which this great nation was founded.

Cognac, France.

65 -- how does one seperate their race and gender from their personal experience? don't you think those things influence one's personal experience?

has anyone here heard the saying, arguing on the internet is like participating in the special olympics - even if you win, you're still retarded.

actually, special olympians are not all retarded but they all have a lot of courage. if you have views strong enough to key-in 500+ words of text, why don't you blog them or submit them to a newspaper?

you're cowardly leeches for reserving your views for the bowels of SOMEONE ELSE'S online blog.

Obviously the Irish and the Jews have really benefited from most of that 250 years of white male dominance in the United States. If you think that not all white people are the same, you are a racist, but if you do the reverse and make generalizations about black people, you are a racist. Liberal logic makes perfect sense.

Senator Sessions:

“… Call it empathy, call it prejudice, but whatever it is, it is not law. In truth, it is more akin to politics. And politics has no place in the courtroom.”

I'm surprised he wasn't buried under the weight of the irony in this statement....

That woman's blatant reverse racism hearkens back to the halcyon days of 1950's Alabama.

65 is retarded. Your experiences affect your actions. Your gender and race shape your experiences. Are you saying that a black woman and a white male would be treated exactly the same, and thereby have the same experiences in the same settings?

Don't be stupid.

Obama announcing his new nominee for surgeon general, Dr. Dre.

Graham = RINO

Of course liberals didn't like Bork, but he wasn't crazy or unfit to be a justice. They should have just confirmed him and moved on.

Comment removed by moderator.

Obama bragging that his new surgeon general maxed out her credit cards. Apparently this is a badge of honor in the black community.

77 = Liberal drive-by

Yes, a wise latina woman might be better equipped to judge CERTAIN issues based on her experience with those issues that a white male doen't and can't have.

Just like a business major might be better equipped to judge a case that heavily involves business concepts that someone not versed with such concepts would have more difficulty grasping.

Sotomayor was not actually saying that Latinas are better than white men men and will serve as better Justices by virtue of ethnicity in ALL respects. But only that being a minority who has experienced certain invidious discrimination that white establishment haven't and can't experience can provide certain insights. Of course, the concern is that it WILL lead to bias and impartiality. And that may be a fair criticism. But it's important to recongize exactly what she is and is not saying. It's easy to take her out of context wtih snippets. That's the thing people need to remember

And I'm a white establishment male who has benefited from being a white establishment male.

Obama is the hippest president in the history of ever! Just look at how calm, cool and composed he is even during the most heated of debates!

77's comment was eaten by Elie because it referenced a burrito

Censorship is gay.

Good to see that laid off former conlaw gunners have found a forum for some intellectual masturbation.

65, please give an example of a context in which simply being a white male could possibly better equip you to judge issues that would come before the Supreme Court. I don't think there are any.

But, yes, being a minority or a woman can provide unique insight into issues such as racial and gender discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc...The flip side is that it might lead to bias and impartiality. That's fair. But don't pretend that first-hand experience by virtue of race or gender can't actually provide an understanding in a way that otherwise is impossible.

OK 80. So please give us a list of issues that a wise white male might be better equipped to judge based on his experience with those issues that a latina doesn't and can't have. Without that list, you are basically saying that latinas are generally better because they can judge all the issues a white man can judge and some issues that a white man can't judge. And that to me is racism.

83 - So is Senator Whitehouse, it seems.

The liveblogging at UTR is very very funny:

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2009/07/liveblogging-the-confirmation-hearings-1.html

58 - you're right, just saying "X is wrong" is enough to reverse 250 years of systematic oppression. Us white folk born in the 70s and 80s may not have done anything to the minorities our parents' generation oppressed, but good grief, as a society we can do a bit more to right that wrong - how you go about doing it is certainly up for debate. For the record, I would love for affirmative action to be unnecessary, but our country is not close enough to giving all people a relatively equal starting line in life.

70 - what an awful example. Neither of those groups were literally enslaved in America, and then subsequently denied entry to anything resembling a decent public education.

It must have been Sotomyerror's unique insight into issues such as racial discrimination that led her to affirm discrimination against white men in Ricci. So let's get this straight - equal protection means gays have the constitutional right to marry but white men can be denied promotions for no other reason than that they are white. I'm sure no white male could have come up with that.

Wow, 85, could you be any more racist and sexist. Yeah, it's not like whites have ever been racially discriminated against, or males have ever been discriminated against or sexually harassed. Nope, never.
Do you understand how whites are less-powerful minorities in certain parts of the country, and sometimes suffer as a result? Maybe the city of Richmond...

Comment eaten by Sotomayor.

My other vagina is a Sotomayor filled with centipedes

First to say SoTTTomayor!

89 very well said. So why don't you do your part to right the wrong by surrendering YOUR job to a minority. Of course I know you won't. Your idea of righting the wrong is to use the government to force someone else to give up his job.

89, when were Puerto Ricans enslaved in America?

First to say SoTTTomayor!

Our country is so screwed. I am moving to the Bahamas.

Nice one, Elie:

"Is it possible for the U.S. Senate to understand what justices do without referencing sports? How about 'A SC Justice is like a fashion model, she is supposed to wear the clothes, not design the outfits.'"

This live blog is useless. Time to go to a real news source.

100th!

Republicans haven't laid a glove on her so far.

I think I just heard a queef in the background.

89 - You are right in that the issue is that generally minorities don't have the same starting line in life that white people do. But the problem with affirmative action is that it doesn't focus on the starting line, it focuses somewhere in the middle. It therefore doesn't really help the situation but is only a coverup where we are promoting underqualified people instead of dealing with how to make them more qualified. Perhaps if the liberals would stop pandering to the teachers' union and start focusing on the starting line - inner city education and the collapse of the family and the valuation of achievement in the black community - we could make real progress.

95 - You're right - liberals supporting affirmative action want all whites to resign their jobs. What I support are things like Michigan's admissions program, where race was but one factor among many that admissions officers were allowed to consider (not the overwhelming reason to favor admittance). When I applied to law school, surely some relatively equally qualified applicants got in over me because of their race, and I'm fine with that. You, however, think that's evil, all the while thinking saying you're sorry for our country's history is enough. Get over yourself.

100 - It's not ATL's fault - nothing newsworthy has happened so far.

I'm getting sleepy.....

95 +1

Our country must atone for her ignominious legacy of Puerto Rican enslavement.

Wait, what?

Well said 55.

103 - I would agree with you that affirmative action is indeed taking place somewhere in the middle of the 'race.' And I agree we should be focusing on the starting line. Whether that's teachers' unions fault is another issue, but I welcome a conservative willing to actually address the issue - that the starting line is simply not the same.

104, are you aware that these "relatively equally qualified applicants" have on average about 10 lower LSAT points than their non-AA peers? Someone not blinded by white guilt would think that's a huge gap since the entire LSAT range spans 60 points.

I wonder if SotoxtraMayo watches the Showtime smash hit series "Weeds?"

Breaking News: Dick Durbin Thinks There Are Too Many White Males In Government; Refuses to Cede His Seat To A Minority!

Obviously all whites go to good elementary schools and all blacks go to bad schools. It's not like there are middle-class blacks who go to good schools and still benefit from affirmative action. Since affirmative action is supposed to redress unequal starting points, such as early education, it's unclear why admissions officers can't just find out what schools and backgrounds the applicants came from, regardless of race, instead of making an assumption based on race. But that's not racist at all. School and other life records must be too hard to look up.
It's almost like liberals justify affirmative action with flimsy post hoc rationalizations that could have been effected with a more targeted approach.

75 -- Which is why I stopped voting Republican. Love me some Graham. Too bad the rest of you are mucking up his party.

BREAKING: CONSERVATIVE LAWYERS DON'T LIKE LIBERAL SCOTUS APPOINTEE: FOX NEWS TALKING POINTS ENSUE

Gotta love Lindsay Graham (R-SC). He's easily one of the most eloquent Republicans in the Senate. (I'm a liberal Democrat, and I'm saying this)

He's the kind of guy who could tell you to go to hell in such a manner that you would look forward to the trip.

The Whitehouse/Baldwin comment had me spewing milk all over my laptop. Thanks, Lat.

of course she will be confirmed--the senate represents the rich and powerful, and this sotomayor is a pseudo-leftist cryptorightist--a real favorite of the rich and powerful because pseudo-leftist cryptorightist policies favor the interests of the rich and powerful.

duh!

Her face looks like a large pile of mud.

SotomayOR's lunch break burrito has caused her severe gas. She will not be returning to her confirmation hearing this afternoon.

She sure will diversify the fugliness of the court.

The first political party to embrace and promote income based affirmative action will be making a good step... Time for change and a transition to sensible policies!
No reason wealthy minorities should continue to be advantaged by lowering the bar and why poor white kids don't get a bit of a leg up to move up in society. Income based affirmative action will still to a large extent advantage minorities, but also bring in all races! Perhaps it has not been promoted much as of yet by politicians because it won't help their kids?

118: I always thought she looked more like Clayface.

http://www.comicbookreligion.com/img/c/Clayface_Basil_Karlo.jpg

@115:

That's the definition of diplomacy.

I think you meant to say pro-life...

Here is my question. I get why conservatives oppose her. But why do liberals support her? She will no doubt be a reliably liberal vote on the court. But so would a lot of other people who have more intellectual heft. Does anyone actually imagine this mental lightweight can keep up with Scalia?

122. That's uncanny! Where is Batman when you need him?

125 - I'd prefer Pam Karlan or Diane Wood, but I have no doubt that Sotomayor will fight the good fight the four conservatives and their efforts to destroy our Constitution and the accompanying principles of equality and fairness.

125: Liberals support her because she's not only a big supporter of them, but she's the epitome of identity politics herself. Female, Hispanic, and liberal -- she's the Democratic wet dream. And, it's doubtful this is Obama's last SCOTUS pick (Ginsburg is in ailing health and Stevens is ancient) so it might not matter as much about getting an intellectual heavyweight pick onto the court as it does for Dems to continue pandering to the rapidly growing Hispanic population. Plus, replacing Souter isn't going to do much anyway (liberal vote for liberal vote). Unless Obama gets a chance to tinker with the conservative bloc of justices, there's not going to be that much change.

121,

It's already been proposed. It's called National Socialism.

With the best of their patriarchal, rather than representaive authority, long time Senators made it very clear that she met "their standards" for appointment to the office. How very gracious of them.

It is important, however, that it be pointed out that most men are not grilled with the thoroughness, the candor, nor the depth with which questions were asked, despite the graciousness in the manner in which they were asked.

She answered them with flying colors, and met every potential intellectual land mine with applomb and deference. That alone says something of her judicial restraint, as well as her fairness and openmindedness, all criteria essential for the Supreme Court which is a rare commodity in most other hearings the public has been privy to witness.

It's also important to note that had she not received the kind of reception she received through the grace of the kinds of questions she was asked as important to prevent bias, it would have made a pure mockery of the process, and of the particular decision that some had a problem with concerning the firefighters and the reverse discrimination case.