Two More Senators For Round 1 Questions of Sotomayor
We’re going to finish off this live blog of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings with a bang. The last two Senators to ask questions of Sotomayor will be the very experienced Arlen Specter, and the Senator in his first week on the job, Al Franken.
This morning we learned that 70% of Above the Law readers believe that the Senators should be focusing on Sotomayor’s judicial record instead of her previous speeches. But many commenters thought that was a false dichotomy, and that Senators should take into account all of the available evidence and statements.
We also learned that Sotomayor really, really likes Perry Mason.
Check after the jump for the last round of updates from the first round of the Senate confirmation hearing of Sonia Sotomayor.
2:05: And we’re back. I wonder if Specter is pissed that he’s been given such a bad time slot because of his loss in seniority due to his party switching?
2:11: Specter references Judge Bork. God, he’s old.
2:20: I kind of like Specter’s way. Twice already he’s said “You’re not going to answer, let me move on.” Of course, it’d be better if he said “There’s no possible way you can answer that question without taking a position on a case that might come up before you.” Still, I kind of like the brusqueness of his approach.
Now Specter is wondering why the Court hasn’t addressed the abortion issue since Casey.
2:30: Specter claims that nobody can understand the “congruence and proportionality” test. Sotomayor is trying to explain it. Specter seems unsatisfied.
Specter says that Chief Justice Roberts was very deferential to the Congress when he was up for confirmation. But he suggests that Roberts wasn’t deferential when it came time to decide the voting rights case.
Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court nominees will be docile in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and then not give a flying f*** when they are appointed for life? Breaking news indeed.
Specter: “is there anything that the Senate or Congress can do if a nominee says one thing and then does another thing … when they go across the street.”
Sotomayor: “It’s one of the beauties of our system …”
Nice.
2:38: Do you think there should be television cameras at in the Supreme Court? Specter does. Sotomayor doesn’t sound totally opposed to the notion.
2:40: Clerquette quips: “Judge Sotomayor is finally dressed like a New Yorker, in a black suit.” Don’t forget to check out the live blog of the hearings at Underneath Their Robes.
2:45: Al Franken liked Perry Mason too!
But he also likes free internet. He’s asking if there is a compelling First Amendment right for Americans to have access to a free or affordable internet connection. Sotomayor is trying to tell him “no” without hurting his feelings. We know that he has self esteem issues.
2:55: Franken gives Sotomayor a chance to slam Clarence Thomas over the voting rights case. Sotomayor can’t answer. She gives a very detailed answer about why she can’t answer. Franken seems satisfied.
But will he learn? He’s asking more questions about other specific cases where he sees “judicial activism.” Here’s a tip Senator Franken, she’s not really going to be able to answer these questions either.
3:05: Franken: “Do you believe that the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy.” Sotomayor goes into her legalese, but essentially, yes, she agrees with that.
But then Franken says “so whether a word actually appears in the Constitution is really not that relevant.”
Whoa there new guy, let’s not overreach. Sotomayor tries to bring him back to judicial reality. Somewhere, Scalia is coming up with a benchslap of Al Franken that will end all benchslaps.
3:09: You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. Al Franken ends his bit by asking Sotomayor Perry Mason trivia. I’m not joking. He asked her if she could name the one case in which Mason’s client was guilty.
She could not.
But what makes this all even worse is that Franken himself didn’t know the answer to the question. Isn’t the first rule of asking trivia questions that you have to actually know the answer yourself? I don’t use this term often but: Franken = Epic Fail.
3:15: This concludes our live blog coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. Three straight days of watching the U.S. Senate is enough to make a person long for the days of a unitary monarch. The hearings are not over, and we’ll keep our eye out for anything particularly interesting from the second round of Senate questioning or the witness testimony. But we’re assuming that the Senators have already used up all of their biting and incisive questions during the first round.
Thanks for reading, we hope you enjoyed it.




Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
"the very experiences Arlen Specter"
Nice editing, MysTTTal.
Is it just me or does it sound like she's got marbles in her mouth when she speaks?
Oh, FIRST!
"The last two Senators to ask questions of Sotomayor will be the very experiences Arlen Specter, and the Senator in his first week on the job, Al Franken."
Elie, you are a slob.
"the very experiences"
Ardent Spectator - that's who "the very experiences" person is.
Question for the bar examiners:
If Sonia Sotomayor and Orrin Hatch don't have to know Con. Law then why do I?
I'm still waiting for "Have you smoked marijuana, and did you inhale?" Or is that only for Presidents?
Anyone who has never partaken of the blessed herb should not be put in the position to judge others.
Legalize kanehbosm now, please. It was here long before you were. Given our cultivation laws, ask along with Bob Marely, "Is God then a criminal?"
Why can't Specter get dentures that fit?
7th bitches!
8=Elie
2 - Oh, Fail
I've been out of the country for a month. Is this a deportation proceeding?
Fuck you, Mystal.
2-12 all fail.
1, nice work.
15th losers.
14=ultimate epic failure
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.
And the hits keep coming...
"I'm wonder if Specter is pissed"
Nice editing again, MysTTTal.
- #1
Mystal you are an embarrassment to Mexicans everywhere.
Tom from Nicaragua
11 - This is 2, Oh, bite me!
14= Seton Hall summer at Orrick
wtf is Orrick?
21 - a vaccum
I think that a wise white man would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a puerto rican.
How is that statement less racist than Sotomayor's?
Speaking of ethnic slurs, I read an article on the Nutmeg Lawyer complaining about ATL making a reference to dumb polaks? Can anyone tell me which post?
just type polack in the search engine. Something about egyptian sperm. couple posts back
ATL has officially arrived. See 24.
sorry about the double post. i have typing tourettes syndrome
"is there anything that the Senate or Congress can do is a nominee says one thing and then does another thing ... when they go across the street."
Somehow I doubt that is an exact quote...
- #1
is al franken a little too melodramatic or is it me?
#26
They mentioned it on the Pittsburgh Legal Back Talk too.
I guess Pennsylvania and Connecticut think ATL sucks too LOL Kidding aside, ATL does tend to get a little preachy about this kind of stuff. Kind of ironic they would now start telling Polish jokes
Al Franken. U.S. Senator. This is ridiculous.
I wish Al Franken would start wearing the satellite helmet he used to wear on SNL
Is Al Franken on something? Completely incoherent and unprepared!
2, 8, 14 = fail
6 = epic fail because Sotomayor does know Con Law.
29 - He's the people's advocate, remember?
i think they should put franken on suicide watch; the guy is obviously nuts.
Sen. Jeff Sessions is redneck trash.
Sotomayor Secure
16-Who gives a rats ass about law school grades. Please come back to reality.
Sotomayor is not Mexican.
16 = insecure FAIL
Sen. Tom Coburn is Okie trash.
Sotomayor Secure
it was The Case of the Deadly Verdict...
Franken questioning cases where he sees judicial activism is a joke. People like him want to create fundamental rights out of absolute thin air and claim that the Constitution supports them. Not due to any principled determination, but because they said so. THATS the very definition of judicial activism: unprincipled judicial law making
Does advocating the use of textualism and originalism to a degree that they had never been used in the previous 200 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence make you an activist judge?
44 - yes
John Roberts lied to the Senate.
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.”
"Somewhere, Scalia coming up with a benchslap of Al Franken that will end all benchslaps"
MysTTTal, please let me know where I can send my bill for the editing services I have provided to you today.
Thanks,
#1
One more...
"Th hearings are not over"
I'll add that to my invoice...
#1
44-45: No. It depends how/why its being advocated. Is it rooted in an objectively principled decision making process? If yes, then no. The only person on the Supreme Court today who is arguably an activist judge is Kennedy. Go ahead and argue otherwise, your bias is showing.
mystal,
you're usually tolerable-- but i think you totally misunderstood the tone of al franken's questioning.
How in the world did this blogging clown go to Harvard?
I think they are being to hard on her and her statements about being a wise latina woman bs, we all know that as a wise irish man ted kennedy is an expert on being a drunk and scotch drinker?
This comment is addressed to post no. 52.
Perhaps you should ask our president the same question. In all fairness to Mr. Mystal, he reports here without the assistance of teleprompters, speech writers or handlers.
50 - So you are going to tell me with a straight face that Scalia has always consistently applied the method of judicial decision making that he advocates? Thomas, I'll agree is consistent.
Comment removed by moderator.
The state of Minnesota is an epic fail.
-Seton Hall summer at Orrick
55 - good strawman. The criticism I responded to was of the method, originalism and textualism, not the adherence to it on a case by case basis. The method is not activist. I can think of half a dozen examples off the top of my head where normally principled justices do something uncharacteristic and weird, and arguably unprincipled. Kennedy is the only one in my mind who does it consistently.
23 You are An ARSE!
And it is clear that you are one of those under-achieving white folks. Clearly resentful that you can't be as racist publicly as you would like to be.
53 = fail...I go to SLS and will be much more successful in life than you. Go back to Seton Hall.
I keep looking for the AutoAdmit address over these comments....Really, that is pretty much all this is now. Ick.
hello
59/60
Answer the question presented.
Comment devoured by Mystal and Sotomayor in a feeding frenzy of epic proportions.
60-
What is SLS?
-SHL student
Standford Law School...if you don't know, you're probably at Orrick.
53 = greatest post ever. No debate.
58 - I didn't mean it as a straw man. You said that Kennedy is the only arguably activist judge on the court and I meant to suggest that Scalia is somewhat of an activist as well. His prescribed method of judicial decision making, which is principled on paper, suits his political views most of the time. When it does not suit is political views, he tends to bend or abandon those principles. Furthermore, when a particular method of judicial decision making is a departure from the methods used over the previous 200 years, how can you characterize the judges who don't employ it as automatically activist? You don't personally, but others do.
Citizens of Minnesota electing Stuart Smalley to represent them in the Senate = EPIC FAIL. If ever there were a sign of a people too stupid to live, let alone govern themselves, this is it. He's not quite Marion Barry, but close enough.
@69 -- Right, because the Californians who 1) elected Schwarznegger and 2) find themselves citizens of the state which has the worst credit rating in the Union (not that 1 and 2 are cause+effect, necessarily) are a shining beacon of good judgment.
68 - Because you're unequivocally wrong on the argument that originalism departs from 200 years of judicial decision making. Its rooted in the very basic tenant of plain meaning and has plenty of proponents through history. Its not simply some invention of Bork, Scalia, and Thomas. Hugo Black, for instance, based his entire total incorporation stance on a strict textualist analysis of the constitution.
Also, I moseyed on over here from Dealbreaker (first time on ATL). Does this Elie dude always construct nonsensical arguments/write so poorly?
Thank God DB has Bess...
70 - The Californians are next in line for the too stupid to live prize.
-- 69
STOP COMMENTING ON THE TYPOS!!! IT IS IRRITATING AND, IN THE END, POINTLESS. HE DOES IT ON PURPOSE JUST TO GET YOUR JUICES FLOWING. YOU ARE ALL FAR TOO EASY. I KNOW YOU ARE ALL LIKELY COMPENSATING FOR SOMETHING (LIKE BEING ROUTINELY POUNDED IN HIGH SCHOOL) BUT PLEASE JUST STOP!
#73 - Shouldn't you be working the drive up window at the local BAC?
71 - That is why Hugo Black stood out. He was arguably the first textualist (who also relied on principles of originalism). Others had the text as a factor to consider in how to apply the law, but Black didn’t tend to go beyond the text (for example, to legislative history). Scalia hasn't shown the same judicial restraint that Black advocated and has taken the concept a step further. But even when Black employed his method of strict textualism in order to best adhere to original intent, it was a departure from 150 years of decision making and it made him stand out. A few judges may have dabbled in various incarnations of it over the years, but it was not the predominate or even a moderately common method of judicial making. It has always been a departure from tradition.
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.
I move to ban anonymous comments. There are too many assholes on this site.
I move to ban Elie Mystikal.
Amen 74. Dork comments on Elie's typos much, much, much more annoying than Elie's typos.
1. Sotomatoy looks like Rosanne Barr.
2. Comment 54 = stupid. Name the last president that did not use all 3 of those.
3. Elie, your last comment re Franken is off base; it leaves out 2 pretty funny comments by Franken that got a good laugh.
Sotomayor has a pizza face.
74 = elie mysTTTal = roxanna