Blogs and Stories
Sonia Scores a KO
Lindsey Graham gave the most-effective opening remarks of all the senators, cutting through the rather formulistic attacks and puffery that marked other senators’ speeches. Graham told Sotomayor that he would not have picked her for the court, “but elections have consequences.” He then offered some choice barbs for then-Sen. Barack Obama, who had opposed President Bush’s nominees. While Graham held out the prospect of a vote for Sotomayor, his questioning was certainly the most effective and the most bruising. He led her through a series of nasty comments collected in a New Republic article by liberal law professor Jeffrey Rosen, including the charge that she was a “bully.” “Maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection,” Graham offered. “This is pretty tough stuff we don't see about other judges on the Second Circuit.” He invited self-criticism, but Sotomayor refused to rise to the bait.
The hearings broke without even concluding the first full round of questions, and a number of anticipated topics have yet to be engaged. There was no discussion of flag burning and the marriage rights of homosexuals, for instance—two issues Republicans appear increasingly to be pulling back from. When the hearings resume, expect more inquiry into Sotomayor’s role in the PRLDEF and efforts to draw out her views on a number of propositions that PRLDEF advanced—challenging the death penalty and the draconian Rockefeller laws on drug sentencing, for instance.
The first round, however, has been a clear win for Sotomayor. At this point, her confirmation prospects seem solid. She may not quite draw the 78 votes that went to John Roberts, but if no bombshells emerge, she may not fall far short of that tally either.
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper's magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Torture Prosecution Turnaround?
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Where Iran's Regime Learned Its Tricks
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
The Real Story Behind the CIA's Torture Policy
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
As a federal trial/appellate private practitioner for more than three decades, I support Sotomayor appointment based on her holding that government employees, including judges, are not above the law (see, John Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F.3rd. 374 (2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001)[Sotomayor affirmed right of individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights]).
As an old long time Republican, I find that the "conservative Republican" Senators statements both surreal and hypocritical, based on my three decades of federal litigation. This experience confirms that the Rehnquist/Roberts Court has a policy of conspiring with government attorneys to deprive citizens rights under the Rule of Law and Constitution, i.e Justices Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, et al., have held that they need not follow stare decisis; that both the Executive and Judicial Branch are absolutely immune from accountability for tortious and criminal acts, that the Bill of Rights is replaced by the Bill of Obligation; and that they can criminally affirm void orders issued in violation of federal statutory rights.
In this context because neither the Bush nor Obama White House, nor Congress, and nor the Virginia General Assembly have acted on my repeated petitions for an investigation of malfeasance of Federal and Virginia government attorneys, Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder, and judges, conspiracy obstructing my statutory right as a father and depriving me of my right to employment as a Virginia attorney (see, 2009 presentation to Northern VA Delegates, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ, and (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), I just filed a criminal complaint for treason and obstruction of justice, misprision of felony, and business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code ยงยง 18.2-481, 482, and 499, by by Republican candidate for Governor, former Att. Gen Bob McDonnell, Virginia government attorney and judges (http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/).
Query, if I as an experienced federal litigator cannot protect myself and Son from the malfeasance by government attorneys and judges denying access to an impartial jury trial and court--what is a young attorney or laymen parent to do to protect his and his children rights?
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court
This user is no longer registered.
As the monopoly on power enjoyed by Caucasian-Christian males over the last several centuries of Western Civilization continues to loosen, it's inevitable that many of them will not willingly give up "the good old days" when their rule was unquestioned and they could dole out crumbs to the "inferior" races and "weaker" sex as they wished.
To ease their sense of loss of entitlement and reduce the chance that they will react violently, it's therefore advisable for those in the forefront of the change to a more representative society be very "clean" (Biden's misspeak on Obama during the campaign actually spoke volumes), "nice", suitably respectful and unthreatening to the degree possible (of course their appearance alone makes them a threat). It seems analogous to the introduction of black players into Major League Baseball - one of the primary reasons Jackie Robinson was chosen to be first was because he was "clean" and could withstand the abuse from fans and some white players without losing his cool. And, he was an exceptional performer.
Whether or not Sodomayor is racist or a hothead are only convenient excuses for the GOP Caucasian-Christian males grilling her - if they couldn't hang those things on her they'd find something else, that's the way the game works. Her ultimate crime is that she symbolizes a future that scares them and their supporters, one in which they no longer dominate.
P.S. Just kidding.
why are you "just kidding" you just finished writing a very thoughtful piece re: the truth of this series of hearings from a historical perspective. I see no reason to put it down.
Think carefully, This is Just the Beginning of a new approach to power in the Western Civilization of this planet. Its time for people to wake up.
Sonia may score a KO, but the question is who will she knock out?
So let's see . . . today's Republican Party :
Screw empathy. Rich white males don't have time for your sob story, America. Get off your butts and get back to work. Work 4 part-time jobs without benefits, just quit your cryin' and complianin' and deal with it.
Women? Quit being so damn hysterical in the workplace. You might get a promotion if you just calm down and model OUR temperament. (See Exhibit A, Bill O'Reilly, for a model of moderate temperament. ) Don't like it? Vote for the Democratic Party then! Losers!
Latinos/Hispanics? You may be the fastest-growing demographic in America, but we're still going to employ half-century-old Ricky Ricardo stereotypes to mock you, even if you have a Yale law degree. Ha ha ha ! See you at the ballot box, insurgents!
Love it. Dry, droll and pithy. thanks, :-/
Wow! The "good old boys" turned quickly into a vicious pack of dogs. What are you guys afraid of, extinction? She's just a smart, well-educated woman that is not going to take any of your shit. No reason for alarm or stupid questions. http://newsy1.wordpress.com
Well, Newsy is half right. Ostensibly, she is well-educated. But if a Republican, on the witness stand had confused words "eminent" and "imminent"; (http://is.gd/1AeN1) and had trouble with "vagaries" and "vagrancies" ( http://is.gd/1As5w) well...we all know what Harriet Miers looked like. Double standard? For the s
So - before you denounce the "good old boys", let's take a look at the woman who has clearly received the benefits of affirmative action and will obviously vote to prolong those benefits for preferred races. Even though that fits in with the liberal mainstream, it doesn't fit in with the view of the rest of America. Looks like most of us are "good old boys" because we believe in merit over skin color and ethnicity.
"Merit over skin color"...really? What said you about Session's merit when he was nominated to the federal bench in 1986? Was he nominated for any reason other than his "good old boy" stature? What had he done to distinguish himself for that appointment? Easy answer...nothing, and thank goodness he was rejected because of his history of racially insensitive remarks and poor civil rights record. Thank goodness that even in 1986 there existed some senators who took offense to Sessions affection for the KKK, and affinity for calling black men "boys." That you ignore the irony in Sessions appointing himself Sottomayor's chief inquisitor speaks volumes about your view of "mainstream America." You sir are one of the "good old boys" and to pretend otherwise merely makes you a "bad old liar."
I was very impressed with how deliberate (and boring) judge Sotomayor was in the hearings. Every question posed to her was answered in an almost clinical leagalese that would give valium a run for it's money. What a snooze fest! And THAT is precisely the detatched and objective legal mindset we should have in a Supreme Court Justice.
The attempts by the right to get her to express her "personal" or "philosophical" views were invariably met with reference to legal precedent or simply, "I can't answer that in that way".
Well done, Sonja.
...and she didn't even have to smoke crack with Jeff Sessions to win him over.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.