Blogs and Stories
Sonia's Kabuki Confirmation
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Without any objectionable cases in her past, all Republicans can really come up with is their particularly virulent brand of identity politics.
When Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) informed Sonia Sotomayor on Monday that “unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed,” he wasn't telling her—or the rest of us—anything we didn’t already know. But when he added, “but you know, the drama being created here is interesting,” well, I suppose if you mean by “interesting” you mean “predictable to the point that you could play drinking games with it,”—take a sip every time someone says “follow the law as written” and down the glass for every mention of “wise Latina”—perhaps he may have had a point as well. But “drama,” I’m afraid that’s going too far. The only drama, now that Joe Biden is no longer around to soliloquize, was whether the likes of Graham or Jon Kyl were getting themselves so worked up they might need medical attention.
Republicans have not only given up any hope of defeating Sotomayor, they are also well on their way to forfeiting their right to call themselves a national political party.
Sometimes Supreme Court hearings do provide genuine drama. Robert Bork in 1986 and Clarence Thomas in 1991 certainly fit the bill. But both men’s hearings were widely considered disasters—Bork was rejected and Thomas almost, in large measure because they were so, um, “interesting.” Prospective justices studied these hearings and are today skilled in the art of boring us to tears. The senators therefore must create whatever drama we are likely to enjoy with the nominee’s past record (say, an affinity for porn or a stubborn refusal to embrace the right to privacy). But given that Sotomayor is not merely America’s first Hispanic to be nominated to the high court, but also someone with extremely mainstream legal views, a boring social life and an appointment to the bench from Republican President George H.W. Bush, she does not exactly offer up much in the way or raw material. It is therefore up to the senators to find a way to make this moment their own.
How did they go about it? If Tuesday was any indication, the Republicans have not only given up any hope of defeating Sotomayor, they are also well on their way to forfeiting their right to call themselves a national political party. How else to explain the fact that literally the only consistent theme to their attacks was their assertion of white male privilege?
Do I exaggerate? You tell me:
- "I think it's consistent in the comments I've quoted to you and your previous statements that you do believe that your backgrounds will... affect the result in cases, and that's troubling me," Sen. Jeff Sessions
- “Judge Sotomayor, you are nominated to the highest court of the land, which has the final say on the law. As such, it’s even more important for the Senate to ascertain whether you can resist the temptations to mold the Constitution to your own personal beliefs and preferences. It’s even more important for the Senate to ascertain whether you can dispense justice without bias or prejudice.” Sen. Charles Grassley
- “You seem to be celebrating [the superiority of being a minority judge]…You understand it will make a difference… And not only are you not saying anything negative about that. But you are embracing [it]." Sen. Jon Kyl
- “Terror on the bench; behaves in an out-of-control manner; she is nasty to lawyers; she’ll attack lawyers for making arguments she does not like; she can be a bit of a bully.” Senator Lindsay Graham (quoting anonymous sources)
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
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.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
Why Democrats Are Smiling
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
The Speech of His Life—Again
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
How E.L. Doctorow Does It
Eric Alterman is a professor of English and journalism at Brooklyn College and a professor of journalism at CUNY Graduate School of Journalism. He is the author, most recently, of Why We're Liberals: A Handbook for Restoring America's Important Ideals.
Eric,
"Without any objectionable cases in her past"? Points for jaw-dropping gall, but not accuracy or credibility. Have you been watching or reading anything about the firefighters in Ricci, wherein the good judge was just reversed? As several court commentators have pointed out, the Supreme Court rejected and reversed Sotomayor's specific holding 9-0. (See e.g, Stuart Taylor, National Journal, Justices Reject Sotomayor Position 9-0, http://ninthjustice.nationaljournal.com/2009/06/justices-reject-sotomayor-p osi.php).
Some Rasmussen polling has shown that a majority of Americans oppose her nomination and this has become less favorable for her after the Ricci case was reversed.
This week, a dyslexic firefighter who was denied promotion in the most insulting and perfunctory way by her 3-judge panel, will be testifying to the Judiciary Committee. So inexplicable is Sotomayor and her colleague's one paragraph "opinion" that another judge and Clinton-appointee criticized her for it in dissent. And this is not her only controversial case.
And yet you lead with the title, "Without any objectionable cases in her past"
What happened to the days when writers and journalists at least attempted to deal with the facts before spouting their biased ideological positions?
Dude, CAN YOU EVEN READ?!?!?!?!
"Even in the famous case of the New Haven Firefighters, the Supreme Court admitted that it was forging a new doctrine when, by a 5-4 vote, it overturned her majority position."
Sotomayor (and other Judges in her panel, by the way) followed precedent and were (narrowly) overturned by a Supreme Court that admitted that the decision they were reversing had followed precedent.
Sheesh!
Why don't you tell Sessions and his cronies that. You metion 1 case in her 17 year history only because it affects the most important of Americans: The white man.
I love how those idiot wingnuts harass her about the wise latina remark then turn right around and joke "you got some splannin to do" in obvious reference to Cuban actor Desi Arnez from I Love Lucy. Maybe he meant it as a joke but does he acknowledge that some may find it racially derogatory and offensive? Of course not! The hypocrisy of the ruling class knows no bounds and that's why they are slowly but surely losing their grip. And it's about time.
This user is no longer registered.
It has already been pointed out that the decision to overturn was 5-4, not 9-0, but I wanted to mention something else.
You write:
"Some Rasmussen polling has shown that a majority of Americans oppose her nomination and this has become less favorable for her after the Ricci case was reversed."
#1. Rasmussen polling is heavily conservatively biased in every poll they conduct, to the point of skewing aggregate polls significantly.
#2. Even if you were to ignore the first point, a majority of Americans (that is to say >50%) are NOT opposed to her nomination. The latest numbers are at 44% vs. 39% in favor, and the pollsters even acknowledge that it is looking like she is gaining more support in favor for her since the start of the confirmation hearings.
I understand you get your talking points from the extreme right, but I pray to God that you were not listening to Rush as you were finishing up, because I'm afraid the irony might be too much for the world to handle.
It is obvious that you did not bother to actually learn the facts in the Ricci case. It was not Judge Sotomayors job to change existing legal precedent - only the Supreme Court can do that. It was her job to determine if the facts of the case did not meet existing legal precedent. She, and a majority of the other justices agreed that the city of New Haven was within it;s rights based on previous legal precedent. Even the Supreme Court agreed and stated that it was setting a NEW precedent, which it can do, but the appellate courts can not, or should not. Had she ruled otherwise, she would have been an "activist judge". So, on the face of it there was nothing "objectionable", from a purely legal point of view, about the Ricci case (people's personal objections are not what the author was talking about). She did exactly what the law required a judge in her position to do.
As to Lindsay Graham's questions about the comments that lawyers anonymously publish in the Judicial Almanac, this is far more informative than the supposed "gold standard" of the ABA, which should be discontinued as an indicator of fitness for the bench.
Sotomayor's answer to these extremely harsh criticisms is laughable and insulting - she pretends that the lawyers making the comments did so because they were unfamiliar with her and her colleagues' "hot bench," which she explains is a term of art meaning that judges pepper lawyers with questions. First, as Graham pointed out, the comments were made about her specifically, not her colleagues (and there were a lot of them). Second, to imply that lawyers (or anyone for that matter) would conflate a "hot bench" with personal mistreatment of lawyers and litigants and a lack of judicial temperament is either an indication of her lack of understanding or brazen avoidance of the question, which is an important one.
As a litigator, I have always believed that a powerful judge if he/she was really inclined could probably find out who was making what comments about them.
Eric, your argument that these questions imply racism is baseless. This hearing is about this judge and whether she is qualified and philosophically and judicially acceptable (as the Democrats have made this a new part of the standard by not just voting against Roberts and Alito, but filibustering Alito). You simply hurl the "racist" charge because it is politically harmful. What an ugly and sad means of advancing one's ideology.
That you can accuse Republican Senators of "virulent identity politics," when it is liberals and this judge that has played and used the race card at every turn, is despicable. It is Judge Sotomayor who has repeatedly stated in speeches and writings over a decade or more that she believes a Latina woman should come to better judicial conclusions than other races and gendered judges. It is the White House press office that explicitly warned Republican Senators that their could be racial reprisals electorally if they scrutinize her too closely. It is Senate Dems who targeted Miguel Estrada in a written memo in part because he is Hispanic and they opposed the possibility of someone of his race being elevated to the D.C. Circuit which would have made him a likely candidate for the Court.
I won't wait for your response to any of these facts. I am about done reading this site. It has quickly become nothing more than liberal garbage.
It is clear you have not been listening to the hearing. Now put your listening ears on and pay attention. In the case of the firefighters the ruling was based on existing precedent. That particular ruling was given to the firefighters when the panel explained their reasoning behind their ruling. The firefighters did'nt agree and took their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court changed the rules (which they are allowed to do) so now the case was different and they overturned the panel's ruling. If you are a litigator - go back to school - you clearly did'nt finish at the top of your class.
As to the Republican senators - they have nothing and know they are just going through the motions. Unfortunately for them they are looking as lame as their sometimes completely stupid questions. They have before them a judge with more experience then any candidate before and they come up with questions about making lawyers mad or being a bully - please! Does everything have to be so dumbed down as to be completely irrelevant?
Thank you Leslie.
Leslie I could not agree with you more...
Your charge that Miguel Estrada's nomination was shot down because he is Hispanic is laughable. His nomination was shot down because he had (let me write this in all-caps, so you can understand this better) NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER. This nomination was, at least, as underwhelming as President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers, and that's saying a lot, by the way.
No Latino could ever buy the theory that the opposition to Mr. Estrada's nomination was racially-motivated. Just look at the poll numbers and you'll see the GOP is losing ground even among the only Hispanic voters they had, Cuban-Americans. I see this every day. I should know. I am Hispanic.
Instead of watching all of this political theater I spent the day touring the New England countryside followed by a wonderful seafood dinner. Summer is short. Turn the TV off and go outside!
This confirmation is a done deal. Live a little.
Have a lobster roll for me!
And yes, you do exaggerate. Yes it is understood that Sotomayor will be confirmed barring some "meltdown" as Sen. Graham stated in the hearing. But your attempt to paint the comments above as some sort of "virulent brand of identity politics" (read: racism) is shameful. Every one of those questions and comments above are entirely legitimate and germane without respect to Judge Sotomayor's race, which by the way, it is Judge Sotomayor, President Obama and Senate Democrats who have made an issue of her race and gender to begin with.
It is sad and darkly ironic thing that while conservatives genuinely seek a day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their gender, and the Democratic party which claims to be the paragon of virtue for racial equality continues its sordid practice of trading on race.
"It is sad and darkly ironic thing that while conservatives genuinely seek a day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their gender"
Oh Gandolf, you had me at sad & darkly ironic! but your quote was drop to the floor funny. Please keep these gems a-comin.
I think Eric Alterman hit it on the head. Your ilk think Sarah P is highly qualified to be POTUS, but Sotomayor unqualified to be a supreme court justice. Enough said.
"It is sad and darkly ironic thing that while conservatives genuinely seek a day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their gender, and the Democratic party which claims to be the paragon of virtue for racial equality continues its sordid practice of trading on race."
Are you quoting Colbert here??? This is insanely funny, coming from the party of tokenism. Oh, and if, by any chance, using some bizarro sort of Martian logic, you had a point there (which you don't), this "sad" purported reality surely seems to escape us minorities, cause we sure as heck are not flocking to the GOP....!!
"It is sad and darkly ironic thing that while conservatives genuinely seek a day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their gender, and the Democratic party which claims to be the paragon of virtue for racial equality continues its sordid practice of trading on race."
ROTFLMAO!!!!! Gandolf I need to know: Were you able to keep a straight face when you wrote that? That is the funniest thing I have ever heard in my ENTIRE life!! Thanks for the laughs man. Good times.
Eric Alterman should be the poster child for why journalist are accused of being biased to the left in their coverage of the news. His comments are so biased and he is so blind to the process that he is willing to forgo any real vetting process for a Supreme Court Justice...Hey Eric, I suppose we should just take our Supreme leader Barack Obama at his word and just give Sotomayor the job. Who needs a silly Senate hearing with all those unnecessary questions. If Obama says she's okay, then she's okay.
Here's another idea Eric; Why don't you move to Iran? They seem to have the ideal electorial process you have in mind. The Supreme Leader knows what best there as well!
I do have to wonder how you felt during Robert Bork's and Clarence Thomas' nomination process...
I have no problem with the Senate asking tough questions. My problem is, as it seems to be Mr. Alterman's, with ill-prepared members of the Senate minority asking the same damn questions over and over. As an attorney who had to read and summarize the holdings for Judge Sotomayor's most prominent cases, I get the feeling that these folks only read Ricci, and a brief of that case, at that.
Your comments as to the President are ad hominem garbage, and should be treated as such. They merit no response.
Why don't you move to Iran where religious extemeism is the norm? You'll fit right in.
This user is no longer registered.
Gandolf,
I find your posts extremely amusing.
"Conservatives genuinely seek a day when all people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin or their gender"?!
I adore irony.
Forget about your career as a litigator.
Faux news awaits.
I am confused as to how the members of the Senate minority think precedent should be applied, specifically as to how it relates to charges of "judicial activism". I mean, isn't Roe v. Wade "judicial precedent", and don't Republican Presidents want Supreme Court nominees who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
BTW, in reversing Judge Sotomayor's panel, the Supreme Court overturned precedent, and they admitted that they had. Isn't that judicial activism? Irony, anyone?
I saw the nominee debate the Ricci case with Hatch, and she wound his clock. The man is a fool, and he apparently had no idea what was at issue with the case.
I also found it amusing that he-of-small-government believes that SS was derelict in not issuing a multi-page opinion affirming the opinion of the lower court. In business, we call that make-work.
But we know what happens when Republicans get their hands on the bureaucracy, it expands to the point of deficits in the trillions. All that make-work costs, don't you know.
The problem with Sotomayor is she is competent to serve. She does nothing, says nothing that is a danger to the Supreme Court or to the nation.
Republican senators seem to have a problem with that. Their parries onto Sotomayor are low-wattage, stupefyingly mediocre puffs of nothing.
My Theory of Pie
Once upon a time in America, rich white men got to eat all the pie; but there were a few men among these many (let's call them Adams and Jefferson, for example) who thought that maybe, just maybe, they should share some of the pie with other white men, men who were maybe not rich and influential but who really liked the taste of the pie once they tried it. And everything was good in America--for awhile.
For there were others who watched the men eat the pie, and those others thought to themselves: "I would like some pie too, for it looks so good." And so these others (let's just call them women and minority groups, for example) began to ask for their share of the pie. But most of the white men, though not all, did not like this idea, for the pie was only so big, and if they had to share it with these "others," then they would have less for themselves--and this must not happen, not ever.
And so they came up with ways to stop the others, ways such as denying them suffrage and enacting the Jim Crow laws, for example.
But the others were very determined to share the pie, and their leaders (Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Martin Luther King, Jr., for example) fought long and hard for many years against great odds so that the many "others" could have their fair share of the pie. And they were successful too.
Most, although not all, of the white men hated this success because their share of the pie kept getting smaller and smaller with each passing year--even though they still had the biggest piece. These white men ranted and raved and wailed and gnashed their teeth; they had tried so hard to keep all of the pie for themselves. But they had failed.
And so today, no matter how they try to slice it, there are angry white men (and women; Sarah Palin, for example) who watch people with names like Obama and Sotomayor having their pie and eating it too.
The end?
I would like to option this for a book deal and possibly a movie.
Call my agents: Dewey, Cheatham and Howe
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
The spirit of Emily Dickinson is alive and well, I see.
A Confirmation hearing is supposed to be an exploration, these guys are acting like attack dogs. I do believe that anyone's background/upbringing will of course enter into one's thought processes in any job but, that does not mean she will not uphold the Constitution. These guys are truly playing games and it is becoming embarrassing to watch. http://newsy1.wordpress.com
Don't like Rasmussen, try this:
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307
American voters say 55 - 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished, and disagree 71 - 19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's ruling in the New Haven firefighters' case, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.
More than 70 percent of voters say diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment in competition for government or private sector jobs, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of more than 3,000 voters finds.
Looking at specifics of affirmative action, American voters:
%u2022 Support 55 - 39 percent affirmative action for the disabled in hiring, promotions and college admissions. Protestants and Catholics support it, 49 - 46 percent and 49 - 47 percent, respectively. Jews also support it 59 - 25 percent;
%u2022 Oppose 70 - 25 percent giving some racial groups preference for government jobs to increase diversity. Black voters support it 49 - 45 percent while Hispanic voters are opposed 58 - 38 percent;
%u2022 Oppose 74 - 21 percent giving some racial groups preference for private sector jobs to increase diversity. Voters in every racial and religious group oppose this;
%u2022 Oppose 64 - 29 percent affirmative action for Hispanics in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support it 59 - 30 percent while Hispanics split 47 - 48 percent;
%u2022 Oppose 61 - 33 percent affirmative action for blacks in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support this 69 - 26 percent, as do Hispanics 51 - 46 percent;
Oppose 62 - 32 percent affirmative action for white women in hiring, promotion and college entry. Women oppose this 58 - 35 percent but blacks support it 55 - 37 percent.
Face it the public doesn't want affirmative action.
Yes, and once upon a time in America, half the country supported slavery and the other half, with the exception of the abolitionists, who were in the minority , didn't care that much. And once upon a time the Public, including most women, didn't think women should have the right to vote. And once upon a time, homosexuality was not even mentioned in polite society so that the Public certainly didn't think gays should have rights. Should I continue, Sallyma, or do you get my point?
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
Appointing a judge who opposed affirmative action, which is the law, would be appointing.............yep.............you guessed it..........gasp! AN ACTIVIST JUDGE. There. I said it. the horror!
totallyD: You can have your pie only after you have eaten all your supper. On tonight's menu: Baked Crow. Enjoy!
What amazes me............
is that the Republicanas lack the competence and leadership to pick their battles..
What do you mean by that Downriver? While I agree the Republicans might be splitting hairs with many things regarding Sotomayor and this may not be a great fight to pick, I don't believe their line of questioning has been off base. Senator Colburn's questions regarding abortion weren't out of line, merely tactful in scope. Soto handled the question and moved on. At least the Republicans aren't pulling out "pubic hair on a coke can" like the Demos did during Justice Thomas' hearing.
I mean simply that this nominee will prevail and that the Republicans with the help of the slimy punk from Alabama will alienate even more potential voters insuring their wilderness locale for a even longer period.
Jeffrey Deskovic, an innocently man imprisoned unjustly as a 17 year old for rape and murder, was denied an appeal by Judge Sotomajor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. She denied his appeal on a technicality without looking at the denial of justice it entailed.The Judiciary Committee refused to let Deskovic testify in the hearings. I don't think that her character qualifies Judge Sotomajor to be a SCOTUS justice.I think Sen Leahy is a disgrace for keeping Deskovic from testifying.
If I played a drinking game where I took a shot of tequila every time Sotomayor was asked about the "wise latina" comment, I would have long ago died of alcohol poisoning. Was it really necessary for EVERY Republican that questioned her to ask about that. Wasn't once, or even twice enough? Were they paying attention the first 10 times it was brought up.?
Also, the Repubs were pretty hypocritical with their comments and questions. They lectured her about not using bias in cases involving race but they harassed her about her views on abortion and guns, trying to get her to show her cards so to speak on those issues. The point is, it doesn't matter what her personal feelings are about those issues, she has to use the Constitution and legal precedent to make her decisions, whether it be race, guns, or abortion. They were trying to pin her down and she wasn't going for it. I'm so glad she put that one guy in his place for pushing her on the gun and abortion issues. He was trying to get her to say what she would do in certain cases and she said, you really want a justice who rules that way based on personal feelings before she's heard the facts of the case?? Gotcha!
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.