Dialogues

Nice point about Murray

nicmart — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:25:01 GMT

When Sandel writes, "I'm not sure I understand what you take libertarianism to be," he has concisely stated what has befuddled me as a long-time libertarian. I think the answer must be located somewhere in Murray's perpetually furrowed brow. Murray apparently thinks furrowing illustrates deep thinking. Maybe they exist, but I don't know libertarians who consider Murray to be a fellow traveller. He is to libertarianism what David Gergen used to be to conservatism: a phony who serves the purposes of the mainstream media.

Women in the workplace

sarahrank — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:04:40 GMT

Women have the right to persue any career they feel suits them. Personally, a job in the army is not right for me, however, anyone else who has the determination and strength to do so then more power to them! You have my upmost respect for your choice.

Our portrayal on society has drastically changed. We went from being "seen and not heard" to new important additions to any workforce. Yes, some men seem to have a sort of animosity towards us, and are possibly threatened by our intelligence, but we've come too far to silence our ideas now.

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor -- Says Roe Is "Settled Law"

MichaelBernard4 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:29:42 GMT

All I need to know about today's U.S. Senate Nomination Hearing for Liberal New York City Feminist Sotomayor, is that she thinks the appalling pro-Abort "Roe vs. Wade" Supreme Court "Decision" of 1973, is "Settled Law" (her words.)

Hispanic voters may be trending towards the Democratic Party side of the political ledger lately, and who could blame them after all the recent Know Nothing orgy of Immigrant Bashing and and Anglo-Centric Idiocies of American Politics? Yes, Yahoos, I am talking to you, and about you.

However, if Sotomayor thinks Roe is settled law, she is quite mistaken. How could it be settled? That Roe Decision is so completely flawed, it weighs like an albatross around the neck of our U.S. Constitution, and weighs down the very idea of Law, itself.

How, you ask? Consider: Law in any Society, but more specifically in our own Nation, derives from Greek and Roman civilization and extended families. In other words, even though we all speak English, among other languages, here in America, our American legal traditions are not solely a reflection of English language, or culture, or politics.

The serious mistake the Feminists, Bigots, and Yahoos make, is thinking that they "own" the law, when in point of fact, they do not.

My previous point notwithstanding, these folks continually try to wield the law like a weapon, rather than as a shield. Quite frankly, this is the problem with Sotomayor's nomination - qualified and experienced as she is, and I grant her the laurels she deserves - she firmly believes that the worst case decision ever made in the history of our nation, in the United States Supreme Court, is A-Okay with her.

In essence, whether or not someone brings a case, whether or not the original plaintiff in the Roe vs. Wade case decision appears at Sotomayor's nomination hearing today - Norma Rae - (as she did, even being arrested to protest that decision and abortion) - as far as Sotomayor is concerned, there is no controversy, no issue of law, nothing to change, and an awful and corrupting and evil law that promotes, permits, and yes, ORDERS Abortion On Demand, can remain on the books, as long as Sotomayor wears her black jurist robes.

This Sotomayor Status Quo position is completely unacceptable to Hispanics here in America and around the world, and it is unacceptable to me, an American guy of Mediterranean culture, heritage and descent.

The Democratic Party, and it's President, Barack Obama, think they can finess us Americans with their extreme pro-Abort, pro-Death, pro-Government, pro-Corporate and pro-Money politics on this subject, simply by nominating Sotomayor the Feminist, and counting on her to preserve, protect and defend Roe vs. Wade, if not the U.S. Constitution.

I guess Roe vs. Wade is the new Bible or the new Constitution insofar as Democrats are concerned, because the so-called "right" to the "privacy" of Abortion is nowhere to be found in either document, or in our legal traditions here in America, prior to 1973. This decision was made by fiat, plainly and baldly plucked out of thin air, like a fruit without a tree. Devil's Fruit, as some might describe it.

In fact, Sotomayor's explicit tendency to support as "settled law" the egregious Roe vs. Wade Decision, is the equivalent to a previous era's Supreme Court Justice having stated that "Separate but Equal" is good enough law, previously decided under the similarly egregious "Plessy vs. Ferguson" case. This would preclude the reversal of Plessy under "Brown vs. Board of Education" case, which threw out "separate but equal" in 1954, and trended America towards Civil Rights legislation, integration, and an elected American President with Black heritage - Barack Obama, in point of fact. We also got Black Hollywood in the deal -- Will Smith, Bill Cosby, Michael Jackson, and all the rest.

Sotomayor and her Feminist fellow-travellers -- quite possibly the majority of Americans, but most certainly a majority of the Democratic Party manques and minions - really hang their collective hat on the idea, peddled among themselves and to everyone else - that their extreme pro-Abort, pro-Death, pro-Minority Elimination Eugenics policies are mandated by our own "Privacy Rights" or "Right to Privacy." This is the most disingenous lie since the beginning of time, when Eve gave the apple to Adam to eat, also telling a lie.

If they support privacy rights, why don't the American Feminists and population control Eugenicists have a problem with the forced, totalitarian and family destroying Chinese government forced abortion policies? Truth is, they do not have any problem with this anti-Woman, anti-Family, anti-Natalist policy, because they like it. So much for privacy rights. If you do not care to support the privacy rights that derive from Natural Law and from God Almighty, then you cannot defend, protect or serve our U.S. Constitution. You are coming from someplace completely foreign to the folks who founded our Nation, and who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, an integral part of the U.S. Constitution, certainly in my own view.

We could note here, that if you do not have the "Right to Life" all your other rights as a U.S. Citizen are nullified, and void on arrival at the Court of Law, or wherever you end up facing down the dumbell bureaucrats who proliferate, lockstep and like-minded, like the robots of Ming the Merciless chasing Flash Gordon in newsreels.

But then, what else to expect from the Democratic Party, that mealy-mouthed, Irish-American led, so-called "Catholic" institution of mind bending double-speak - the Party which promulgated, suckled and supported deep fried Southern Jim Crow policies here in America - "Separate but Equal" for 100 years post-Civil War.

Yes, we have Irish-Americans, or Americans of Irish Catholic heritage and descent nowadays, selling out their own culture, heritage, and forebears, by supporting Roe vs. Wade, and by supporting the Nomination of Sotomayor.

Settled law? I don't think so. http://www.youtube.com/user/mdelcamp1#play/user/DE3A0EFEE4622FE7

She's not being honest

mattcliff — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 02:27:22 GMT

First, let me say that if I were in the Senate, I'd vote to confirm Sotomayor in a heartbeat. Not even a close question.

But this morning, I was about to go further. After a couple rounds of questions delving into her record, I thought to myself, there's no legitimate basis on which the Repubs could vote not to confirm. She's clearly qualified, and has an extensive record of highly competent and moderate opinions.

But then we got to her explanation of the dreaded "wise Latina" speech. I'm quite familiar with the ideas set forth in that speech -- that experiences matter in how judges apply the law (even if conservative judges pretend they don't), and that the best way to make sure that women's and minorities' perspectives are reflected in our jurisprudence is to get more women and minorities on courts. It's quite a defensible position. But she refused to defend it, and instead chose to pretend she had really said something else. Clearly, she and her handlers have made a decision that there is no way to explain such a nuanced view of the law in a way that will withstand the inevitable barrage of demagoguery from the likes of Lindsey Graham and Jeff Sessions. From a President who has shown an occasional willingness to talk to Americans like grownups, that is profoundly sad.

Anyway, I think Graham et al. could be forgiven for voting against Sotomayor on the grounds they don't think she is being honest about her views. I question whether that would be a good move on their part, since she's about as moderate a nominee as they're going to get out of Obama, but I would understand.

Boomerang

la savante — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 00:31:42 GMT

I think the "new" definition of bipartisanship John [Dickerson] explores is clearly at work in the Sotomayor spectacle, with respect not so much to vote-counting but to the extent that this hearing has shown "how many ideas from the opposition party are included" in a Democratic president's nominee. By that measure, this has to be the most bipartisan hearing in history. Sotomayor has touted the virtue of neutral umpires and thrown Obama's newly minted empathy standard under the bus. I haven't heard a word from her or much from committee Democrats that lays out a theory of liberal jurisprudence. The resounding bipartisan lesson from these hearings is that the only thing missing from the John Roberts Court is a few more John Robertses.

—Dahlia Lithwick

I can’t imagine a more spot-on summing up of the nauseating Sotomayor hearings, in which the White House itself set orchestrated the affront and in which, with a few notable exceptions, the Democratic members of the Committee followed the lead of the chairman right over a cliff. I realize that Chairman Leahy was simply acquiescing to the wishes of the White House political stage managers, but, really, he helped neither the White House nor the Democratic Party. Much less the country.

I knew last weekend as I read with dismay that some national organization of county sheriffs (or some such)—I can’t remember the name of the organization—had just issued a press release urging confirmation of Sotomayor. The media seemed to think this was big coup for the White House. I, on the other hand, thought it seriously compromises Sotomayor’s ability to appear—or be—impartial when the Supreme Court next hears a case concerning the breadth of the court-created doctrine of “qualified immunity” from monetary liability in civil rights cases. But, well, who care, right? After all, judicial bias is inappropriate only when the bias favors a member of a racial minority.

Or at least that was the unremitting message of last week’s hearing, not just from the race-obsessed Republicans but also from most of the Democratic senators. Well, that message and another one: that the only cases the Supreme Court and the federal appellate courts ever hear concern race or gender discrimination (reverse or non-reverse), or eminent domain (real property “takings”), gun rights, and the “right,” as Sen. Sessions, a past, unsuccessful federal judicial nominee, of public school pupils who want to pray in school to have time set aside for the entire class so that the pupils who wish to pray silently can do so uninterrupted by, say, a geography lesson. (Actually, Sessions said the Supreme Court has held that public schools must bar pupils from praying silently at school—although presumably exceptions can be made during a really tough math exam; then, if the teacher channels a student silently asking God to help him remember how to compute the answer to a particularly difficult question, the teacher need not send the kid to the principle’s office.)

I did manage to watch much of the first two days of Sotomayor’s testimony, and caught a short interview early on on MSCNBC with Stanford law professor Kathleen Sullivan, who herself was mentioned often by those of us for whom hope springs eternal as a possible nominee. Sullivan said that while Sotomayor would be asked repeatedly about the social hot-button issues—affirmative action and “reverse discrimination,” abortion rights, eminent domain, gun rights—most of what the Supreme Court does (especially in recent years) concerns who can get into court and have a lawsuit heard, and what litigation should like, yet Sotomayor, she predicted accurately, would be asked little about these issues. Later in the hearing, I caught a mirror-image interview, also on MSNBC. Chris Matthews, who is not a lawyer and has never covered the courts or legal issues other than, of course, the hot-button culture-wars cases, was interviewing Pat Buchanan, who said, unchallenged by Matthews, that in a case concerning the authority under federal law of states to deny convicted felons the right to vote, Sotomayor had written a dissent saying that in her view state statutes that bar convicted felons the right to vote violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause because they have a disparate impact on racial minorities.

Actually, neither the majority’s opinion not her dissent addressed the equal protection clause. The issue in the case was whether a federal statute that prohibits states from barring anyone from voting who meets certain qualifications specified in the statute—e.g., an age requirement, citizenship. The majority said the statute implied an exception for convicted felons. Sotomayor said the test of the statute contained no such exception; the wording of it was categorical, implying no exceptions whatsoever.

Sotomayor had discussed the case about 10 minutes before the Matthews-Buchanan exchange. Did Matthews not hear that testimony? Or is the White House correct that everyone thinks, regardless of the questions the senators ask and the nominee’s answers, that all legal roads must lead to a hot-button culture-wars issue? And if the White House is correct, is it really good policy, and even good politics, to consciously, aggressively perpetuate this false belief?

As long as Obama, Senate Democrats, and their political advisors—such as Stephanie Cutter, one of John Kerry’s 2004 campaign managers, who Obama appointed to stage-manage (er, “shepherd”) the Sotomayor nomination through the Senate remain stuck in a conservative-movement-era time warp, the Republican right will still have its chokehold on public policy, including the public policy written by the Supreme Court.

Which raises the question of what the last two national elections were about, anyway.

I have the sense that the White House’s Sotomayor strategy backfired with the public. Sotomayor will be confirmed, of course, but with her dignity and integrity, and therefore possibly her influence, somewhat diminished, at least initially. Dahlia says she thinks these hearing will have a limiting effect on whom Obama can nominate next time. Thus, a victory for the Sessions/Coburn/Graham contingent; that. of course, was their aim.

But I think the opposite will happen. I think the result of these hearings, as the revulsion sinks in and the White House finally recognizes it, will be, finally, an epiphany: There no longer is a political need to appear as Republicans; there is instead the need to be aggressively progressive, by explaining and eloquently refuting what it is that the Republicans really do.

I hope that before he selects his next Supreme Court nominee, he sees a tape of that brief exchange between Matthews and Kathleen Sullivan. That alone should point the way toward the type of nominee and the type of confirmation hearing he, a progressive Democrat elected by an increasingly progressive voting public, owes those of us who’ve placed our faith in him, and owes the country.

The Sotomayor hearings are, I suspect, the apogee of Democratic-nominee obsequiousness to the right—the other bookend to the era of de rigor canned sloganeering, at least by Democratic Supreme Court nominees and their Democratic questioners.

The message for future nominations ...

Joe_JP — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:51:29 GMT

This is a form of what I said when Dahlia raised this point on the Jurisprudence page.

Sotomayor has touted the virtue of neutral umpires and thrown Obama's newly minted empathy standard under the bus. I haven't heard a word from her or much from committee Democrats that lays out a theory of liberal jurisprudence. The resounding bipartisan lesson from these hearings is that the only thing missing from the John Roberts Court is a few more John Robertses.

It might be helpful if statements like this by Sen. Cardin would be noted:

And the same thing is true in the Supreme Court, more so in the Supreme Court. It is the highest judgment of our land. And, yes, you have to be mindful when you take a case on cert as to the impact it will have on the litigants. Certainly, you have to take into consideration if there's been different, inconsistent rulings in the different circuits.

But it seems to me that one of the standards I would hope you would use is the importance of deciding this case for the impact it has on a broader group of people in our nation, whether it's a housing case that could affect a community's ability to get fair access to mortgages for homeownership or whether it's a case that could have an impact on a class of people, on -- on environmental or economic issues.

Later he promoted a liberal view of civil rights, drawing a picture of what is at stake:

There are many protections in the Constitution, but I would like to talk a little bit about the civil rights and the -- the basic protections in our Constitution and how we've seen a progression from the Constitution, Bill of Rights to constitutional amendments, including the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th, through congressional action, through the passage of such bills as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Supreme Court decisions that we've talked about that have changed civil rights in America, made it possible for many people to have the opportunities of this country that otherwise would have been denied.

I don't know if a "theory" was laid out, but when Whitehouse (not alone) referenced things like this, it sounded something like a criticism of the "Bush theory" on things:

Would you feel, in light of all of the attention, very, very careful and thoroughly thought out attention that the Constitution gives to establishing and enforcing a whole variety of different checks and balances among the different powers of government, that a judge who is presented with an argument that a particular branch of government should exercise or have the authority to exercise unilateral, unchecked power in a particular area should approach that argument with a degree of heightened caution or attention?

Or, when Sen. Feingold said the 9/11 didn't mean constitutional checks and balances were no more. The group of issues and how they were raised by the Democrats also point to a liberal jurisprudence, even if a formal theory was not put forth.

And, no matter what, Sotomayor still said this:

I think life experiences generally, whether it's that I'm a Latina or was a state prosecutor or have been a commercial litigator or been a trial judge and an appellate judge, that the mixture of all of those things, the amalgam of them help me to listen and understand. But all of us understand because that's the kind of judges we have proven ourself to be, we rely on the law to command the results in the case.

The last sentence doesn't change the rest, nor does the fact someone who wrote those speeches will be confirmed. I don't think John Roberts is being promoted here, even if the senators were loathe to directly badmouth the Chief Justice of the U.S. as much as Dahlia might have wished. OTOH, his umpire standard was by more than one senator shown to be a sham in practice. The lesson taught there was pretty clear without much contemplation, even if it wasn't handfed to us.

-j

Cardozo would not be considered Hispanic

pfire — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:49:00 GMT

Haven't read all the posts on this thread, so I don't know how it was defined, but Cardozo was of Spanish/Portuguese descent, and a Sephardic Jew, so I doubt even in contemporary terms he would consider himself Hispanic. I don't know of anyone who emigrates here from Spain or Portugal who would refer to themselves that way.

Liberal interpretation of the law

Americafirst — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:48:54 GMT

Lithwick wants a liberal's interpretation of law? How about this. The law is what liberals say it is. The law has no reason to follow anything in the constitution because the constitution is a barrier to liberal causes, namely socialism, communism, Marxism, Maoism and a nice little liberal dictator which they can't have as long as the constitution stands in their way.

The law should be just to liberals, just meaning anything a liberal wants to do is okay, and should treat conservatives as pariahs and allow their interment in gulags in Wisconsin, plus alow their execution if they don't convert to Marxism.

The law should protect absolutely, the rights of all liberals and Hollywood elitists to have and to use all the illicit drugs they want, with no barriers to Columbia and Mexico to shipping those drugs into the US.

The second ammemdment applies only to liberals and any shooting of a conservative by a liberal would automatically be ruled justifiable homicide. Any gun posession by a conservative would be grounds for ife in prison, without the possiblity of parole and any killing of a liberal by a conservative, no matter the reason, would automatically bring a death sentence, to be carried out publicly and immediately.

The States have no rights as ALL rights are the realm of the federal government.

Freedom of speech only applies to liberals. Conservative press and talk radio are to be silenced by killing the perpetrators.

Anyone not a liberal, compaining about anything Obama does is the highest form of criminal activity and is subject to the perpetrator being executed on the spot.

Couldn't a liberal give the same ritualistic answers?

Woody — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:27:16 GMT

I don't really see how anything from those hearing ties down Obama in the future. First of all, as long as he has 60 votes it doesn't really matter what the GOP thinks. Secondly, someone with a more liberal voting record than Sotomayor could still claim that they were strictly interpreting the law.

Reverse-racism: a quick quiz for conservatives

okakura — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:56:06 GMT

Quiz: What's the difference between a whites-only country club and, say, a Korean-only civic organization?

Answer: The "whites-only" designation has been primarily utilized to exclude others whereas an ethnic (or gender)-specific club is typically -with a few exceptions- focused on identity-building. Exclusion is not the point; it's a benign by-product. (Unless, of course, a white American feels slighted by being excluded from, say, the Guatemalan Women's Club of Plano.)

In a society where nearly every political, commercial, and cultural institution has been dominated by white males for the last 250 years, the matter-of-fact idea that a non-white female perspective could be helpful to a perpetually white male institution should be accepted with open arms - not closed minds.

Instead, the GOP yet again offers their cocktail of sociological ignorance and race/class baiting to promote fear among the ever-vulnerable conservative white male establishment.

Predicatble, sad, and increasingly ineffective.

Re: Franken - It's like 1979, only 30 years later.

ArchieLeech — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 19:30:12 GMT

Back in 1979, Franken did this Weekend Update commentary where he said that the 70's were the Me Decade where everyone thought, "How does this affect ME?" He said the 80's were going to when, "everyone wonders how this will affect me - Al Franken."

I've thought about that skit for 30 years. Every now and then he publishes a book or something, and I laugh about it. And now it's 30 years later, and I really do wonder, "How does this affect him -- Al Franken?"

Vague Laws

slodavid — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:36:28 GMT

Emily Bazelon: "In those cases, the Constitution and the relevant statutes and the court's previous rulings are guideposts, but not the kind with big red arrows directing you to one and only one destination."

That's when you're supposed to rule that the defendant has done nothing legally impermissible, and that the plaintiff therefore has no case. In such circumstances, the plaintiff should instead be pursuing a CHANGE in the law through the legislative process, rather than seeking relief in the courts.

Al Franken was never funny.

BoneDaddy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:37:13 GMT

It's a common misconception.

Poor little white guys... so OPPRESSED!

candoxx — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:36:55 GMT

Ma heart goes right out to you....you can't so easily say racist things anymore, can ya Mr. Graham?

Poor things.

Sotomayor's illogical position on life experience.

J. Ackerman — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:25:13 GMT

Judge Sotomayor just now remarked in her testimony that a judge's life experiences should certainly not have any effect on the outcome of a case, but only in the process. If she is saying that a judge from Georgia will speak with a southern accent and a judge from Brooklyn with a Brooklyn twang, well, how else could it be? If she is saying, however, that in pondering a case all of a judge's various life experiences will be brought to bear on the issue, but that this will all be forgotten by the time of its disposition, this is clearly fantastic and impossible.

It is sad that she has been put in, and put herself in, this indefensible position, because it is a bulwark of law that all you know about any issue can be considered in any case. It is not improper for a judge to instruct a jury that any and all of their own life experiences regarding the specific matter at hand can be used in their judgment, and there is no discrepancy between this and instructing the jury at the same time that the questions posed by counsel are not to be regarded as evidence. In other words, there is the evidence, the actual evidence and not the suggestion of evidence, that is presented in court, and then there is the process of judging the evidence's relevance and materiality and reliability, and this takes place in the mind and must by definition be related to what you know about life. No judge and no jury comes to the decision empty of experience.

Couldn't they make up anything IMPORTANT against her?

MikeyD — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:45:31 GMT

Ooooh, Sotomayor might have 'empathy'. Ooooh, Sotomayor believes life experiences counts in judges. Oooooh, there might be a temperament issue. Do these people think we don't pay attention to the current dinizens of the supreme court?

Compare Sotomayor's 'temperament' and 'activism' to Scalia, for instance. Recently the man simply decided that half the text of 2nd amendment of the constitution meant nothing. He made up that decision out of whole cloth. Considering the 2nd amendment was the only piece of the constitution the right wing actually respects, where was their outrage over his decision? Plus, Scalia's dissenting opinions especially often spill over into vitriolic frothing at the mouth. He repeatedly brings up the catholic religion when making opinions. He entirely empathizes with the corporate elite over the citizenry. The American people have had a taste of the sort of judge the hard right wants for this country, and we're thoroughly sick of it.

Not A Thought Leader -- Which Makes Her A Lock

kencleanairsystem — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 23:03:02 GMT

Sadly, being as uninteresting as is what it takes to get on the Court these days.

I opopse the Sotomayor nomination becuase she strikes me as a very good referee/bookkeeper, able to navigate complicated facts and arrive at the conclusion that Party A was 23.4% liable, Party B 30.8% liable, and Party C 45.8% liable. That's is no small skill, and the system needs judges with that skill, and lots of them, really.

But not on the Supreme Court. On the Supreme Court, I want thought leaders -- legal minds who are able to wrestle with the most vexing questions of Constitutional Law and not only arrive at just solutions, but also sway the direction of the Court and therefore the course of the Law.

Isn't that one of the two main roles of the Court? To be the court of last resort when justice has somehow eluded a person or entity all through the journey up the system, and to decide what the Constitution means when basic rights clash, when technology creates new legal issues, etc.

The biggest, most improtant, far-reaching, future-defining stuff. I don't see Sotomayor in that class. And perversely, that she is not in that class is what ensures her confirmation with broad support.

How ironic is it that the way to get appointed to the big, important, future-defining body is by being as small and nondescript and non-controversial as possible?

No strong opinions unless they are of the Mom/Apple Pie variety, which in this venue amounts to "just say no to judicial activism." Throw some platitudes out there, the more meaningless the better -- "The Constitution says what it says" is a goodie. [Spend some time with the Constitution and try to come up with most outlandish rulings you can, based on what's literally written there. It's not hard to do at all, and puts exposes so-called "strict constructionism" for the fraud it is.]

It's also good if you haven't written anything . . . becasue unless said writings were truly uninspired and boring there's likely to be somethng in there you'll need to defend yourself against. Judges with an eye towards the Court have gotten the message -- it seems as though no nominee since Robert Bork has written anything more controversial than a shopping list.

Be respectful of the blowhards asking questions about Constitutional Law (a subject most couldn't have passed without buying term papers), pretend to not be put off by their ridiculous attmepts at small talk, and walk the straight and narrow, so no one comes away thinking you'll side with the meth lab over the strip mall, and the reward is a lifetime seat on the most important, powerful court in the world.

Why Is Sotomayer Agreeing That Decisions Should Be Neutral?

techresmgt — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:02:39 GMT

DUH, the stupidest question I have heard from the media in the last minute or so. Following Obama, this nominee will say, do, think, act, and pander any way, in any form to get herself confirmed. Like Obama, if and when confirmed (ugh, God help us all from the racial and gender double standard and hypocrisy) she will then show her true self and all bets will be OFF. Welcome to our nightmare. To all those that supported and voted for Obama, thanks for NOTHING.

Who is that redhead?

Joe_JP — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:13:33 GMT

There is a redhead (strawberry blonde?) sittin behind Sotomayor during much of the hearing. Does anyone know who she is?

-j

That Sen. Graham will still have a career

Hoboken — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:34:18 GMT

after his ridiculously patronizing questioning of Sotomayor proves that he is wrong about what a white male can get away with, doesn't it?

All I can say is that if I were in a job interview where someone who was roughly my age, with my level of experience, tried to explain to me what 'the real world' was like, I would walk the hell out of there.

Both Sides of Franken Showed Up: He Didn't Die Up There!

john adkisson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:51:54 GMT

I've been excited to see Franken's debut in the Senate -- perhaps because it took so for him to arrive. But I admit I have also worried about what it would be like to experience him as a Senator.

I've been a fan since my college days when Franken & Davis used to tour the country's universities drawing about a thousand kids per hilarious show. We were stoked to see him make the big time as a writer and performer on Saturday Night Live, and eventually as a second rung movie star.

The first time I realized he had given a lot of thought to public policy and politics was when his outrageously over-the-top books shot to the top of the charts. I was truly impressed by his performances as a funny but substantive radio talk show host with Air America.

Despite this variety of roles, Franken always maintained both his humor and his appeal to liberals who understood he had become a real progressive leader.

So I supported him for Senator with several contributions. (In my entire life, Franken was the only candidate to whom I gave my credit card number over the telephone.) Even with Obama, I insisted on writing checks.

But I was worried. Which Franken would show up in the Senate where there is literally no one like him or even similar to him. There are a few good Senators you could describe as pleasant and even mildly humorous. But Senate personalities usually fluctuate between angry, stupid, boring, phony, boring, and boring.

How would Franken fit in? Would he look ridiculous? Worse, would he emulate the insufferable behavior of his new colleagues?

I was so relieved today. Franken had done his homework on a series of serious issues but then flashed his trademarked shit eating grin and asked about the Perry Mason show in an appropriately restrained comic turn. You knew it was appropriate because everyone laughed -- he didn't die up there. He is a real Senator but forever a professional humorist.

Despite the weird feeling I get thinking of Franken in this role -- I now know why he wanted the job. It combines all of his talents and gives him a chance to become the Will Rogers of our national politics.

He's good enough, smart enough, and doggone it -- even those insufferable bores in the Senate laugh with him.

Sotomayor: Mediocre; Obama: So Much for "Change" . . .

Tori_Fox-Hunter — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:06:42 GMT

Sotomayor came across as rather mediocre. Sure, she's not Harriet Miers (although I still think the latter's nomination was simply a brilliant tactic used to pave the way for Samuel Alito being received with a sigh of relief), but Sotomayor doesn't really seem to be first-rate, either. Which makes one wonder why Obama gave us such an obviously political nominee rather than the best Democrat he could find for the job. So much for "change" . . .

Best,

Sotomayor's problem

Puller58 — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 00:52:28 GMT

What everyone appears to be doing is ducking the issue of what "a wise Latina" remark really means. I smell a whiff of LaRaza politics that was confirmed to me by a Hispanic congressman who made it clear on a BBC interview that he regards her "heritage" as important. As she has lived a life that supposedly mirrors that of many other Hispanics, she would supposedly render opinions that would flout laws that Hispanics do not like. (I'd suspect immigration law would be a prime example.) Identity politics is nonsense and her life story does not make her superior for the bench anymore than Sarah Palin's life story makes her fit for the Vice Presidency.

9-9-9 Coming Soon to a City Near You.

Obummersux1t — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:52:23 GMT

Someone will kill a latino that looks like this racist spic and leave her dead in the gutter. And no one will care. Never know, might just be her.

Who cares?

pfire — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:05:31 GMT

It's all a bunch of posturing. Graham changed his tune drastically after getting a drubbing from Rush and Beck. They couldn't care less, they're just playing to their very extremist base. What Graham said at first was correct. As long as she doesn't blow up, she's a lock. And why is some closeted guy making such a fuss about the "truth" anyway? Why doesn't he tell the truth? He's a gay man, playing at being another family values robot. Where is his family? Why doesn't he have a wife and kids?