:smack: My bad. Sorry.
This Sessions/ Sotomayor exchange is exasperrating. She’s doing a crap job of explaining herself and he’s doing a crap job of listening to that crap job.
How do the loony protesters even get into the room? They just removed at least the 2nd one I’ve seen since the hearings started. I couldn’t understand what either of them were yelling.
I heard something about “babies” and the “GOP.” I’m wagering it was totally ridiculous.
In contrast to Sessions, Chuck Grasley is a breath of fresh air. Good questions, not focusing on the trivial, actually asking her for specific reasoning in regards to cases on which she ruled. I don’t hear any grandstanding either.
I really wish I could find the article that used this reasoning to show that Souter was, in fact, a conservative justice. Souter is routinely labeled a liberal justice despite being appointed by Bush I. The article I saw basically showed that he was reluctant to overturn precedent which, presumably, is precisely what a non-activist judge is supposed to be like and presumably a characteristic of a conservative jurist.
Thing is “activist judge” somehow seems to only get applied when it is a “liberal” decision. When it is a conservative decision it is not judicial activism, it is the right answer.
Like the article linked to earlier here somewhere: “Judicial activism is bad, except when it is good.” :rolleyes:
I think that the GOP looks silly by hitting her so hard for the “wise Latina woman” comment. Everyone knows what she meant, and almost everyone agrees that cultural factors, including race, play a role in how you look at the world. This pretend outrage is scoring zero points.
As I passed by the TV in our lunchroom, which was airing CNN, the chyron had Russ Feingold asking Sotomayor something along the lines of how had 9/11 impacted her judicial views. An interesting question from one of the few Senators whom I both agree with and trust. Unfortunately I couldn’t stick around to hear her answer, could someone who has been watching summarize it for me? Or if it is already available link to a transcript?
Even according to some “Democrats” apparently. One of the brief bits I’ve caught was Feinstein defending Sotomayor’s alleged activism by saying(paraphrased) “She has sided with her Republican counterparts 95% of the time, how can anyone say she is an activist judge?”
Yeah, that was my impression, too. The main reason I didn’t put it quote that way is that I was too lazy to research it and make sure it was true.
Her answer was “no,” after reciting how terrible 9/11 was. She said a judge does not decide out of fear, but on the basis of the rule of law.
Thanks.
Anyone else notice that, during the Schumer questioning, whenever he asks her if she has sympathy or empathy for a particular defendant, she only answers “Everyone would have sympathy for those families” or something similar? She never actually comes out, in other words, and says “Yeah, I felt bad for that guy, but the law’s the law.”
Just an observation. She seems to be going of her way to do this, which, honestly, I find a little ridiculous.
Yeah, for some reason she is bunting his softballs instead of hitting them out of the park.
It’s nothing more than political theater. She’s gotten her script and dammit she’s going to stick to it. The person you see isn’t Sonia Sotomayor, it’s “Nominee for the Supreme Court”, and she’ll be bland, boring, and say the same things every nominee for the last decade has said.
But I don’t think that means she can’t say what Birdmonster suggested, e.g. “I felt sympathy for them, but my job was to enforce the law.” Hedging about her sympathy was not necessary to remain bland and boring.
Worth noting that right now Lindsey Graham just misstated the law in the same way Sessions did. At what point do these repeated misstatements simply become lies?
It would be different if these guys had any experience with the law, but its perfectly understandable for a couple of lame men. Lay men, excuse.
Roberts was confirmed 78-22. The breakdown was all 55 'Pubs, 1 Ind., and 22 of the 44 Dems for. While it’s certainly not a unanimous slam-dunk, it’s not exactly a “Party before Country” vote either.
Granted Alito was a lot closer (58-42), but I think it can be argued that Alito was a much more polarizing nominee particularly since he was replacing a moderate Justice and thus affecting the overall balance of the court.
I know you’re joking, but it is worth reciting their backgrounds:
Sessions:
Practicing attorney first in Russellville and then in Mobile
Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama (2 years)
United States Attorney for Alabama’s Southern District (12 years)
ttorney General of Alabama (2 years)
Graham:
military prosecutor
private practice as a lawyer
Judge Advocate
There is very small chance that either of these men don’t understand the case they keep citing.
Which case are they citing and misrepresenting?
But a very good chance that they both will pretend to misunderstand for political purposes.
Lindsey Graham is going off the deep end. “Isn’t it terrible for women in Afghanistan?” “Do you believe you enemies are plotting to kill us?” What the fuck is the point? I guess he’s trtying to go somewhere with detainee rights, but he’s just coming off like a digressive crank.
Now he’s going on and on about tax payer funded abortion (I’m pro). I hate the way they constantly interupt her and go on and on with their own bullshit speeches without allowing her to respond.