7/13/09: Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing!

[CGP]

If you are watching this today, please post your thoughts/reactions in this thread!

Thanks.

[Laura Cereta]

She brought like 50 people with her! Moral support...

I didn't know she was the 1st supreme court nominee ever to have been appointed to federal judgeship's by 3 different presidents. I didn't realize that had never happened before.

[Laura Cereta]

Taking shots at Ginsburg now as an "activists"...

[Laura Cereta]

It looks like the GOP is going to play the "empathy" card.

They're also going to focus on some of her statements as opposed to her slightly left of center judicial record.

[Laura Cereta]

A protester is dragged away by police for yelling, "What about abortion, Senator?!".

[Tybee]

I do hope they ask about belonging to an exclusive club (women only) when that wouldn't be tolerated for most others. Like I said in another thread, all viable questions should be asked and answered.

[Spang]

They need high-definition cameras in this room.

[Spang]

Also, this:

@anamariecox: I applaud the metalworker that shaped and attached the iron filings that serve as Chuck Schumer's hair. #sotoshow

[Suzan]

Just tuned in. It's on C-SPAN2, btw.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) talking about the futility of developing biologic drugs for people who can't afford them.

Hm, is this the Sotomayor confirmation? Is it already over?

[Suzan]

I do hope they ask about belonging to an exclusive club (women only) when that wouldn't be tolerated for most others. Like I said in another thread, all viable questions should be asked and answered.
What exclusive club of women are you referring to, Hali?

[Spang]

Is it already over?

Yes, it ended around 3pm EST. Tomorrow it will begin again at 9:30am EST.

[WASTRIC]

Laura, This is a lifetime post where her ideals can't be over ruled by a higher court. I think her comments and personal beliefs are fair game since once she is appointed , she is free to rule or advocate in any way she wants. Lower court judges have a safety net to backstop their possible wanderings into activisim . (I do not know if she will or not.) But since this is the last time anyone will get to "vote" for or against her, everything should be on the table before the vote, on record, so nobody can throw up their hands later and say they didn't know she would be this or that.
As an aside, I am glad Michael Estrelia (sp?) was brought up to dampen down the so called racist claims of the far left, they seem to only support up from poor beginnings minorities if the minority in question leans left like they do.

[Suzan]

Yes, it ended around 3pm EST. Tomorrow it will begin again at 9:30am EST.
Okay, thanks!

[Tybee]

What exclusive club of women are you referring to, Hali?



It's called The Belizean Grove.

Here's a link:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31453418/ns/politics-white_house/

[Laura Cereta]

Laura, This is a lifetime post where her ideals can't be over ruled by a higher court. I think her comments and personal beliefs are fair game since once she is appointed , she is free to rule or advocate in any way she wants. Lower court judges have a safety net to backstop their possible wanderings into activisim . (I do not know if she will or not.) But since this is the last time anyone will get to "vote" for or against her, everything should be on the table before the vote, on record, so nobody can throw up their hands later and say they didn't know she would be this or that.
As an aside, I am glad Michael Estrelia (sp?) was brought up to dampen down the so called racist claims of the far left, they seem to only support up from poor beginnings minorities if the minority in question leans left like they do.

Agreed, WASTRIC, they're fair game, but they need to be heavily considered in the context of how she did or didn't implement them while on the bench. She has 17 years of federal judiciary experience.

I am troubled by a 2nd Amendment ruling she made that was brought up to me earlier today. I think it's the most troubling thing I've heard about her yet.

Taking her comments out of context does not do anyone any favors and I hope the GOP will try to refrain from this... though I doubt it.

[Tybee]

Agreed, WASTRIC, they're fair game, but they need to be heavily considered in the context of how she did or didn't implement them while on the bench. She has 17 years of federal judiciary experience.

I am troubled by a 2nd Amendment ruling she made that was brought up to me earlier today. I think it's the most troubling thing I've heard about her yet.

Taking her comments out of context does not do anyone any favors and I hope the GOP will try to refrain from this... though I doubt it.

If they're out of context, then she has the opportunity to explain.

[Laura Cereta]

If they're out of context, then she has the opportunity to explain.

That's true... but SCOTUS nominees typically say as little as possible at their confirmation hearings.

[sojourner]

I do hope they ask about belonging to an exclusive club (women only) when that wouldn't be tolerated for most others. Like I said in another thread, all viable questions should be asked and answered.

I believe she has resigned.

[sojourner]

Agreed, WASTRIC, they're fair game, but they need to be heavily considered in the context of how she did or didn't implement them while on the bench. She has 17 years of federal judiciary experience.

The best predictor of how she will perform in the future is how she as performed in the past. These hearings are good for entertainment value only. Does anyone think she is going to give honest answers? She is going to say what she thinks will help get her appointed.

[Laura Cereta]

I wonder what she's doing so much writing about? She's barely looking at the senator questioning her, just scribbling furious notes.

[Suzan]

I wonder what she's doing so much writing about? She's barely looking at the senator questioning her, just scribbling furious notes.
Darn, I can't get it. It's on C-SPAN3 here, another channel not on my cable package.

What is the line of questioning?

[Laura Cereta]

Darn, I can't get it. It's on C-SPAN3 here, another channel not on my cable package.

What is the line of questioning?

I posted a thread about it just now... the Q's aren't very interesting. This seems to be political grandstanding, but I expected as much. The Repubs are hammering her for Ricci (the firefighter case) and her comment about her personal experience as a Latina woman influencing her, and the Dems are throwing softballs.

[Laura Cereta]

Sen. Grassley is questioning her on her views of private property rights now.

[Laura Cereta]

Sotomayor gets cornered and admits the taking of private property by the federal government without compensation would be unconstitutional and would have to be struck down...

*Protester freaking out and being removed now*

*Chairman is p!ssed and is giving a stern speech*

[Suzan]

Sotomayor gets cornered and admits the taking of private property by the federal government without compensation would be unconstitutional and would have to be struck down...

*Protester freaking out and being removed now*

*Chairman is p!ssed and is giving a stern speech*
I saw this. Can't get C-Span3, but they were covering it live on Fox. It was good exchange and I did sense that she wasn't comfortable with the Yes or No type answer, but had no choice.

I also saw the protestor, but didn't understand a word he said.

Sotomayor seemed to love Grassley's comment about turning people on. It was pretty funny.

[Suzan]

I just posted this in the "GOP Aims to Paint..." thread. (This thread probably should have been the Official Confirmation Thread.)

Just listened to analyses of the Sotomayor hearings today on both Fox and CNN. There's agreement (common ground!) that she's backing away from the "wise Latina woman" statement in her 2001 speech.

I particularly liked that it was emphasized that her 17-year record as a judge shows that she did not adjudicate with those statements in mind. In fact, she sided with Republicans something like 98% of the time.

[Suzan]

Any predictions on whether Sotomayor will get any Republican votes for confirmation?

She doesn't need any. The Dems have enough votes to confirm her, but they'd like to send a message that this confirmation has crossover appeal and is not strictly partisan.

On CNN, they're discussing the possibility of Graham and Grassley voting for her, among others.

[Suzan]

Graham is now questioning her about her temperament, and she's not doing a very good job of defending against charges that she has acted as a bully.

The comments about her can't all have been negative, but every comment Graham mentioned was. Interesting that she didn't mention that or vigorougly defend herself, except to say that she doesn't consider herself a bully and that the 2nd Circuit is a "hot court," meaning there's a 10-minute limit for arguments and the lawyers are peppered with questions from the judges.

[Suzan]

Graham is now questioning her about the "wise Latina woman" comment.

I'm beginning to think the Repubs are overdoing it with this line of questioning, partly because she's not attempting to defend it. She's actually agreeing with Graham, as I believe has been her stance since the beginning. If they keep hounding her on this, they're going to start looking like the bullies, lol. I suspect they want her to defend herself, but that's not happening. She almost appears to be recanting that statement.

What do others think? I didn't catch the hearings yesterday.

[Laura Cereta]

Graham is just hammering her. His tone seems very haughty and condescending.

[Suzan]

Graham is trying to get to her personal views on the death penalty, but she's not going there. I wonder if her personal views are relevant since it's already been established by her statements and her record that she doesn't adjudicate--or believe in adjudicating--based on personal views. She said the Supreme Court had determined that the death penalty is consitutional in some instances and beyond that, she sidestepped the question.

[Suzan]

Graham is just hammering her. His tone seems very haughty and condescending.
Yeah, that whole exchange was really uncomfortable. I'm watching the commentary on CNN and they're pointing out that Graham's question about the "wise Latina woman" was important because he turned it to show that if he'd said it, he would be out of a job. They seem to have liked his hard questioning and they're calling Sotomayor evasive.

I'd certainly call her cautious in the extreme.

[Suzan]

Okay, now they're talking about the negative comments against Sotomayor and pointing out that there were lots of positive comments and none were mentioned by Graham. I thought that must be the case. She didn't bring it up, however.

Her style is interesting and goes against everything that's been said about her being aggressive. I wonder if that's the point.

[Suzan]

So interesting, the commentary on CNN is full of praise for Graham. They're calling him a lawyer who really knows what he's doing, compared to the other senators, who come across as windbags, lol.

I suspect many of these pundits are lawyers and they admire how he maneuvered her into the corner repeatedly.

[Suzan]

It's Graham's questioning that's going to make the national news--and I suspect it will make Sotomayor look bad. I'm very curious about whether he's going to vote for her and if so, how he'll justify it after that exchange.

[Laura Cereta]

So interesting, the commentary on CNN is full of praise for Graham. They're calling him a lawyer who really knows what he's doing, compared to the other senators, who come across as windbags, lol.

I suspect many of these pundits are lawyers and they admire how he maneuvered her into the corner repeatedly.

I hate to say it but that's exactly what I thought. Graham showed real legal prowess; many of the others were just windbags.