Powered by TypePad

« Who Will Ombud The Ombudsman? | Main | Looks Like Brooks Skipped A Dose »

May 26, 2009



"I would hope that a wise Caucasian man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black female who hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Roberts.

I just wanted to see how that would look in print. Yes, I think that very well could have gotten some people upset.


Let's face it, she is a racist.


Republicans have always took it on the chin when it comes to supreme court nominees. And that gets us what? Nominees that spout stupidity held up as the best of the best.


I particularly like the "republicans have to be careful because she is Hispanic" argument. Just as democrats had to be careful because Miguel Estrada was Hispanic, right?


If Zero chose a hispanic woman to assuage that vote--I believe he is sadly mistaken.
The bulk of hispanics in this country are from Mexico and could give two hoots about Puerto Ricans.

Plus--that Brooklyn accent will turn off flyover country big time.


With that sad story of hers Stotomayor is a sure thing on the Queen For A Day show.I just can't figure out why it has anything to do with the Supreme Court


How many votes are required for confirmation?


Was there an argument in that NY Times editorial about the firefighters case? If there was, I couldn't detect it. Just plain assertion.

Anyone want to make the case that the first Hispanic SC justice was actually Benjamin Cardozo?


Here's the problem. Obama likely has the 60 votes, and this candidate is a liberal replacing a liberal.

I would love for this nomination to be a discussion of "empathy" vs. "the law as enacted by our legislators". Actually, it would be interesting, and probably could be framed in ways the country could understand. But at the conclusion of that discussion will be a 65-35 vote for the nominee.

If the goal is to defeat the candidate, you need to find something that makes her not worthy of serving on the court. I'm sure some in the GOP have already done that math, and are at work on the project. That will surely be icky. It will confirm the image of the GOP as the slimy, icky party of swiftboats sailing through filthy boston harbor waving pictures of Willie Horton and Monica L.

I'd go with Althouse. Maybe its because she, like me, voted for Obama. But, maybe its best to keep the powder dry for other battles.


On the plus side,

Scalia, Roberts and Thomas will have so much ** fun ** tearing apart Sotomayer's legal reasoning that her appointment will add *years* to their longevity on the Bench.

so there's that.


Clarence Thomas won on a 52 to 48 Vote.


Has she paid her taxes?

Danube of Thought

Cardozo had Portugese Jewish antecedents, but the ethnic taxonomists don't count Portugese as Hispanic. (Don't ask me.)

She will be confirmed. In order to get to the floor, the Judiciary Committee has a requirement that at least one GOP Senator must vote for her. But with Hatch, Grassley and Graham on the committee, that would seem to be a sure thing.

On the floor, she needs sixty votes to overcome a filibuster, but there's no way she will fail to get that. She's in; deal with it.

If it's any comfort, her voting record simply can't be worse than that of Souter, and the same is true for whoever replaces Ginsburg and Stevens. She will be utterly unable to persuade any of her colleagues about anything at all, as distinct from Scalia and Roberts.


I think it unlikely the Reps can beat her, but AA is so unpopular and her views are so anethema to most, I'd make this an issue. I would not vote her out of Committee..This strategy depends on someone getting Orrin Hatch in the cloakroom and tying him up for the vote.

Thomas Collins

I believe it is a simple majority, Jane. And, as Appalled noted, given the composition of the Senate, a filibuster is not likely to be successful.

Attempted Borking is probably not worth it to the GOP for any Zero SCOTUS nominee unless it is a replacement for Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy.

Danube of Thought

Pretty sure it's not a simple majority in the committee. They have that rule about needing one vote from the minority to get out of the Judiciary Committee (don't ask me why, nor when this rule originated).

Bright side: Check out Ras today--"strongly approve" down to 31%, with 30% strongly disapprove. Maybe Guantanamo's revenge, or the Korean nuke, or simply waking up from a prolonged insensate reverie.


Which is why I say the Reps should hit on every policy which the majority detests--like AA..and her words should be enough to remind the voters of what they dislike about the Dems even if they do not win on the affirmation fight.


If it's any comfort, her voting record simply can't be worse than that of Souter.

At the risk of sounding crass, she's also 54 and diabetic. I wish her good health and a long life, but she may not represent as long-term an appointment as some BHO might have chosen.


On the floor, she needs sixty votes to overcome a filibuster, but there's no way she will fail to get that. She's in; deal with it.

I agree with you but don't they need AL Frankin, Kennedy and Bryd if we could keep the Reps in line?


I don't think republicans can stop her confirmation. What I think we can do is point out just how outside the "moderate" label she is and not allow the left to pretend she is anything but a progressive liberal in the same mold as Obama. Obama needs to be the target for nominating her while pretending he is nominating a centrist.

Danube of Thought

That's a big "if," Ann. Can you really see Susan Collins or Olympia Snowe voting against her (just for starters)?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

She is a racist and a sexist, but the knock on her intelligence seems a bit unfair. 2nd in her class at Princeton, 1st at Yale, Phi Beta Kappa, Magna Cum Laude all seem to indicate she has intelligence. But her statement about Hispanic women over white males is very disturbing. And her ruling on the Firefighter Case is even more disturbing.

The idea that judges should judge on fairness is also disturbing, since in my own experience, the law is rarely fair, but we need to count on it being consistent. When you throw fairness into the mix, there can be no consistency, since the only way to be fair is to judge on a case by case basis. What is fair for me, may be very unfair for you and the next guy as facts change.

Thomas Collins

DOT, can the nomination be stopped in Committee without a GOP vote, or would it simply be reported out without recommendation?

I think the bottom line is that Sotomayor's chances of being confirmed exceed the chances of the predetermined winners of World Wide Wrestling Federation matches actually winning!

Now, don't go flaming me, WWF fans. I didn't say that professional wrestling is fake; those guys and gals show great athletic skills in the ring (landing on someone in a manner that makes it look as if you are really driving your knee into their face but hurting neither yourself nor the person landed upon is quite a feat). I'm simply pointing out that the result of a WWF match is predetermined, just as is the result of the Sonia confirmation hearings predetermined.


Showing her to be a liberal circa Obama is the best play the republicans have because Hatch, Collins Snowe and maybe McCain will vote in favor just as they did in 1998. Gregg and Bennett not such a sure thing this time.

Uncle BigBad

Glasater is right. Repubs should make sure the Hispanic community realizes she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican. They should also make sure red state senators are uncomfortable voting for her by publicizing their votes to their local constituents.

It won't prevent her from being confirmed, but if handled right, it will demonstrate the degree of Obama's radicalism.

"MEChA and the La Raza movement teach that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as "Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America. As such, it belongs to the followers of MEChA. These are all areas America should surrender to "La Raza" once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, enter to claim a majority, as in Los Angeles. The current borders of the United States will simply be extinguished."

Charlie Norwood (R)


Talkleft.com was included in a conference call about Sotomayer.She has a summary up.It might be of interest to some of you


Her firefighter decision will certainly be unpopular if the voters hear about it. Use this opportunity to make sure they do..


Her comment is pure racism. How can it be seen any other way?

Beyond that, or naturally consistent with it, it is ignorant. How is it that, perforce, any Latina woman's experiences are any richer than any white man's? It is the sort of statement, the sort of smug assumption, which one would find in a college freshman course on "gender studies."


Her comment is pure racism. How can it be seen any other way?

Surely you must be aware of the tenet of multi-culti faith that racism can only be practiced by the ruling overlords (namely, the patriarchy). Members of the oppressed minorities by definition cannot be racist.


--"Aztlan" -- a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.--

I must have slept through that part of history class where we learned that the Aztecs spoke Spanish and had Spanish surnames, like our La Raza friends.

And yes, I know many Mexican immigrants have Indian blood in them but they're more likley to be from a tribe that was having their hearts eaten in Tenochtitlan than to be Aztecs themselves.


Say what you will about Hannity, but he's boring right into her record, which is the proper thing to do.


When you throw fairness into the mix, there can be no consistency

Well said, and to add to that, twisting fairness to apply to large groups is even more hostile to consistency, and to any genuine notion of "fairness" itself. And shouldn't fairness ultimately be about means rather than ends? "Playing fair" doesn't mean ensuring some distribution of outcomes, it's about playing by the rules.


She looks more Asian than Hispanic to me.

Is it racist to make that observation?

Rick Ballard

"Is it racist to make that observation?"

Please provide detailed race and gender information. A complete response will be provided by the Ogabe Administration via the IRS audit agent assigned to hound you to the gates of hell assist you.

Danube of Thought

I don't know the answer to TC's question.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

There is a place in our legal system for fairness. It is called Equity, It was a separate court system started in England to ameliorate the sometimes harsh results coming from the law courts. It is still recognized US jurisprudence, but is no longer a separate court system here.

In any event, in the enforcement of criminal law, interpretation of Constitutional provisions and statutes, accepted US legal doctrine has generally adopted the objective point of view (i.e. what is "reasonable" to a mythical "ordinary reasonable person") rather than subjective (i.e., the Judge or Justices personal idea of "fairness").

Bankruptcy Court, though, is full of equitable precepts, and fairness and judicial discretion is very important there, notwithstanding the Chrysler debacle.

Danube of Thought

Fox News, May 1:

"[I]n an ironic twist, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party this week could give Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee the upper hand in rejecting a nominee they find unacceptable.

"That's because the Judiciary Committee, where Specter was the ranking minority member, requires the consent of at least one Republican to end debate and move a nominee to the full Senate for a vote.

"'I think, in narrow terms, it could present a procedural problem at the committee level, unless the Democrats are going to change the rules of the committee midstream,' William Jacobson, a professor of law at Cornell University, told FOXNews.com.

"'Most people presume in a controversial nomination that Arlen Specter would have been the one most likely to vote with Democrats, since he prides himself on being independent of Republicans. But now that he moves over to the Democratic side, the president and Democrats lost their most likely minority vote.'"

Danube of Thought

Ask yourself: How would Colin Powell vote?

Rick Ballard


Senate Judiciary Committee Rules


The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.


Precisely,DoT..Which is why I said upthread someone has to tie up Hatch in the cloakroom to keep him from voting in the Committee.


And when the Dem shills start saying this is because she's Hispanic..it's time to unleash those Dem running dog memos in which they conceded they wanted to block Miguel Estrada because they feared the Reps wanted eventually to move him up to the SCOTUS.


Since her words were spoken to and later published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, wouldn't it be prudent for someone to ask her if she too believes La Raza's motto..."For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada" (For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.)

Danube of Thought

I have not seen Sotomayor anywhere described as having been "first in her class" at Yale Law School, except for a post somewhere above.

In my Google search I came across this from a Yalie named Tom Smith:

"And the ambiguity of grades at Yale is alluring. (I once went to the Registrar at YLS and pressed her to tell me what my class rank would have been, had the law school ranked people. She told me 'top 10 percent.' I realized later there was every chance she told this to anyone who asked that question, which was probably a fair number of people.)"

Anyone know anything about this?

Danube of Thought

Concerning the Judiciary Committee, I think I had alluded earlier to the one-minority-vote rule. Then Thomas Collins asked whether without that one vote the matter wouldn't get out of committee at all, or whether it would get out of committee but without a recommendation. Appears from the Fox News item and from the language of the rule that it's the former.

But with Hatch, Graham and Grassley on the committee it is likely a moot point.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Which Republican on the Judiciary Committee can credibly carry on the fight against "fairness" constitutional jurisprudence?

I don't see either Hatch or Graham having the skill or persuasiveness.

Sessions? Kyl? Cornyn? Coburn?

Thomas Collins

See LUN for an article on some Sonia judicial decisions.

Thomas Collins

Volokh has some interesting discussion about Sonia on the bench.

Thomas Collins

I forgot to add to my previous post, "See LUN."

Dennis D

The problem is how? I am sure some degree of ethnic preference was applied in order for her to attend those schools. I live a stones throw from Princeton and have a daughter who applied. My daughters grades and SATs were superior but she had the wrong skin color. How could someone from Housing Projects in the Bronx afford Princeton or Yale? I know as a middle class family I couldn't.

Thomas Collins

OK, just one more LUN on Sonia for now. This article is the best summary I've seen of why Sonia is simply not considered to be among the top legal lights.

The bottom line is, althought it appears as if the GOP could bottle her up in committee (see the DOT and Rick Ballard posts above), she is a quintessentially undistinguished but not obviously incompetent judge with a decidedly modern "progressive" mindset, which, given today's Senate composition (not only of Democrats, but also of wobbly GOPers), means that she is a virtual shoo-in.


The White House has now released a slideshow of the life of Sonya Sotomayor, including little girl pics.

Was it JMH who brought up "The Story" of Obama being used to get Obama elected? It looks like they are going to that well again.
Yet it seems to me making this about her bio as much as her judicial choices opens the door to attacks on things she's said on panels, etc.

JM Hanes

"I am pretty sure we don't do either "graceful" or "sharp", but time will tell."

At least sharp has a better chance with Sessions than it ever did with Specter. Sessions putatively racist background will likely get more press than anything Sotomayor has said in any case, so he might as well go for it. As minority chair, his penetrating questions cannot be ignored the way they were when he was further down the totem poll, so thre's at least some potential for a clarifying debate. I have little doubt that Soto's nomination will make it to the floor, I mostly hope that speaking in embarrassing sound bites is a habit she can't break.

"The president said he had made his decision after “deep reflection and careful deliberation."

Currying such illusions is probably the only reason the White House ever bothered floating respectable alternatives in the first place. Sotomayor's name was already out there as his preferred nominee before any other prospects even surfaced. Kagan and Wood conveniently diluted the spotlight and gave the legal punditry something solid to digest before Soto was served up. The only deep reflection and careful deliberation here was probably devoted to carrying off the typical Obama simulation of probity.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I agree with DOT and TC. Absent substance abuse, tax or nanny problems, she has the votes for confirmation.

But I also agree that someone on the Committee needs to make the case against empathy and fairness as pillars of a new Constitutional jurisprudence.

Applying the law does not necessarily show a judge or Justice lacksi fairness or empathy. Consider the concepts of "reasonable doubt" and "due process". Analysis of cases which deal with them require a certain degree of judgment and discretion.

Today, for example SCOTUS unanimously rejected the Fourth Circuits' decision affirming the conviction of a buyer of drugs (buying is a misdemeanor) for "facilitating" the seller's sale to him (selling is a felony). So the buyer who did nothing but buy was convicted of the felony sale as an accomplice.

The Court said that is like a case where a woman transported across state lines was found guilty of aiding and abetting a Mann Act violation. Not surprisingly, SCOTUS also reversed that case --many years ago.

JM Hanes

"The White House has now released a slideshow of the life of Sonya Sotomayor, including little girl pics."

It seems like just yesterday that Bush was slammed for trying to circumvent the MSM, doesn't it? I'm sure every Dem on the Judiciary Committee has received a personal copy so that they can get a head start on devising their questions for the nomination hearings.


I'm thinking the quick work in producing the life story slide show gives lie to the idea Obama just made his choice last night.

Unless they asked everyone being interviewed for the job to bring baby pictures with them on interview day.


Citizens are so stupid, we will get this life story carpola all the time--they even did it with Roberts and Alito--welcome to the Lifetime Channel for real.

Jim Rhoads, I am intrigued by the SCOTUS grant of cert last week to Conrad Black on the question beloved of the US Attys in Ill of the scope of denial of good services.

Danube of Thought

Volokh does a lengthy discourse on whether or not Cardozo was "Hispanic," he being of Portugese ancestry. He concludes that Portugese qualifies, based on some provision in the Code of Federal Reqgulations, but apparently there are other federal guidelines that come out the other way. I'm not pursuing it, just because I find all this stuff distasteful anyway.

And somewhere I saw an NBC News online item querying whether the GOP would "dare" to thwart a Hispanic woman. I don't recall their asking the same question about the Democrates and an undoubdtedly Hispanic man, Miguel Estrada.

Thomas Collins

The Dems are better than the GOP at Borking a nominee, MayBee, and they are also better at insulating a candidate from any attempted Borking. In the first day of the nomination, the Obama Administration has most likely already established the dominant narrative (compelling life story of the South Bronx lady who by hard work earns Ivy League degrees and judges in an intelligent but empathetic manner). The clearly pedestrian nature of Sonia's career as a results oriented liberal judge will most likely not gain traction. Obama's folks were clearly aware of that You Tube video in which Sonia basically admitted that she views herself not as a judge but as a life tenured policymaker, and have moved quickly to combat it and any other negative aspects of Sonia's record.

The Obama Administration may be a bust in foreign policy and national security strategy, but in synthesizing Chicago machine politics, and talk therapy and visual propaganda techniques worthy of Gramsci to the domestic scene, they are effective.

Danube of Thought

On the issue of "empathy," there is this famous story of a conversation between Judge Learned Hand and Chief Justice Holmes (retold by Thomas Sowell a couple of weeks ago):

"After a lunch with Judge Learned Hand, as Holmes was departing in a carriage to return to work, Judge Hand said to him: 'Do justice, sir. Do justice.'

"Holmes had the carriage stopped. 'That is not my job,' he said. 'My job is to apply the law.'"

I'd love to see some GOP Senator bring this up during the hearings, but I am not holding my breath. Wouldn't be prudent.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

BHO is the quintessential Chicago pol. Picking Sotomayor now is just right for him. He gets political points with the hispanics, and females and the far left without risking defeat. If this appointment were made later in his term, he might have to deal with a less positive Senate and the AA problem might be more acute.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet


Maybe Scooter should have put a full court press on in his case.

Could it be that Fitz ain't bulletproof?

Say it ain't so.


Krauthammer said tonite that he thought the best route was for the GOP to center the hearings on the New Haven case. Bring in the guy who took out loans and sacrificed a lot and who also has a great story only to be knocked down by a Sotomayor who cared so little that she didn't even sign the knock down one line refusal to review the decision. Talk about that case endlessly and the racial implications of it. Bring in the Clinton appointed liberal Judge who was so concerned about her actions that he helped elevate it to the SC.

I like it.

It's the way to win while losing.

JM Hanes

Jim R:

It's also quintessential Obama to jam through as much of his agenda as he possibly can while he's still on his honeymoon -- and still has a Democratic majority in Congress. Figuring out the nuts and bolts, and how to raise the necessary taxes can all come later.

The right needs to quit obsessing over Obama long enough to realize that Congress is the key to everything. Obama's 100 Days would have been a dismal failure under a Republican majority. If we don't start making real inroads there in 2010, it will hardly matter who wins the White House by 2012.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

Good advice JMH. Having only 52-53 dem Senators would be a step in the right direction. And, of course, peeling off a significant ## of DemCongressCritters would help as well.


From the American Spectator.

"Sotomayor's Radical Legal Group Helped Kill the Estrada Nomination"



Excellent from JMH and Jane.

Old Lurker

Jim Rhoads, it is great to see you...where have you been?

Plotting how the Republicans will block this is a waste of time. They completely lack the ***** to do what it takes in this. Even on the committee, finding one without a spine will be easy.

Charles K was right in suggesting that while the confirmation is certain, it could be a very useful teaching moment for Republicans to express the opposing political philosophy, the expectations of the constitution, and the dangers of ignoring same. In so doing, it can help educate the muddle on the intentions/dangers of the Won. But that assumes there is an R that a)has a political philosophy, and b)can express it.

Jim Rhoads a/k/a vjnjagvet

I have been commenting here, but only sporadically, OL. I am afraid my partying and the occasional paid gig has interfered with more regular commentary;>0

I am lurking every day, though.


From what I've read she seems a bit intellectually lazy, or perhaps mediocre would be a better term.
Since whomever Il Douche nominates is going to be a far left nutter, perhaps it's best if we get a light weight far left nutter?


Here is where I call "fool" on the thoughtful, centrist, libertarian Obama voter. Judge Satomayor is, well, not a Judge. She's a self-proclaimed social engineer and just whom Obama had in mind. Hopefully, senate republicans won't go all french surrender monkey (see Lott, Warner, Hatch) and let a nominee so seperate from America and its Constitutuion waltz through withoit a whimper.

Old Lurker

More partying, fewer paid gigs would be a good goal Jim.

Danube of Thought

I agree all eyes have to be on 2010, but I think any Senate gains at all would be difficult to get, and it's more likely the GOP will lose some. It's just the arithmetic of the thing; this time around the GOP has many more seats to defend than the Dems, and a bunch of guys are retiring.

I'm thinking the over/under for house pickups is about 25, and if they get that it will be nice but won't make all that much difference.

The GOP had their chance, and with Bush's supine acquiescence they blew it, and blew it big-time. Long time recovering, in the absence of a man-caused catastrophe.

Danube of Thought

More from Sowell on Holmes, just because it's a bit of a slow day and it's such fun to read. Also appropriate to the empathy nonsense.

"Like most people, Justice Holmes had empathy for some and antipathy for others, but his votes on the Supreme Court often went against those for whom he had empathy and for those for whom he had antipathy. As Holmes himself put it: 'I loathed most of the things in favor of which I decided.'

"After voting in favor of Benjamin Gitlow in the 1925 case of Gitlow v. People of New York, Holmes said in a letter to a friend that he had just voted for 'the right of an ass to drool about proletarian dictatorship.' Similarly, in the case of Abrams v. United States, Holmes' dissenting opinion in favor of the appellants characterized the views of those appellants as 'a creed which I believe to be the creed of ignorance and immaturity.'

"By the same token, Justice Holmes did not let his sympathies with some people determine his votes on the High Court. As a young man, Holmes had dropped out of Harvard to go fight in the Civil War because he opposed slavery. In later years, he expressed his dislike of the minstrel shows that were popular at the time 'because they seem to belittle the race.'

"When there were outcries against the prosecution of Sacco and Vanzetti in the 1920s, Holmes said in a letter, 'I cannot but ask myself why this so much greater interest in red than black. A thousand-fold worse cases of negroes come up from time to time, but the world does not worry over them.'"


Excellent from JMH and Jane.(I second that)

Make this a teaching moment--emphasize her opinions in the firefighter and follow on Kelo cases, Spread far and wide her work re Estrada..Do NOT go softly into the night.

Jim R..I still do not see why Black was convicted and Kipnis' conviction seems to me a barbaric perversion of the law. The man committed no crime that I can see except refusing to testify the way Fitz wanted him to.


DOT: Thats the worse case on your GOP predictions. What helps the other side though is pessimism, self loathing and pretend republicans like Frum, Megan McCain, Powell. Folks like these are helping the DNC/MSM drive a narrative. Postive voices will eventually win the field like Gingrich, Romney, Cheney. The rally will be grass roots in origin and start from voices like those whom post here


Powell's appearance this week is a laugher. He'll have to explain why he's to belived about still being a republican after throwing a centrist like McCain overboard and endorsing Obama. What a fraud.

With polls indicating Americans are becoming more "pro-life", it can be assumed that more have conservative values and don't want more govt intervention in their lives as Powell, et al are trying to tell us.


A local website posted this">http://www.thealaskastandard.com/content/judge-sonia-sotomayor-court-where-policy-made">this 30 second YouTube clip of the nominee speaking at Duke in 2005 about how and where US Policy is made. IANAL, so I do not know exactly why she is worried that her comment is being taped. Just thought I'd throw it out there for analysis by the Lawyers among us.


I check the web sites for my senators to see what they had to say about the nomination.


“I congratulate Judge Sonia Sotomayor on her nomination to the United States Supreme Court and President Obama on his first Supreme Court nomination. I supported Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998 and from all accounts, she is a highly qualified and very experienced judge. Judge Sotomayor’s nomination marks a historic moment for our nation. She is the first Hispanic American to be nominated to our nation’s highest court and if confirmed, she would be just the third woman to serve on the Court. Evaluating a Supreme Court nominee is a responsibility I take very seriously considering the significant impact a Supreme Court justice can have on our country. I look forward to thoroughly reviewing Judge Sotomayor’s record and questioning her during the Judiciary Committee’s hearings.”

So she's qualified, and the qualifications that Feingold sees fit to mention are her race and sex. Wonderful.

I hope that his examination of her candidacy will go deeper than that, because those are attributes, not qualifications. I hope, for example, that he'll ask her for examples where she has set forth rulings that went against her own opinions because she viewed the law as supporting a different conclusion.


“I’m pleased to learn of President Obama’s historic nomination of the first Latina to the Supreme Court.By all accounts, Judge Sotomayor is accomplished, exceptionally bright and well-respected by her peers. It would be tough to classify her as a liberal or a conservative, and my hope is that she is a candidate I can support. I look forward to learning more about her experience and views during her confirmation hearings later this summer. In the meantime, I plan to reconvene my Supreme Court Nomination Task Force to review Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications and give me a balanced view of her record.”

A little less out-of-the-gate enthusiastic, at least.

But tough to classify her as liberal or conservative? Hm. Doesn't seem too hard.

Danube of Thought

I believe the Supremes are going to reverse Conrad Black's conviction on the ground that the offense for which he was prosecuted is hopelessly vague and even unintelligible. It's my hope that the reversal will occur, and that it will cause a besotted public to reflect on what a menace a prosecutor like Fitzgerald is.


Hey, BobS, longtime no see, or appear. So both Charlie & Marco got into the race and
the NRSC, the likes of Cornyn and the other
Sessions got in with both feet. Talk about not having a clue, The Congress really was the key, Franks, Dodd, Biden, Waters,Pelosi,
as my Argentinian historian friend pointed out, and supporting Turbo Tax Geitner, and that ranking epidemiologist Sebelius, was a no brainer; so of course they did it. Ridge
last seen splitting the difference on Gitmo,
was enlisted from his lobbyist gig for Albania, and his Maryland residence, vut didn't answer the call. Another missed call by the NRSC


"Repubs should make sure the Hispanic community realizes she is Puerto Rican and not Mexican."

Why? You're saying that her race matters?

It should matter that her race matters *to her* but I don't see why it should matter in itself.


Just thought I'd throw it out there for analysis by the Lawyers among us.


The problem is that the Court does not make policy, the legislature (and executive branch) do. The only issue the Court deals with is applying the law.



That is how it is supposed to work.


Somehow she missed that detail atGovernment class at that high school, Princeton and Harvard Law. Heck I learned it with 'School House Rock' on Saturday mornings (sarcasm). She actually went above Kelo, that King John's law, not anything quintessentially American; then again how is that different than the Chrysler and G.M. Heist


"The problem is that the Court does not make policy, the legislature (and executive branch) do."

Jane, That's what I thought but I just wanted your guys view of it. In the clip it seems to me she thinks it's all just a lip-service joke, and that of course the Bench is supposed to make Policy, just not to publicly admit it..

Melinda Romanoff


I completely disagree.

Conrad Black is/was a thief and an unrepentant one as such. His destruction of an "Avis" (We Try Harder.) second tier newspaper to line his own pockets was abysmal. Granted, we, in Chicago, expect graft from our politicians, that's how we avoid being punitively taxed. "Pay the Man = Make the Donation". That should be the motto. But if you are a legit business and you stick 'em up, you'll pay twice for that theft. He earned it for threatening the existence of the best sports page in the city. That, will get the attention of every City worker, and their benefactors.

I personally do not believe it was politically motivated in any way, and I followed the trial (as a layman, mind you).

Just my two cents. Not all that it seems.

Night all.


I'm with Dot on the Black case. Interestingly the jury did NOT find that he stole from the company, the testimony was uncontraverted that the deal was made in Canada under Canadian law and did not deprive the stockholders of anything--in fact it is under the trustee appointed by Ftiz that the stockholders have lost everything--though the trustee is yachting about on their dime.

Melinda Romanoff

That's what I get for reading it in the "victim". Hollinger was vacuumed during and after appointment, in my opinion, but that's MY opinion. I can be persuaded, but the observation that this was the business model of Hollinger doesn't help things. This wasn't the only paper "worked over", as a system of business.

Busy days ahead, so very limited reading. Stay healthy people.



Yup, it's that fellow Breeden, the former SEC chief under George the Elder, Radler who actually was a crook, has been given good behavior privileges as I understand it, and will likely be released. Just like he missed Armitage and hit Libby, aimed for Rezko and got Blago; his team somehow let Ali Mohammed slip through his fingers, until
the embassy bombings. Fitz is not on my Xmas list, I'm just saying.


Is it that he's thick or is there something perverse at work there which gives him pleasure at knowing he is capable of manipulating people and the system (including some too vague federal criminal statutes) so that he convict anyone he chooses? Either way he's a menace.

Ralph L

I just saw the tail end of a debate with K Rove and O's campaign manager, hosted by Frank Sesno, who seemed to be arguing with Rove more than the O man was. CSPAN replays it at 12:20AM EDT.

BB Key

I want CSPAN to replay the entire Court of Appeals hearing in 1998.

For those of us who like to make our on decsions about the nominee and the Senators who are still on the Judiciary Commitee.


Interestingly the jury did NOT find that he stole from the company

I believe the jury did in fact convict over non-compete agreements on three counts (of mail fraud, naturally*), buying the prosecution's allegation that the money should have gone to the company rather than the Black, Radler, et al. With the obstruction of justice count that made the prosecution 4 for 13, which is still misleading because the allegations regarding the CanWest sale, trumpeted prominently in the indictment, fell apart as the buyer indicated that he had wanted non-compete agreements with Black and Radler in case they left Hollinger.

Put on your pretty lies, Wells' notices hurt more
If you don't play nice, hope you hire Robert Luskin
Better think twice, your train of thought will be faulted
So if you fight Javert, goodnight

Your trial's in Fitzsturbia, it will be a process crimes
Fitzsturbia, am I disparaging you tonight?
Fitzsturbia, groupies at Firedoglake
Fitzsturbia, Fitzsturbia


Oh goody, Dear Leader's Youth Group Gestapo's idea of a balanced Justice is coming to fruition, this pick completes the Feminist-Racist-Classist requirements so the next pick will be the Gayist, Environmentist and Islamist; each one fulfills the necessary Empathy required to crush all Other.

All Hail Social Justice!

Rick Ballard

Single Digit Salute to Obama Confirmed

Team TurboZero's performance of Dance of the Zombies is losing its syncopation. The craven cowards holding Chrysler's secured debt who caved to a light bludgeoning by the fascists provided too stark a lesson on the rewards to be garnered by abandonment of fiduciary responsibility.

Perhaps the union penalty now being exacted by the bond market is opening some sleepy eyes in the 'go along to get along' Friends of Fascism boardrooms.


Rick, that is a wonderful example of a pyrrhic victory by labor, isn't it? I blogged it with a h/t to you but if it runs I may be on a plane unable to notify you.


How would Sotomayor rule in this case were it to come before the court?



OOPS! TRy this LUN.


So am I hearing this correctly. N. Korea has revoked the 1953 Armistice and declared war?

The comments to this entry are closed.