Really, really trying hard to be completely objective about it, and based on how she presents herself still not seeing how she belongs in the same room with the other eight justices (yes, even the other liberal ones).
WELCOME TO WARREN: The mayor the Michigan city where Obama will speak Tuesday, criticized POTUS's policies just hours before his arrival. One of the mayor's issues - Obama's decision not to hold a town hall meeting, as originally planned.
"He needs to hear real people," said Warren Mayor Jim Fouts, who says he likes Obama and voted for him in November, in an interview with a local radio station. "I think I would like to hope he would hear me, I don't think he will." -- Carol E. Lee (9:56 a.m.)
President Climate Change is flying all the way to Michigan to make a speech, but not to actually interact with the people.
Sotomayor will be on the Court. So will the nominees chosen by Obama to replace Ginsburg and Stevens. We better hope the four conservatives and Kennedy take good care of themselves for a while.
MayBee, if that Obama appearance is televised, look for Obama to give Mayor Fouts the subtle one-finger salute in the opener..."I'd like to thank the fine folks of Warren for having me here today. As I've always said Mayor Jim Fouts is one of the fine upstanding mayors [insert flip off here] in all of Michigan and indeed all of America."
Following Bad's link to the Powerline article I read/found in the comments this intriguing link:
When asked whether he had second thoughts about striking the President's first Supreme Court nominee from a jury pool, the lawyer said "The legality of my client's actions are at issue in this case. My client's a white male. Ms. Sotomayor's a Latino female who's said her experience as a Latino woman makes her more likely to reach a correct result than a white male. If I didn't strike her, they'd disbar my ass."
I'm very unimpressed with this dumpy and disingenuous bag of stupid. Somebody made a point in the comments at Powerline that Il Douche is only surrounding himself with, and appointing, individuals that make him look relatively smart. True or not we are so screwed.
Somebody administer an MRI to Pat Leahy before his bodily functions follow his mental activities out the door.
May every Jack has his Jill.
There is a hot place ---Blackwhiteconnect.com
---Best interracial dating site in the world! It's where diversely ethnic singles meet new friends, make great dates, and build lasting interracial relationships. No matter you are looking for a NSA or serious relationship, you'll have check it out.
I think the sub-par Sotomayor will be less likely to sway Justice Kennedy (or anyone else there) than a worthier nominee would. That Obama chose her over all others at his first opportunity will be a lingering example of his bad judgment.
Watch Graham. He followed up his overly fulsome "welcome" with questions designed to allow himself to refuse to vote her out of committee. This might yet get interesting.
"I couldn't say it was fair or not," said Malik Mtima, a black firefighter in Atlanta. "It's not likely that black firefighters just weren't smart enough."
In the city of Atlanta, it is very likely that they had arrest records and other issues that wouldn't get them the time of day in the recruitment process in the suburbs of the A.
She botched the Kelo discussion, too, per Sweetness & Light, wrongly stating the property in question was in a blighted area--the whole point of the outrage about the opinion is your local govt can snatch up ANY property and give it to someone else.
Leahy seems to be another argument for an age limit in the Senate. What a decrepit, bumbling jackass. But oh what damage those decrepit bumbling jackasses do.
Leahy always sounds like he is drunk. Who knows, maybe he is.
Sotomayor sat under the klieg lights and lied her little heart out - and didn't lie well at all. She showed us what an ethical and honorable person she is and how deserving she is to be a Supreme Court Justice for the Left.
Except, some on the Left are also appalled by her.
Well, Sonia, your days in the spotlight are really, really going well.
Sotomayor better not write any opinions when she's on the bench because she keeps confessing that people have greatly misunderstood what she meant to convey in her writings of the past.
The committee makes speeches rather than asking questions because none of them seems to have much legal background --at least in litigation. Bunch of dopes.
The wise Latina remark and Sotomayor's convoluted defense of that indefensible remark is something every American can understand. We don't have to be lawyers to know she is being dishonest.
What is she writing? doodling? (It reminds me of OJ Simpson's "journal" during his murder trial.) It's very annoying and distracting. I suppose that's her purpose.
Yesterday, the CBS legal analyst wondered if Senator Kyl's Hispanic constituency would be upset seeing him question Sotomayor so forcefully.
I asked him why they would. He replied Senators don't like to make any constituency mad-- so I repeated, why would his constituents be upset that he is forcefully questioning a SCOTUS nominee.
I ask you- why is it ok to say hispanics would be upset seeing a hispanic nominee be treated like every other nominee?
Why was this not operative for the treatment of Alberto Gonzales by Congress during the made-up US Attorney firiring scandal?
And when did we get to the point that nobody is imagining *women* would be upset by her treatment?
The woman is a fucking Constitutional disaster. I couldn't bear to watch but 30 minutes yesterday. Sotomayor looked like a crime boss under the klieg lights. I don't know what the hell Republicans did with the months they had to to develop their questions this time around, but at least we were willing to reject Harriet Myers before she ever spoke in public. Even Democrats should be embarrassed to confirm Sotomayor.
Somebody should ask if she'll commit to hiring a clerk with a firm grasp of Constitutional Law and the English Language, because she won't be writing her own opinions. That's the only potential bright side, as far as I can see.
Oh boy, wouldn't that be rich. I'd bet most regular people are already suspicious over how she got into Princeton (on a full scholarship, no less) and Yale (again on a scholarship). If she goes down for incompetence? Wow, what could be better than that? Too much to hope for, of course, but a person can dream.
Over at Americans United for Life, Dawn Eden is liveblogging the hearings and observes a curious contradiction in Sotomayor's testimony today. The judge declined to specifically address a query from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., whether advances in technology — such as the fact that the life of a child born at 21 weeks may now be saved – should be taken into account when evaluating Roe v. Wade.
Asked whether technology should have an impact, Sotomayor replied, “I can’t answer that in the abstract.”
But later in the day, in response to an antitrust question from Sen. Ted Kaufman, D-Del., she asked, “Has there been a change in society that shows that the factual findings” of the previous ruling are wrong? Then she added that all relevant changes play a factor in the decision.
So changes in technology and society are important, and ought to be taken into account, except when they shouldn't.
She keeps getting worse and worse the more she talks....
But really, the Reps will lose the (rahter conservative) Hispanic vote if they don't vote to confirm this woman. But there were no consequences to the Dems for what they did to Gonzales and Estrada..
Whelan from THE CORNER catches Sotomayor in a bit of a stretch:
President Obama says he’s a longtime fan of the Chicago White Sox, but he calls Comiskey Park “Cominskey.” And Judge Sotomayor, in her testimony yesterday, asserted that “Few judges could claim they love baseball more than I do” and that she “grew up … watching baseball.” But a March 28, 1995, story in USA Today, titled “U.S. District judge not a baseball fan,” stated that Sotomayor “grew up a few miles from Yankee Stadium but says she knows little about the sport.” And yesterday she said that “many residents of Washington, D.C. have asked me to look at the Senators” as her new team. But as even a casual baseball fan would know, the D.C. team is the Nationals, not the Senators.
I sometimes get dizzy trying understand the arguments made by otherwise smart folks about how an ethnic group may vote. I guess since blacks are pretty much a monolith, perhaps it can be forgiven but Hispanics are not even a single ethnic group.
You get blue eyed blond haired Spaniards and German ancestry Argentinian along with Mayan blooded Mexican and then rabidly anti Castro Cubans, not to mention various Caribbean islanders like Sotomayer ( who is PR ).
Mexican dont identify with PR and Cubans dont identify with Argentinians and all of them dont even speak the same kind of Spanish as Spaniards. Not to mention that the largest country in South America speaks
Portugese.
Its a Democrat Party trait. They lie to the voters, since they know if they tell the truth about their policies the voters wont elect them. Remember that we you hear about some "conservative" Democrat house member. That is damn near an extinct species these days, despite what some MSM reporter may tell you. And yes they may have sounded pretty moderate/conservative on the stump,they told the voters what they wanted to hear. They just dont vote that way very often.
Any Republican can vote No and explain that they supported Alberto Gonzales and Miguel Estrada and then cite Senator Durbin's instructions from leftist interest groups:
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
Just in case Hispanics weren't informed about that by the MSM.
I am once again pleased and impressed with Sen. Sessions. His questioning was excellent.
Posted by: centralcal | July 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM
My son pointed out she sounds perpetually annoyed.
Posted by: MayBee | July 14, 2009 at 11:25 AM
MayBee,
I pointed out on another thread that her voice makes my ears hurt.
Posted by: Sue | July 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Her speech pattern exacerbates her awful voice. She seems to not speak in sentences, but in individual words. It makes it difficult to listen to her.
Posted by: centralcal | July 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM
Doesn't she have some brace thing going on with her upper teeth?That might explain her speech problem
Posted by: jean | July 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Agreed. And her body language doesn't help. She leans forward, she blinks frequently, and she nods her head for emphasis.
Posted by: MayBee | July 14, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Really, really trying hard to be completely objective about it, and based on how she presents herself still not seeing how she belongs in the same room with the other eight justices (yes, even the other liberal ones).
Posted by: hrtshpdbox | July 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Interesting tidbit from Politico:
President Climate Change is flying all the way to Michigan to make a speech, but not to actually interact with the people.
Posted by: MayBee | July 14, 2009 at 12:45 PM
Sotomayor will be on the Court. So will the nominees chosen by Obama to replace Ginsburg and Stevens. We better hope the four conservatives and Kennedy take good care of themselves for a while.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | July 14, 2009 at 01:10 PM
MayBee, if that Obama appearance is televised, look for Obama to give Mayor Fouts the subtle one-finger salute in the opener..."I'd like to thank the fine folks of Warren for having me here today. As I've always said Mayor Jim Fouts is one of the fine upstanding mayors [insert flip off here] in all of Michigan and indeed all of America."
Posted by: hit and run | July 14, 2009 at 01:15 PM
Does anyone recall W using the one-finger salute?
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Fashionistas,
Soto wore blue yesterday, red today.
Will she wear white tomorrow?
Posted by: BB Key | July 14, 2009 at 02:31 PM
Fashionistas,
Soto wore blue yesterday, red today.
Will she wear white tomorrow?
God willing, she'll borrow something from Michelle Obama.
Posted by: MayBee | July 14, 2009 at 02:42 PM
What is Robin Ghiven's assessment of Sotomayor's fashion choices?
I'm so interested I'm not going to try to find out....
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 02:51 PM
President Climate Change is flying all the way to Michigan to make a speech, but not to actually interact with the people.
According to Insty a tea party broke out.
Now that is music to my ears. And while I'm at it, don't forget to sign up for the JOM tea party bash facebook page at the LUN.
Posted by: Jane | July 14, 2009 at 02:53 PM
John at POWERLINE is pretty tough on Sotomayer and essentially says she is lying.
LUN
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 03:30 PM
Following Bad's link to the Powerline article I read/found in the comments this intriguing link:
Posted by: glasater | July 14, 2009 at 04:30 PM
glasater's link is to a satire site, however, I wouldn't want her on a jury judging me and would definitly be mad at my lawyer for not striking her.
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Now that Sotomayor has remade herself into John Roberts, will the left still support her nomination?
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 06:17 PM
I'm very unimpressed with this dumpy and disingenuous bag of stupid. Somebody made a point in the comments at Powerline that Il Douche is only surrounding himself with, and appointing, individuals that make him look relatively smart. True or not we are so screwed.
Somebody administer an MRI to Pat Leahy before his bodily functions follow his mental activities out the door.
Posted by: Captain Hate | July 14, 2009 at 06:33 PM
May every Jack has his Jill.
There is a hot place ---Blackwhiteconnect.com
---Best interracial dating site in the world! It's where diversely ethnic singles meet new friends, make great dates, and build lasting interracial relationships. No matter you are looking for a NSA or serious relationship, you'll have check it out.
Posted by: joycekane | July 14, 2009 at 07:57 PM
The second comment at Althouse (LUN) points out she may speak that way for the benefit of the court reporter.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 14, 2009 at 08:13 PM
I think the sub-par Sotomayor will be less likely to sway Justice Kennedy (or anyone else there) than a worthier nominee would. That Obama chose her over all others at his first opportunity will be a lingering example of his bad judgment.
Posted by: DebinNC | July 14, 2009 at 08:16 PM
Excellent point Deb
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 08:54 PM
Firefighter: So-So the low bid
Posted by: PD | July 14, 2009 at 09:22 PM
Bad,
Watch Graham. He followed up his overly fulsome "welcome" with questions designed to allow himself to refuse to vote her out of committee. This might yet get interesting.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | July 14, 2009 at 09:26 PM
Ole Arlen would have so loved being the lone Republican yea.
Posted by: DebinNC | July 14, 2009 at 09:32 PM
There is talk from the right AND the left on the web about Sotomayor being truth-challenged.
I concur.
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 09:42 PM
"I couldn't say it was fair or not," said Malik Mtima, a black firefighter in Atlanta. "It's not likely that black firefighters just weren't smart enough."
In the city of Atlanta, it is very likely that they had arrest records and other issues that wouldn't get them the time of day in the recruitment process in the suburbs of the A.
Posted by: Stephanie | July 14, 2009 at 09:43 PM
Rick, her veracity is greatly in question after today's testimony. Graham needs to vote against her for that reason.
I think he will.
Posted by: bad | July 14, 2009 at 09:47 PM
At least one liberal law professor was “completely disgusted” by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony.
LUN
Posted by: Stephanie | July 14, 2009 at 10:09 PM
She's got some very bad reviews by a wide range of people.
(Do the right thing republicans)
Posted by: Jane | July 15, 2009 at 07:54 AM
She botched the Kelo discussion, too, per Sweetness & Light, wrongly stating the property in question was in a blighted area--the whole point of the outrage about the opinion is your local govt can snatch up ANY property and give it to someone else.
Posted by: clarice | July 15, 2009 at 08:13 AM
Video of Pat Leahy deliberately misquoting Soto while ostensibly reading what she said. ht Lucianne
Imagine if Sessions had done the same.
Posted by: DebinNC | July 15, 2009 at 08:56 AM
Leahy seems to be another argument for an age limit in the Senate. What a decrepit, bumbling jackass. But oh what damage those decrepit bumbling jackasses do.
Posted by: matt | July 15, 2009 at 08:57 AM
If this is the brightest and the best, God help us all. It's hard not to think this person is a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic.
Posted by: Aubrey | July 15, 2009 at 09:14 AM
Leahy always sounds like he is drunk. Who knows, maybe he is.
Sotomayor sat under the klieg lights and lied her little heart out - and didn't lie well at all. She showed us what an ethical and honorable person she is and how deserving she is to be a Supreme Court Justice for the Left.
Except, some on the Left are also appalled by her.
Well, Sonia, your days in the spotlight are really, really going well.
Posted by: centralcal | July 15, 2009 at 09:25 AM
Cornyn's goin' "what happened to my 20 minutes?" Cuz Sonia ate 'em.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | July 15, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Sotomayor better not write any opinions when she's on the bench because she keeps confessing that people have greatly misunderstood what she meant to convey in her writings of the past.
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 09:50 AM
Paul, at Powerline, is convinced Graham will vote for Sotomayor.
LUN
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 10:26 AM
The committee makes speeches rather than asking questions because none of them seems to have much legal background --at least in litigation. Bunch of dopes.
Posted by: clarice | July 15, 2009 at 10:40 AM
After all the other Republicans give their excellent reasons for voting nay, I hope Lindsey notes his reservations and votes yea.
Posted by: DebinNC | July 15, 2009 at 10:42 AM
The wise Latina remark and Sotomayor's convoluted defense of that indefensible remark is something every American can understand. We don't have to be lawyers to know she is being dishonest.
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 10:48 AM
She is speaking much faster today. Is she rattled or has she forgotten the strategy of speaking slowly to eat up time?
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM
What is she writing? doodling? (It reminds me of OJ Simpson's "journal" during his murder trial.) It's very annoying and distracting. I suppose that's her purpose.
Posted by: Barbara | July 15, 2009 at 11:00 AM
She sounds ridiculous. I am only half listening and I can tell she is not saying a damn thing.
Posted by: Jane | July 15, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Yesterday, the CBS legal analyst wondered if Senator Kyl's Hispanic constituency would be upset seeing him question Sotomayor so forcefully.
I asked him why they would. He replied Senators don't like to make any constituency mad-- so I repeated, why would his constituents be upset that he is forcefully questioning a SCOTUS nominee.
I ask you- why is it ok to say hispanics would be upset seeing a hispanic nominee be treated like every other nominee?
Why was this not operative for the treatment of Alberto Gonzales by Congress during the made-up US Attorney firiring scandal?
And when did we get to the point that nobody is imagining *women* would be upset by her treatment?
Posted by: MayBee | July 15, 2009 at 11:14 AM
As usual, a good point, MayBee.
Reminds me of the notion that Reps shouldn't oppose open borders because it will cost them the Hispanic vote.
Posted by: clarice | July 15, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Bench from NRO has a lot of commentary on Sotomayor.
LUN
It ain't complimentary....
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 11:36 AM
The woman is a fucking Constitutional disaster. I couldn't bear to watch but 30 minutes yesterday. Sotomayor looked like a crime boss under the klieg lights. I don't know what the hell Republicans did with the months they had to to develop their questions this time around, but at least we were willing to reject Harriet Myers before she ever spoke in public. Even Democrats should be embarrassed to confirm Sotomayor.
Somebody should ask if she'll commit to hiring a clerk with a firm grasp of Constitutional Law and the English Language, because she won't be writing her own opinions. That's the only potential bright side, as far as I can see.
Posted by: JM Hanes | July 15, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I haven't seen any of it. Is it bad enough that Lindsay and Orrin can say they're voting no because she's not qualified?
Posted by: Extraneus | July 15, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Yeah it's that bad. Not that they will of course, but they can.
Posted by: Jane | July 15, 2009 at 01:18 PM
Oh boy, wouldn't that be rich. I'd bet most regular people are already suspicious over how she got into Princeton (on a full scholarship, no less) and Yale (again on a scholarship). If she goes down for incompetence? Wow, what could be better than that? Too much to hope for, of course, but a person can dream.
Posted by: Extraneus | July 15, 2009 at 01:27 PM
According to Rasmussen, a majority believe she should not be confirmed although 80% believe she will be confirmed.
It's enough to make ya cynical...
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 01:35 PM
Andy McCarthey on Sotomayor and the PRLDEF.
LUN
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 01:47 PM
Al Franken sucks.
And is an idiot.
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 02:58 PM
Jim Geraghty:
She keeps getting worse and worse the more she talks....
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 03:04 PM
But really, the Reps will lose the (rahter conservative) Hispanic vote if they don't vote to confirm this woman. But there were no consequences to the Dems for what they did to Gonzales and Estrada..
Posted by: clarice | July 15, 2009 at 03:26 PM
Surely there was someone less _________ he could have chosen.
She is representing women really poorly.
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 03:35 PM
Oh come on, people, really.
What did you expect. We heard earlier that Biden was going to help shepherd her through confirmation.
Is any of her poor performance really all that unexpected after that news?
Posted by: hit and run | July 15, 2009 at 03:46 PM
Hit, I have this sinking feeling that she was deliberately chosen as a shoe-in to poorly represent women by a guy who refers to them as "Sweetie."
Sounds a little paranoid, huh....
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 03:55 PM
Whelan from THE CORNER catches Sotomayor in a bit of a stretch:
Ibama and Soso are soulmates...
Posted by: bad | July 15, 2009 at 04:22 PM
Cominskey
He was thinking of Comintern.
Posted by: Ralph L | July 15, 2009 at 05:17 PM
Soulmates, indeed, Bad.
AA shooting stars amazed at how the scam got them.
Posted by: Old Lurker | July 15, 2009 at 05:42 PM
I sometimes get dizzy trying understand the arguments made by otherwise smart folks about how an ethnic group may vote. I guess since blacks are pretty much a monolith, perhaps it can be forgiven but Hispanics are not even a single ethnic group.
You get blue eyed blond haired Spaniards and German ancestry Argentinian along with Mayan blooded Mexican and then rabidly anti Castro Cubans, not to mention various Caribbean islanders like Sotomayer ( who is PR ).
Mexican dont identify with PR and Cubans dont identify with Argentinians and all of them dont even speak the same kind of Spanish as Spaniards. Not to mention that the largest country in South America speaks
Portugese.
Posted by: GMax | July 15, 2009 at 05:43 PM
Soulmates indeed. Here's John Cornyn http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTdkZmY5ZDc0MmZiNDRlMjYwMjlhMjZhZTBmM2JlNTY=>talking with Jim Geraghty:
Many people were voting for Barack Obama the speech-giver, not understanding who Barack Obama the president would turn out to be.
Posted by: hit and run | July 15, 2009 at 06:00 PM
Exactly,GMax..though to all reporters "Hispanic" means Mexicans in Calif and the Southwest and Puerto Rican in the East.
Posted by: clarice | July 15, 2009 at 06:06 PM
Its a Democrat Party trait. They lie to the voters, since they know if they tell the truth about their policies the voters wont elect them. Remember that we you hear about some "conservative" Democrat house member. That is damn near an extinct species these days, despite what some MSM reporter may tell you. And yes they may have sounded pretty moderate/conservative on the stump,they told the voters what they wanted to hear. They just dont vote that way very often.
Posted by: GMax | July 15, 2009 at 06:22 PM
I hope Lindsey notes his reservations and votes yea.
May I ask why you hope that he votes yea?
Posted by: Pagar | July 15, 2009 at 06:39 PM
Any Republican can vote No and explain that they supported Alberto Gonzales and Miguel Estrada and then cite Senator Durbin's instructions from leftist interest groups:
Just in case Hispanics weren't informed about that by the MSM.Posted by: Extraneus | July 15, 2009 at 07:28 PM