Sen. Graham to Sotomayor: “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed.”
As predicted and expected, the Senate Sotomayor hearing this morning has been marinated in rhetoric about “overcoming adversity.” (Plus two disruptions from protesters. Immediately quelled by Capitol police.)
Sen. Feinstein praised Sotomayor’s “warmth.” (Did she take her temperature?)
Sen. Kyl made a measured, comprehensive case challenging Sotomayor’s biases and prejudices on race and foreign law.
Sen. Schumer performed a full-on smear of conservatives, claiming they won’t confirm a Hispanic.
Sen. Graham rebuffed that by pointing out Republican support for Miguel Estrada and then challenged Sotomayor’s ethnic-centered speeches. But his main point:
“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed.”
Graham rambles on about elections having consequences. Says he doesn’t know how he’ll vote. But I think Graham’s Kabuki act is rather transparent. He’ll wait for Sotomayor to reassure him that she can be impartial, and after all his obligatory sound and fury, he will vote for her.
***
Must-read: Make sure to read Randy Barnett’s WSJ op-ed on the Seinfeld hearings.
If you suspect this week’s Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor will be, like “Seinfeld,” a show about nothing, you are probably right. To understand why, we need to revisit an era that remade how lawyers and the public think about law, and especially the Constitution…
…Today we live in a legal world in which many progressives and conservatives share the legal realists’ preoccupation with results. So justices must be chosen who will reach the politically correct results or opposed because they will reach the wrong results. Judicial confirmation hearings are thereby turned into a game of gotcha, with questioners trying to trip up the other side’s nominees, and nominees quite properly refusing to reveal the only thing their inquisitors truly care about: how they would rule in particular cases that are likely to come before the Court.
But postures must be assumed and questions must be asked. So senators and nominees opine about two empty concepts. The first is “stare decisis” or precedent: Will the nominee follow the hallowed case of U.S. v. Whatchamacallit or not?
***
Sen. Tom Coburn gave a very eloquent opening statement on the rule of law, principles of constancy, and Constitution as our foundational document.
Takeaway quote: “The rule of law is the glue that binds us together.”
Takeaway quote number two: “If we disregard objective consideration of facts, then all facts are subjective.”
Sen. Durbin empathizes with Sotomayor about race and gender. ‘Cuz he’s down with the Wise Latina Ladies.
12:38pm: Senate hearing recesses.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Michelle Malkin » Day One: Spotlight on Sotomayor
- Borking & High Tech Lynchings On Hold « Kerfuffles and Flourishes
- The TIW Blog-Traitor Lindsey snuggles up to racist murderer Sotomayor
- Welcome to Wise Latina Sotomayor confirmation week | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- American People Trust Republicans More than Democrats on Eight of 10 Key Issues! Obama’s ratings falling Fast! « Goodtimepolitics
- La Raza and Sotomayor – Don’t Let The Senate Sell You Out | The Substratum
- Democrat Attack Dogs Waiting to Leap on Frank Ricci: SCOTUS Hearings for Sonia Sotomayor Begin Today « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- “Clarence Thomas & Miguel Estrada’s Backgrounds Didn’t Impress Democrats”: Ann Coulter Rejects Getting All Weepy about Ultra-Liberal Hispanic Sotomayor’s SCOTUS Nomination (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Warning Signs about Sonia Sotomayor, from Andrew Breitbart « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Rush Limbaugh: Shhh! Don’t Tell Robert Gibbs We’re Talking About Sotomayor « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Sonia Sotomayor’s SCOTUS Hearing, Day 2: Judicial Activism, Ricci v DeStefano, & “Wise Latina” Remarks « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Franken & Sotomayor Share ‘Perry Mason’ Memories… Franken Loves the Sound of His Own Voice « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Michelle Malkin » No surprise: Lindsay Graham will vote for Sotomayor
- As Expected: Senate Panel Endorses SCOTUS Nominee Sonia Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Sotomayor, the “Wise Latina,” Confirmed by Senate for SCOTUS, 68-31 « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- ~ Franken, Less Funny Than Ever: Uses Lame Schtick to Question Sotomayor — God Help The USA « Critical Political Thinking
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Sonia Sotomayor
Mudville Gazette
» A healthy debate
Stop The ACLU
» So, Obasocialist Care Passed. What Next?Pundit & Pundette
» Our new overlords are just getting startedRedstate
» Things we were told we couldn’t do.Daily Caller
» Bart Stupak is either not very smart of he’s not very honest. There really is no other optionprotein wisdom
» The way ahead [Darleen Click]NewsBusters.org
» New Republic: Hated Senate ObamaCare Bill Suddenly Becomes 'Masterfully Crafted Piece of Legislation' Upon Passage
Feinkenstien makes me sick, and her view of Sarah Palin was?????????
Bitc#.
Is it wrong to hope that a piano mysteriously falls out of the sky and crushes Chuck Schumer?
Yes. I love pianos far too much to waste one on Chuck Schumer.
You, Miss, are an ass.
The stupidity of these people still amazes me. I can’t even watch this circus. They have all outgrown their usefulness.
how ’bout an anvil.
Graham is right. It doesn’t matter what happens she will be voted in unless she kills a child on the desk in front of the cameras. The dems have the votes.
She will be voted in the first hispanic female judge because it is the polticaly correct thing to do. Not because it is the right or wrong thing to do. She is a racist, that is clear, but in political correct world that is ok if you are a minority.
How about 800 tons of hog manure?
That’ll work!
I wishing it had been Graham who lost standing because of scandal instead of Sanford.
How would we tell the manure apart from Schumer?
Graham is an ongoing embarrassment to the GOP.
“Flight 93 Where Are You????”
(Sung to the tune of the 1960’s hit show “Car 54 Where Are You???”, starring the marvelous Fred Gwynne as Officer Muldoon, and someone who’s name I don’t remember as “officer Toody”).
After listening to some of the opening remarks by these Senators, it made me question why anyone would think they were “qualified” to sit in judgment, and decide who was to be the best and brightest to sit on high, with the Black Robes.
I would assume to be a “fair and balanced” selector, one would actually have to be fair and balanced. Shumer? No. Feinstein? An idiot. Leahy? Clueless ideologue. And then the Democrat leadership appoints the newest clown to sit on that committee? No, really…a clown. He couldn’t even hold down a job washing dishes or bussing tables.
The con job continues with willing lackeys.
Are any of us truly sure he wasn’t in Barney’s basement?
How about a safe or an anvil instead?
MHO…dumb thing to say….
Officer Toody = Joe E. Ross…
Wow. That was tacky.
Flies will eat the manure.
john deaux – read up my friend (#5). Great minds!
Yes, that’s it: Joe E. Ross!
As to the “Flight 93 opinion”: For one thing, it was merely an expression of sentiment, not a wish; and secondly, if the “success factor” of the four jets on 9/11 had been inverted (that is: Flight 93 succeeded, and the other three failed), then not only would several thousand fewer lives have been lost (while the ones saved would serve the country better; ie, free enterprise and defense), but those fewer who would have perished would be replaced wholesale, which is precisely what Washington DC needs.
Yes.
Tasteless.
This isn’t Looney Toons, and stop butchering the English language.
Tasteless.
Tasteless, and not even original (see above).
Tasteless.
I agree that Sen. Schumer is a buffoon, but there’s no reason we can’t destroy his positions with Cheney-like surgical precision in a manner that implies a certain level of intelligence.
Oh No!!!
A Latina on the Supreme Court!!
Next thing you know, we’ll have a black President!!!
All of you Republicans can kiss the latino vote goodbye and the black vote & the smart vote and the forward thinking vote.
Good Luck.
But, that doesn’t mean you can’t vote against her on PRINCIPLE! Or, don’t you have any of those?
Nevermind, I know the answer to that.
Too much sensitivity on this thread today.
Oh well, back to work…
I have thought for many years that this country would work better if washington DC disappeared.
Don’t like it? sue me.
Ilovemycountry said: I hate white people.
If Graham knows she’s going to be confirmed anyway, why wouldn’t just he go ahead and vote against her? What does he gain from voting for her? Anyway, I think I’ll write him.
I’m a moron
The “logic” of the preceding is:
1). “Latino” & “black” votes are different from “smart” and “forward thinking” votes (otherwise the sentence is redundant); and,
2). It’s okay to think and behave racially, as long as it’s based on the right kind of racialist mindset (ie, “politically correct”).
Fact is obama duh one could have nominated an axe murdering pshycopath and his faithfull minions would support said mass-murderer because DUH ONE said so.
I don’t think it would be right for me to withhold my contempt from Schumer after he’s worked so hard at earning it.
So am I to understand your position as: We must confirm her due only to her ethnicity regardless of her past positions or rulings?
Are you really that Stupid? Were you born that way or did you have to work really, really hard at it?
The answer to all those questions is yes.
Do you know something we don’t know? Is Dr. Walter Williams running for President?
A question I’d like to hear:
Judge Sotomayor, wouldn’t you agree that a wise Latina, with the richness of her experience, and a white man, when interpeting the LAW and the CONSTITUTION, should, more often than not, come to the SAME conclusion? If not, why not?!
Graham sounds like his usual self. Wishy washy with a flip flop or two. You can bet your sweet you know what, that he will vote for her. These RINOs live in their own world.
I haven’t heard anybody on this committee mention that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and should be first utmost in the minds of judges.
You’re kidding! Grahamnesty actually stood up to them? Didn’t know he had it in him!
Because questions that make it to the Supreme Court almost always deal with complex questions of open ended language that is ripe for a number of competing interpretations.
It is absurd to think that there is some sort of platonic ideal when dealing with legal interpretation.
What a slam dunk of a superb idea!!!
And for a fleeting, magical moment, all those Senatorial blowhards would be rendered gloriously silent while their brains reeled in whirlwind of abstract confusion.
Woops, I think ILMC put his/her foot in it too.
Also, just curious ILMC, give us some examples of smart vote and forward vote thinking…..since I’m sure I don’t know.
Yeah, I know. It was rhetorical, designed to hopefully illuminate the poster’s own idiotic comments to himself. (Ever hear of a ‘trap’ question? It’s one you ask someone when you already know the answer, designed to get them to think about something or learn something.) I know, it’s a wasted effort, but I’m in the business of trying to teach skills and concepts to others, so it’s just my way to try.
Brilliant.
Light bulb.
Well, Misscheryl, if that’s how you feel, I suppose you’re welcome to make your way through life with strong stances on the issues based on anvils, pig s—, and falling pianos. I hear Warner Bros. is hiring.
When liberals carried signs depicting the beheading of President Bush, we all stood up to say that they were out of line. Now the same people are discussing the untimely demise of a United States Senator.
The context of the discussion does not matter. It means nothing that one group is “joking” and the other means it with the whole of their being.
It’s wrong.
Chuck Schumer is grandstanding, he’s out of line, and he hasn’t got a clue about the basics of Constitutional law. That doesn’t give you a moral license to talk about anvils crushing him.
It’s wrong.
I wrote to Graham. Easy to do and his site allows all states to contact him.
Funny, I don’t remember the Senate Judiciary Committee making any comments about the adversity that Clarence Thomas overcame to reach a SCOTUS nomination or the media gushing over his compelling story.
What he was forced to overcome in the end was the rampant prejudice and hypocrisy of liberals against conservatives.
Republicans are powerless to block the Sotomayor confirmation. It doesn’t matter if she is a wise Latina or not. A stupid Latina would be confirmed by the cadre of imbeciles that makes up the US Senate in 2009.
I have always felt that this might be the case. And now that I have read it on the internet, I consider it confirmed as fact!
(I saw in a documentary the other day that when the French executed Templar Jacques de Molay, who was accused of unnatural sexual acts as well as blasphemy, they did not actually burn him at the stake, per se. It was said that they ~roasted~ him over a slow fired such that it took several hours for him to die. Of course, my enthusiasm for this righteous form of punishment is slightly diminished by the fact that de Molay was innocent of the charges cynically cooked up for the profit of Pope and king. Nonetheless, you gotta admire the righteous way deviants were taken care of back in the day. We send ours to Washington.)
Kevin, until or unless Michelle Malkin makes you the human filter for her page, don’t worry so much about stuff you have no control over.
PS – you take yourself wwaaayyy too seriously.
And Sonya, assuming she’s an actual judge, would reply, “It’s irrelevant that it’s wrong’. What matters is the question ‘Is it legal to say it?’ (to which the answer, Constitutionally, is “yes”).
Ignatius–actually I could have meant he could have been at Barney’s Basement Sale. You know–looking for size 13 stillettos?
Oops; I don’t think there’s a Barney’s store in DC.
oh well
lol
Didn’t say it was “legally” wrong. It’s a moral question, and it’s wrong.
You clearly haven’t read much of my stuff on MM.com. If there’s one thing I don’t do, it’s take myself too seriously.
Impossible! 1)those blowhards don’t know how to be silent 2) what makes you think they have brains.
All I’ve heard over and over is how Sotomayor is a Hispanic woman with a compelling story. How on earth does that make her qualified as a Supreme Court Judge? I have a compelling story which could match Sotomayor other than I’m not Hispanic, but then I think my story is more compelling than hers. Would Feinstein vote for me?
Ew.
Bottomless pit.
No surprise, coming from a lawyer.
It’s my position that cases should be decided based on what the Constitution and laws SAY, rather than on ‘emanations’ and ‘penumbra’. You always tie yourself in knots when you start contemplating the meaning of words like “is”. I think we need more non-lawyers on the courts.
Logic, rational thought will not ever be able to restore our nation. We are too far gone for that. An assertion of the Constitution similar to that of Honduras’ is the only hope to save America.
We are experiencing divine judgment that has resulted from good men and women doing nothing while yielding full control of our government to the most evil among us. Our only hope is revolution to right the wrongs that we have allowed.
For shame. There is a Barney’s outlet in Leesburg, VA. And a Barney’s CO OP in Georgetown.
I would expect you to know these types of things.
There IS no difference!
Even flies have standards, ya know.
What exactly does “equal protection” mean? You think that it is some specifically defined term? Don’t be silly.
“What about “freedom of speech”? The Constitution doesn’t say whether this applies to commercial speech. Doesn’t say whether this means you can stand outside someone’s bedroom window at 3 in the morning with a bullhorn and shout “RON PAUL in 2012!”
Anyone who thinks that constitutional law should just be a matter of going to the index and looking up the page number to right answer doesn’t have a clue what he or she is talking about.
spaceycakes, I took “Barney’s basement” to be a double entendre referring both to the sexual/political scandal that happened in Barney’s rented basement room ~and~ a metaphorical reference to a part of Barney’s anatomy. I thought it was brilliant!
We aren’t going to stop this train, let’s just say our piece and get it over with…
Hold the vote today — conservatives vote no and lose, the RINOs and Dems vote yes, and she gets passed on to the Senate. Roll-call vote and she gets confirmed, and we all live to regret it. Over and done with it. I’m sick of seeing this crap play out over days when the outcome is certain. Kabuki Theater for sure. Now cap and tax and health care are far different stories; the fix isn’t in, and the dollar consequences are far more obvious. Let’s unload our ammo there.
Disagree, Ron.
While most people here always have the injustices of malignant “affirmative action” on their minds, much of the country does not. This is critical teachable moment for our side, an opportunity to highlight these injustices. There is a purpose to the madness.
Yes, it means if you are a minority and flunk a test at work you have been discriminated against by Uncle Cracker.
Everyone took the same test. That’s pretty equal.
Yes, when I loaded the page, your comment wasn’t there. When I got around to clicking submit, there it was.
Perhaps we need to hook Kevin from Ohio in Virginia up with some Road Runner cartoons.
#34 absolutely correct. why is lady justice blindfolded, to keep the law from noticing that the accused multiple murderer is a cute little 15 year old, as well as to keep the law from noticing the accused is black, or the plaintiff is a greedy corporation suing a pitiful poor widow for failure to pay her electic bill. BAD CIRCUMSTANCES MAKE FOR BAD LAW, SO BLINDFOLD THE JUDGES SO THEY CAN’T NOTICE TEARJERKER CIRCUMSTANCES.
OT I just recieved an email warning me if i recieved an e mail stating nude pictures of nancy pelosi, DON’T OPEN IT. it might actually contain nude pictures of nancy pelosi. lol
Simple. Manure promotes growth. Schumer. Not so much.
Good ol’ Lindsey, displaying that McCain surrender monkey attitude. Orrin Hatch will trot around like a peacock but can be counted on to do the ‘gentlemanly’ thing and vote to confirm Sotomayor. Tools.
No, but it also doesn’t mean that the ruling should change based on someone’s ethnicity, or if the defendant grew up ‘poor’, etc. Lady Justice isn’t usually depicted lifting one corner of her blindfold and thumbing one side of her scales.
On July 13th, 2009 at 12:09 pm, Ilovemy
countryparty wrote:If that’s what you think Republicans are about, you don’t do much thinking.
If that’s what you think will happen with “the latino vote,” it’s because you think Latinos are provincial, selfish, incurious, and congenitally ignorant, and they can be led along by the nose by gringos who promise them things they can’t deliver and only know enough Spanish to say “Si Se Puede.”
In other words, you think the Dems can repeat with Hispanics the snow job they’ve perpetrated on African-Americans to secure the black vote for perpetuity — that, despite the fact Democrats have done more to impede blacks’ progress with policies encouraging government dependence than they’ve helped.
Let me interject at this point that I am a black man.
As for the “forward thinking vote” — people who are “forward thinkers” are looking forward to the hefty price tag attached to his plans to transform the United States of America into as close to a socialist state as he can make it. I think you’ve confused “forward thinking” with “The Great Leap Forward.” Big diff.
Curly; “OK, judgie-wudgie.”
Bailiff: “Kindly address the court as “your honor”".
Curly: “OK, my honor”
Bailiff: “No, no no. Not my honor, your honor.”
Curly; “Why? Don’t you like him?”
you nailed it…Hatch should be removed after all he campaigned 30 years ago on …”2 terms and come back home.” Guess the good life was too good for him and most others, now wonder the countries in such term oil.
Every Supreme Counrt needs their racist bigot.
Kevin from Ohio in Virginia:
Can I post something?
Tell me again why we have a Republican Party? Tell me again what it is they, the party of Lincoln, do?
I would have thought someone in congress would be able now to present a notion of civil rights stronger than “Get Whitey!” but I was wrong.
You don’t have to be a Cassandra or even a wise Latina to see where this is heading.
The Senator has struck upon the core progressive belief.
If the objective consideration of facts can be disregarded, liberals can subject all facts to manipulation.
….And be rest assured that I shall make no inquiries that will make you too uncomfortable.”
Had to finish it.
I disagree. With Congress, taking weeks to do a dis-service to the country is much better than them taking only minutes and then getting on to their next dis-service.
I figure the less they do, the better off we all are.
Come to think of it – can anybody name a completely good piece of legislation enacted in the past 20 years? One that didn’t have some piece of garbage stuck to it?
did the Repubs in S. Carolina have no one to challenge Leslie in the last election? We have this RINO for 6 years.
I assume you mean Graham. He had a challenger in the primary, a guy named Witherspoon, but he won anyway.
Indeed; a triple entendre! Thanks. I try.
chap–an outlet?? *shudders* That’s like choosing ‘Emporio’ or ‘Exchange’ over Armani Collezioni.
Besides, I haven’t lived in NoVA for several years now & haven’t kept up on the shoppes at Georgetown.
Isn’t there a Neiman Marcus on Wisconsin?
Ugh. Schumer and now Gillibrand. To re-tool MIchelle Obama’s famous statement.
“For the first time in my life I am ashamed to be a New Yorker.”
Actually thats not entirely true.
Montana or bust! I gotta get out of here.
I bet all the liberals were nodding their heads in agreement at this point, because in this postmodern world all things are relative. According to the libs at my University, how I see an event will always be filtered by my life story and personal experience. This means that no two people can ever see things the same way, therefore there are no “objective consideration(s)” or “facts.”
Ok, so maybe dropping an anvil on a senator (or anyone) is morally wrong. However, trying some of them for treason and shooting them, that’s in the books as ‘OK’. Sotomayor’s racist views will lead to (among other things) further illegal immigration which will continue the breakdown of our civil society. sounds treasonous to me.
Misscheryl,
Please do. Please sound as smart or as dumb as you’d like while doing so. You are legally free to do so within reason. If you keep up your current standards, however, don’t expect anyone aside from 14 year old boys and their adult equivalents to find you funny, and don’t expect anyone with a brain to find you insightful or worth their while.
For the record: I laugh my butt off when an anvil is dropped on the coyote and he walks away like an accordion, but it’s not funny at all when you talk about that happening to a United States Senator, IMO.
If someone were to talk about dropping an anvil on my child’s head “as a joke”, I assure you I would not find it funny. The hyenas in his or her pack might think it’s hilarious, but I wouldn’t. I think you would feel the same way about your child, father, sibling, cousin, or Uncle Chuck.
It’s called “civility”.
Sincerely,
Officer Kevin
MM.com PD
Schumer is the King of demagoguery. The guy says things and no matter how much of a bald faced lie it is, he is assured he wont be called on it by his friends in the media. Can you imagine during the Clarence Thomas hearings a Repub stating that dems wont confirm a black Republican???
Hey up-Chuck. You’re one of the reasons I escaped from the liberal cesspool known as New York.
yaaawwwnn
PS – No, I don’t think I have read too many of your posts.
If it is wrong to hope that a piano mysteriously falls out of the sky and crushes Chuck Schumer, then is it wrong to hope that two pianos mysteriously fall out of the sky and crush Chuck Schumer?
Because, apparently, that’s the same as attending a protest with a sign of a beheaded President Bush. The similarities – THEY R SO SIMILAR!
(oh tjord – my intellectual level!)
ITT: humorless drone appoints himself to Humor Police; makes long-winded, uninspired remarks about others in a flippant manner while trying to guise himself in a cloud of moral and intellectual superiority.
UR NUMBER – I CAN HAS IT. ~(:)
Jeddite – only if I say something like that. Me thinks Kevin from Ohio living in Virgnia has a ‘lil problem with me.
A quote from a 3 Stooges movie might apply here, but I’d get into trouble
my bad
Oh and Kevin from Ohio Living in Virgnia – just a note: periods, exclamation marks, commas, etc. should be inside the little quotation marks – not outside. Just sayin…
Hi L.N. Smithee – here’s a question: how do you deal with the bigotry of the republican party as a black man?
You know: like the Obama Welfare Coupons with ribs and watermelons on them.
Or the Watermelon patch in front of the white house
And these come from republican politicians – I’m just curous to see how a black man can support people like that – Thanks I look forward to your reply.
L.N.,
I’d like to know that too. How can you focus on issues and not identity?