Camus Cafe Political Coffee House: Sotomayor Political Theater Play Flops As Republicans Stink Up The House.

Sotomayor Political Theater Play Flops As Republicans Stink Up The House.

Don't Mess With Sotomayor
Washington Post - United States
Members of the Judiciary Committee seemed to be showing how green they could be. Their model of questioning: reduce, reuse, recycle. ...
See all stories on this topic

-The 10 Dumbest Things Republicans Have Said About the Sotomayor Hearings
By AlterNet Staff, AlterNet
A list of the most ridiculous questions, jabs and rants by GOP lawmakers and other conservatives. Read more

1. Early Tuesday morning, Jeff Sessions seemed surprised that Sotomayor's legal decisions sometimes diverge from those of other judges of Puerto Rican descent. During a series of questions about Ricci v. DeStefano, Sessions scolded:

You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit. And in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge [Jose] Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could've changed that case.

An interesting tack, especially considering that since Sotomayor's nomination, Republicans have desperately clutched at her "wise Latina" comments in order to unconvincingly argue that Sotomayor would let her personal experience dictate her judicial decision making -- thereby continuing the grievous oppression of white men.

Sessions' barely suppressed racism comes into even sharper focus when we consider Steve Benen's point: "Imagine how absurd it would have been if, during [Samuel] Alito's confirmation hearings, [Wisconsin Sen.] Russ Feingold pressed him on why he didn't vote in a certain case with another Italian American judge."

2. A slightly more subtle (but hardly less stupid) question came from Arizona Republican Jon Kyl, who, when he wasn't reveling in the sound of his own voice, asked whether Sotomayor has "always been able to find a legal basis for every decision that (she's) rendered as a judge."

"This is not a trick question," Kyl assured her (as though the poor lady might be intimidated by the sheer force of his intellect). "I can't imagine that the answer would be otherwise than, yes, you've always found some legal basis for ruling one way or the other, some precedent, some reading of a statute, the Constitution or whatever it might be."

But, just to make sure: "You haven't ever had to throw up your arms and said, 'I can't find any legal basis for this opinion, so I'm going to base it on some other factor'? "

Yes, Sen. Kyl, when in doubt, she consults the zodiac. ("Well, the moon is in Cancer, so...") Seriously, people. She's a judge, not an astrologist.

3. After solemnly reminding Sotomayor that the New Haven, Conn., firefighters case is just one of many "cases where people are discriminated against," Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch took the opportunity to indulge in a little guilt by association -- while denying he was indulging in guilt by association.

"Let me just make one last point here," Hatch said. "You have nothing to do with this, I know. But there's a rumor that People for the American Way has -- that this organization has been smearing Frank Ricci, who is only one of 20 plaintiffs in this case, because he may be willing to be a witness ... in these proceedings.

"I hope that's not true. And I know you have nothing to do with it, so don't -- don't think I'm trying to make a point against you. I'm not. I'm making a point that that's the type of stuff that doesn't belong in Supreme Court nomination hearings. And I know you would agree with me on that."

Right. I mean, no offense, Sonia, Sen. Hatch is totally not trying to hold that against you. Who brought up that nasty business about People for the American Way, anyhow? Offensive! I'm glad you agree.

4. Pat Buchanan, who cut his political teeth writing speeches for Richard Nixon, has a long history of embracing the vision of a diverse America. As Think Progress notes, he has: argued that slavery was good for African Americans; suggested Latinos don't want to assimilate; and openly wished that America was a country where everyone -- or almost everyone -- was white (someone's got to clean the toilets).

So it should come as little surprise that Buchanan concluded, without a shred of evidence, that because all of the finalists on Obama's short list were women, Sotomayor got to where she is not by dint of hard work but as a result of affirmative action, the classic right-wing bugaboo.

The claim was so egregious that even the usually docile Nora O'Donnell called him on it, saying, "you're suggesting it's an absolute outrage if the final four are women. If got down to final four, and they were all white men, would that bother you in the least?"

Watch it:

5. It's possible that during his years behind bars, convicted felon and right-wing squawker G. Gordon Liddy grew unaccustomed to having women around; and we can understand fearing the unfamiliar. But Liddy has been out since President Jimmy Carter commuted his sentence in 1977, so it's shocking that he would actually make this suggestion publicly (via the Washington Independent):

Let's hope that the key conferences aren't when she's menstruating or something, or just before she's going to menstruate. That would really be bad. Lord knows what we would get then.

Daphne Eviatar asked: "Maybe it's OK if female Supreme Court justices are postmenopausal? Or have no feelings or sentiments at all?"

6. Senator Lindsey Graham accused Sotomayor of terrorizing lawyers. Sotomayor calmly replied that she asks tough questions, as judges are wont to do.

Graham: OK. Now, let's talk about you. I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you, that ought to matter to you. One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament.

And here's what they said about you: "She's a terror on the bench. She's temperamental, excitable, she seems angry. She's overall aggressive, not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament. She abuses lawyers. She really lacks judicial temperament. She believes in an out -- she behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She's nasty to lawyers. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. She can be a bit of a bully." When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the Second Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

Sotomayor: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

Graham: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?

Sotomayor: No, sir. No, not at all. I can only explain what I'm doing, which is when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right. I do know that, in the Second Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral argument each, that the processes in the Second Circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country. And that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a hoc bench, it's a term that lawyers use. It means that they're peppered with questions.

Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the Second Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

Graham: If I may interject, judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out. When you -- there are many positive things about you, and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad, and I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. It's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?

Sotomayor: No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is stuck as such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

Graham: And in fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line.

But I will just suggest to you, for what it's worth, judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They're not about your colleagues. The 10-minute rule applies to everybody and that obviously you've accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self-reflection. This is pretty tough stuff that you don't see from -- about other judges on the Second Circuit.

7. The Committee for Justice* -- a right-wing group opposed to Sotomayor's confirmation -- is airing ads claiming that the Yale graduate led a terrorist organization. According to Think Progress:

The claim that Sotomayor led a terrorist organization apparently refers to her service on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a mainstream civil rights organization. It seems that, in the right-wing mind, a group that protects Latinos from race discrimination is exactly the same as al-Qaida.

8. In what was perhaps one of the odder moments of the hearings, Hatch forced the nominee to expound on the dangers of nunchucks, a martial arts weapon. The point, of course, was the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms and how it played out in the 2009 case Maloney v. Cuomo. But all-in-all, a strange topic for a Supreme Court confirmation hearing.

Watch it:

9. Self-professed leader of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, had the gall to argue Monday that Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment was "much worse" than former Virginia Sen. George Allen's macaca comment.

From Media Matters for America:

(Even More Garbage Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4blLpCV7F48&fmt=22 )

10. Then there is Glenn Beck's contribution to the confirmation process. On Monday, Beck decried the questioning from Senate Democrats during the first day of Sotomayor's confirmation hearings.

"America, I want you to watch this," he ordered. "As as our countryburns to the ground ... this is the questioning -- and get ready, because it's a hard line of questioning -- here's what happened;this is what our senators were doing today."

Beck then showed a short montage of the senators praising Sotomayor, calling her "supremely well-qualified," "the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years" and "very special woman."

There was only one problem: As Media Matters pointed Monday night, "Unfortunately for Beck, there were no questions today. The first day of the hearings is when senators and the nominee make opening statements."

"This is like a cartoon show!" the clueless Beck said when the clip was over. (And let's face it, it takes one to know one). "The world is upside down."

That's what happens when you live outside the fact-based universe, Glenn.

It appears that the Republicans and other conservatives that have turned Sotomayor's nomination into a circus could learn a thing or two about reality.

Sotomayor Confirmation Certain. Hearing Still Important

By Mitch Jeserich, NEWS JUNKIE Guest Columnist

Let’s just get this out of the way. With a 60-40 majority for the Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation is certain pending some outrageous misfortune or scandalous information that not even the FBI has uncovered. Furthermore, Sotomayor should do fine on the hot seat considering she’s been sitting in a pretty hot seat as a federal judge for 17 years.

The only thing that can throw her off is if the pain-killers she has been taking due to her broken leg work a little too well. Still, she has been assiduously preparing for the last month even with her leg elevated. Besides, she’s had an extremely seasoned best team preparing her; Vice President Joe Biden for one. He was chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee for several years, including during the contentious hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork. Also on Sotomayor’s prep team are Cynthia Hogan, legal advisor to Biden during the Thomas and Bork hearings, and Ronald Klain who worked on the Clinton White House confirmations of Justices Ginsberg and Breyer.

Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee is still important. It’s the public’s only real opportunity to vet her personality, temperament and judicial philosophy for one of the most powerful positions. The Supreme Court is an equal branch of the government with the power to strike down laws and rebuke the President. Justices are the only top government officials not elected and they serve life time appointments.

A Justice can be impeached, and it has happened just once in 1804 against Samuel Chase. There is ample evidence to suggest Chase was a corrupt judge lacking in moral fortitude. However, the thrust of the impeachment movement, lead by Thomas Jefferson, was their opposition to Chase’s federalist views and work with the John Marshall Court in strengthening both the Supreme Court and the federal government.

The Senate did not convict Chase and he returned to the bench.

Regardless of Sotomayor’s confirmation, there is a lot of riding on a Court that is increasingly turning to the right and will likely stay there for the next two decades, even as Congress and the White House have veered to the left. With the addition of the two newest members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, Justice Kennedy has become the new swing vote and he swings far more often to the right than O’Connor did.

Numbers provided by scotusblog.com demonstrates a strong right wing majority block on the Court.(Remember, we haven’t even mentioned Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia). Since O’Connor left the court Kennedy has voted with Roberts 86 percent of the time, and Kennedy has become the most powerful Justice as he has sided with the majority 92 percent of the time. Roberts, meanwhile, has voted with Alito, potentially the most conservative justice on the bench, 92% of the time—the most of any 2 judges on the Court. And since Roberts and Alito arrived, there have been several 5-4 decisions limiting the scope of civil rights protections and measures meant to address racial inequalities.

As much as Sotomayor herself, this week’s hearing will be as much about Senators debating judicial philosophy (i.e., original intent of the Constitution which normally is supported by conservatives versus the liberal interpretation of the Constitution being a living and breathing document meant to be seen in light of today’s realities). The hearing will also put race at the top of the public discourse again: particularly race and Republicans.

In fact, Republicans even have more on the line with this confirmation hearing than does Sotomayor. In the last election Republicans lost ground with minority voters, including Latinos, which is one group that the GOP had built inroads to. Aggressive questioning from Republicans about Sotomayor’s statements acknowledging her ethnic identity as a part of her professional development will likely turn off moderate to conservative Latinos the same way the Republican’s scapegoating immigrants has.

This is occurring while the GOP is in the middle of an identity crisis represented beautifully by the Michael Steele/Rush Limbaugh circus.

Even worse for the Republican party is that the head Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee tasked with leading the GOP circumspection of Sotomayor is Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Oh no! Jeff Sessions! I know some Republican leaders looking to turn their party around are taking out their frustration with a crowbar on their John Deer lawnmowers over this one. No stranger to the confirmation process, Sessions had his own nomination to the federal bench blocked by the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 after a black lawyer testified at his hearing that Sessions warned him to be careful how he talked to white people.

Sessions also tried to prosecute a number of voting rights activists in Alabama, including an aide to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not stopping there, Sessions called the NAACP an un-American organization and a white civil rights lawyer a disgrace to his race. Now, Sessions will be leading the questioning of Sotomayor and her remarks about her Latina heritage!!?? (Hard to find the right punctuation for that one) Wow. Only in America.

Sotomayor Confirmation Circus: Jeff Sessions Says Baffling, Stupid Things About Race
By Steve Benen, Washington Monthly
If I didn't know better, I might think Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has a preoccupation with issues related to race and ethnicity. Read more

Bilbo's Random Thought Collection: Wise Latina, Stupid Process
By Bilbo
Every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee will bloviate at length for the benefit of his/her constituents, the nominee will give all the right answers, and then - after days of grueling grilling and political theater - a vote will be ... Be honest. You know it's true. The comment was stupid. Even if you read Judge Sotomayor's comment in the context of the entire speech (which you can read here), it remains insensitive and in poor taste, and it plays directly into the ...
Bilbo's Random Thought Collection - http://bilbosrandomthoughts.blogspot.com/

Lincoln Mitchell: Sonia Sotomayor and the Real Meaning of ...
By Lincoln Mitchell
Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears Wednesday before the Senate Judiciary Committee for the third day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Our full liveblog of the. .... I wish there were some sensible well thought out remarks coming from the Republican party, because I do believe in policy debates, but these people just say such asinine and stupid sound bytes, that seem to resonate with people who need to wake up and realize that the 1950's view that America is defined ...
The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raw_feed_index.rdf

Sessions questions Sotomayor bias, defends white males | Midwest ...
By arturomora
By this time, it's obvious, bewilderingly, that he's either trying to get her to admit prejudice (does he really think she's that stupid?), or just putting himself and his party out there as the protector against prejudice. ... He was one of the very few not to even get through the judiciary committee (they hold some up; but it is unusual to fail on a vote). He was accused of “gross insensitivity” on racial issues. It seems he had said the NAACP was un-American and the Ku ...
Midwest Voices - - http://voices.kansascity.com/

Sotomayor hearing live analysis : The Swamp
By Jim Oliphant
I would pay good money to hear Sonia Sotomayor say, "Senator Sessions, I think it's ironic to be facing these questions from a man whose judicial nomination was rejected by this very committee on the grounds that he's a huge racist." Posted by: DrainYou | July 14, ... "Sotomayor, in fact, would not even divulge how she personally feels about televising Supreme Court oral argument." This is ridiculous. I tried to read much past this but I can't. Stupid people bore me. ...
The Swamp - http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive ...
By CNN's Jeff Simon
Cornyn and other Republicans on the committee have criticized Democratic filibusters of previousjudicial nominees by Republican presidents. The Democratic filibusters prevented a full vote by the Senate. ..... The fact of the matter is they would fillibuster Sotomayor if they had the numbers, but they know that all the Democrats and a few Republicans (who aren't stupid enough to play to the racist right-wing base) are voting for her and the fillibuster would go down in ...
CNN Political Ticker - http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Bitter Old White Guys - Jack & Jill Politics
By CPL
Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing? ... Now it's time for Bitter White Guys in the GOP to learn the same lesson - turn on Sonia Sotomayor and it will be like the movie “A Day without Mexicans” for their asses. And if they cannot stomach the thought of “their kind losing power”, they forgot to ...
Jack & Jill Politics - http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/

Live Blogging Sotomayor Hearings, Day 3 - The Caucus Blog ...
By By Kate Phillips
Wise Latina, Again | 9:47 a.m. It's Senator John Cornyn's turn to question the judge, and he immediately revisits what Ms. Sotomayor said yesterday as she tried to explain remarks she's made in speeches about how a wise Latina may make .... It did not shock me in the least to see theCommittee for Justice, a conservative judicial activist group, produce an ad attempting to “tie Bill Ayers to Sonia Sotomayor.” Next, they will have her sitting in Rev. Wright's Church. ...
The Caucus - http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/

Sonia as Annie Oakley: 'Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better ...
By Melinda Henneberger
We learned a lot on Day 2 of the Sonia Sotomayor Show, mostly about members of the SenateJudiciary Committee. For instance, I would have. ... Sotomayor answered that in her 17 years on the bench, in "decision after decision, it's very clear I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. .... LMAO hearing a republican call someone a lier, is so FUNNY and astupid thing to say ROFLMAO. RATE THIS COMMENT: Vote Up Vote Down Bad (-2) ...
Politics Daily - http://www.politicsdaily.com/

Morning Skim: Judging the Judge - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com
By By Eric Etheridge
Does the Republican senator think it is amusing that he and his party's condescending tone toward the Hispanic woman was costing them ethnic votes with each passing hour of Tuesday's Judiciary Committee hearing? . . . Even if they vote for her, the fallout for ... New Republic: Jonathan Cohn says the newly released House health-care reform bill is “not perfect . . . but within the existing political constraints, it's hard to do imagine a much better than this.” ...
The Opinionator - http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/

Sotomayor Hearings, Day 3 | Drudge Retort
By rcade
Dick Durbin, D-Ill., a longtime friend of the late Simon, the Democrat that Durbin succeeded on theJudiciary Committee." seattletimes.nwsource.com. It's called "Google", Joey. Try it some time if you want info.... oh, but you just wanted to whine about .... You always seemed above this type of stupidretort, rcade. It was a joke, son. You can't say Sarah Palin around here without being accused of fearing her. #105 | Posted by rcade at 2009-07-15 04:29 PM | Reply | Flag: ...
Drudge Retort - http://www.drudge.com/

Republicans don't believe Sotomayor's stories | Washington Examiner
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are convinced that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has not been candid with them in under-oath testimony about her speeches and legal activism. But given the assurance that majority ... It's ABOUT TIME to distinguish the legal lamb in the skirt from the civil rights-peddling wolf she truly is. Thank you very much. All CAPS intended. Ed. Jul 15, 2009. Sotomayer sounds stupid when she talks. She is slow when she speaks and ...
Beltway Confidential - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/

Rachel Maddow, Dahlia Lithwick Discuss GOP Latina Fixation (VIDEO)
By The Huffington Post News Team
First revelation: The Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee love Miguel Estrada the way Rachel McAdams once loved Ryan Gosling. And they still ache over the rain-swept kiss they were denied by the Democrats' 2003 filibuster, ... But , as their weird take on Sotomayor's record indicates, the GOP is quite simply detached from reality at the moment, and, like Maddow says, the only thing they are making clear is that it's not Sotomayor who is obsessed with race. ...
Video on The Huffington Post - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/video/

Lawmakers Pence and DeMint Spew Hate Crimes Lies for FRC ...
By Andy
It's simply bullshit. You can dress idiots in suits, you can put them in a minister's collar, it doesn't make them less stupid, only more so. And flat out, all the speakers in this video are fakes and liars. These are the kind of people Jesus ... The committee's addressing of Gohmert amendment (one of the eight derailing attempts that he suggested) begins on page 154: http://judiciary. house.gov/hearings/transcripts/transcript090422.pdf. Posted by: Jeremy Hooper/ G-A-Y ...
-Towleroad News- [#gay] - http://www.towleroad.com/

On Fox, Scant Attention To Dems' Questioning Of Sotomayor

http://mediamatters.org/items/200907150047

In its July 15 coverage of the Senate Judiciary Committee's "first round" of questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Fox News devoted 55 minutes to questioning by Republicans while devoting only 30 minutes to Democrats' questioning, despite the fact that Democratic senators who asked questions on the second day of the "first round" outnumbered Republicans six to two. By contrast, MSNBC and CNN devoted more time to the Democrats, but not in proportion to their greater numbers.

Media Matters for America reviewed coverage of the eight Senate Judiciary Committee members who each questioned Sotomayor for 30 minutes in their "first round" of questioning on July 15: Republican Sens. John Cornyn and Tom Coburn, and Democratic Sens. Ben Cardin, Sheldon Whitehouse, Amy Klobuchar, Edward Kaufman, Arlen Specter, and Al Franken.

Fox News covered 11 minutes each of Cardin's and Franken's questioning, eight minutes of Specter's, and none of the questioning by Whitehouse, Klobuchar, and Kaufman. By contrast, Fox covered the entire 30 minutes of Cornyn's questioning period and all but five minutes of Coburn's 30 minutes of questions.

Despite Graham's Condescension, Media Report "Respectful," "Cordial" GOP Questioning Of Sotomayor

http://mediamatters.org/items/200907150046

In their coverage of the second day of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, media characterized Republican senators' questioning as "cordial," "largely civil," and "respectful but tough." For instance, during the July 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report, correspondent Carl Cameron asserted that the Judiciary Committee's questioning of Sotomayor that day "has been largely cordial and civil, though pointed on a number of occasions."

Similarly, on the CBS Evening News, anchor Katie Couric said, "[Sotomayor's] Republican critics were respectful but tough as they zeroed in on her most controversial comment." But Sen. Lindsey Graham asked Sotomayor to respond to anonymous criticisms of her temperament published in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, some of which he read, including, "She's a terror on the bench," "she abuses lawyers," "she behaves in an out of control manner," and "She's nasty to lawyers" -- criticisms that a prominent colleague, among others, have reportedly dismissed as "sexist, plain and simple." Near the conclusion of this line of questioning, Graham said: "[M]aybe these hearings are time for self-reflection" -- hardly an expression of "respect."

Their assessment of the Republican senators' conduct differed from media reactions during the confirmation hearings for then-Judge Samuel Alito. Following an incident in which Alito's wife became emotional, several media figures, including then-NBC Today show host Couric,suggested that Senate Democrats "went too far."

From Graham's questioning of Sotomayor on July 14:

GRAHAM: OK. Now, let's talk about you. I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you that ought to matter to you. One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the almanac of the federal judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. And here's what they said about you. She's a terror on the bench. She's temperamental, excitable, she seems angry. She's overall aggressive, not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament. She abuses lawyers. She really lacks judicial temperament. She believes in an out -- she behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She's nasty to lawyers. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. She can be a bit of a bully. When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the Second Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

[...]

GRAHAM: And in fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line. But I will just suggest to you, for what it's worth, judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They're not about your colleagues. The ten-minute rule [for oral argument time in the Second Circuit] applies to everybody and that obviously you've accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self-reflection. This is pretty tough stuff that you don't see from -- about other judges on the Second Circuit.

In addition to Cameron and Couric's descriptions, CNN host Campbell Brown commented on the July 14 edition of her CNN show that "[t]hings have been pointed but, by and large, pretty civilized on Capitol Hill." Also, during the July 14 edition of Fox News' The Fox Report, host Shepard Smith asserted of the hearings, "It was cordial but very tough -- at times uncomfortable to watch."

As Media Matters noted, in their July 14 evening news broadcasts, both ABC's World News and NBC's Nightly News reported Graham's citation of this anonymous criticism, but neither reported assessments that these comments were sexist or that the Almanac reported many positive comments about her.

In contrast with these reports, others in the media noted the charged nature of Graham's questioning or the biases reflected in the comments he read:

During CNN's July 14 coverage of the hearings, senior legal analyst Jeff Toobin commented: "[I]t's worth remembering that this is an anonymous survey, and all of us who have read blog comments -- I think we know that people in anonymous comments are often unduly hostile. And women in positions of power tend to be described in precisely these terms. You know, men are tough, women are shrill. Men are experienced; women are battle axes. And I think that's a little bit of this kind of commentary we got here."

On the July 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Lis Wiehl stated, "[D]on't forget, any lawyer that goes in front of her, who loses, is going to have a beef with her and say, 'Oh, she was terrible.' " She later added that the criticism of Sotomayor was "she was too tough, and that she was aggressive, which again is a, you know, male-female thing." Moments later, Fox News host Megyn Kelly stated: "In any event, I have to say in her defense, on the lawyer comments, there were only eight of them. If you only have -- to my knowledge -- if you only have eight lawyers going online to complain about you as a judge, I think you're doing OK. If you could hear some of the things that some of the judges said to me when I was practicing law, I would have loved to have gone online and complained about them anonymously. I wouldn't put too much stock in those anonymous comments."

On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews criticized Graham's questioning: "Lindsey Graham loves John McCain -- has supported him so dutifully and wonderfully. But everybody knows John has -- can have a hot temper, which I do, too. A lot of people have them, but to say that he has a hot temper, and yet she needs anger management. ... That was condescending. He was telling somebody up for the Supreme Court, 'Now, you've got to work on this.' "

During the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live, co-host Tamron Hall said that "it's one thing to challenge her on the record" but that "[i]t is another, isn't it, to ask her about temperament? What do you mean by that? These are anonymous sources." Co-host David Shuster went on to add: "The possibility of patronizing, Tamron, with the idea that Lindsey Graham is suggesting to this very accomplished judge that she needs to reflect on something as a result of this hearing."

From the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

HALL: It's one thing to challenge her on the record. It's one thing to challenge her on that speech: "What did you mean by wise Latina?" It is another, isn't it, to ask her about temperament? What do you mean by that? These are anonymous sources. People are reading this as if -- and they have a right to do so since these senators are reading into her comments -- one might read into this that he's talking about her being a hot-blooded person or a woman who can't control her emotions.

[...]

SHUSTER: The possibility of patronizing, Tamron, with the idea that Lindsey Graham is suggesting to this very accomplished judge that she needs to reflect on something as a result of this hearing -- I mean, the blogs are already going crazy over this.

HALL: Yeah. It could be interpreted as taking a time-out, like a child. Cool out and clear your head and get your temperament together. But, again, we don't want to interpret what anyone has to say. I'm sure that Senator Graham will explain his line of questioning. He did say that she, barring a meltdown, would be confirmed, and he was very cordial to her. But, certainly, it takes one sentence to perk up ears, and you have those ears now perked up.

From the July 14 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:

BRET BAIER (host): Yeah, last thing, quickly. Are people talking about a comparison or a contrast to the last couple of Supreme Court confirmation hearings?

CAMERON: Boy, I'll tell you, John Roberts and Samuel Alito faced a very different Judiciary Committee, and it was very, very tough. Democrats came at them hard.

This has been largely cordial and civil, though pointed on a number of occasions.

From the July 14 edition of the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric:

COURIC: Good evening, everyone. The judge testifies in her own defense. With the opening round of speeches over, the Senate Judiciary Committee got down to the questions today for Sonia Sotomayor.

Her Republican critics were respectful but tough as they zeroed in on her most controversial comment that's been hanging out there since President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court.

From the July 14 edition of CNN's Campbell Brown: No Bias No Bull:

BROWN: Day two of confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. And, so far, the proceedings have pretty much been dominated by questions about what she meant when she said a wise Latina might make a better decision than a white man.

Listen to Senator Lindsey Graham and Judge Sotomayor today.

GRAHAM [video clip]: This wise Latino comment has been talked about a lot. But I can just tell you one thing: If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over.

SOTOMAYOR [video clip]: I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging.

BROWN: Things have been pointed but, by and large, pretty civilized on Capitol Hill.

From the July 14 edition of Fox News' The Fox Report:

SMITH: Well, it was on TV all day long, and some Republicans really went after her. It was cordial but very tough -- at times uncomfortable to watch -- this political theater choreographed mostly for the folks back home.

From the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Lindsey Graham loves John McCain -- has supported him so dutifully and wonderfully. But everybody knows John has -- can have a hot temper, which I do, too. A lot of people have them, but to say that he has a hot temper, and yet she needs anger management -- I'm sorry. You're laughing, 'cause he was tutoring her today.

That was condescending. He was telling somebody up for the Supreme Court, "Now, you've got to work on this."

From the July 14 edition of MSNBC Live:

SHUSTER: And, so, there we heard, Tamron, one of the most interesting exchanges, perhaps, of the day. Lindsey Graham, of course, not only exploring the issue of the death penalty and abortion, but he started it with something you were talking about yesterday. And that is one of the most dangerous political minefields for Republicans in this -- might have been the sort of whole way that Lindsey Graham approached the temperament issue. The idea that Judge Sotomayor's temperament is not fit to be on the court.

A number of critics have written to that extent. And the way that Lindsey Graham did that by suggesting, "Do you think you have a temperament problem?" and then putting Sotomayor on the spot, responding, "No." I would suggest, Tamron, that the way people view this might be pretty critical.

HALL: Well, it's interesting, David, because the issue of temperament came up with anonymous sources. I believe it was in the Post -- Washington Post that the story first came up. And you had many people who were going on the record -- friends and co-workers -- who say that she does not have a, quote, "temperament issue."

But let's bring in Chris Cillizza to talk more about this. Chris, what do you make of Senator Graham's comments, him bringing up, again, anonymous sources referring to this judge's temperament? People are really critical of this right now, and they're blogging about it.

CILLIZZA: Well, you know, I think Republicans, Tamron, have been surprisingly aggressive, actually, in their questioning. I think Jeff Sessions, the ranking member from Alabama, set the tone yesterday and then again today -- very pointedly questioning Sonia Sotomayor. I think that you saw Lindsey Graham in his own way -- if you -- I think if you polled the Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham would probably win in terms of the best lawyer-litigator. He's someone who's –

HALL: Yeah, but Chris -- I hate to interrupt you -- but, I mean, it's one thing to challenge her on the record. It's one thing to challenge her on that speech: "What did you mean by wise Latina?" It is another, isn't it, to ask her about temperament? What do you mean by that? These are anonymous sources. People are reading this as if -- and they have a right to do so since these senators are reading into her comments -- one might read into this that he's talking about her being a hot-blooded person or a woman who can't control her emotions.

[...]

From the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor:

GRAHAM: Now, let's talk about you. I like you, by the way, for whatever that matters. Since I may vote for you that ought to matter to you.

One thing that stood out about your record is that when you look at the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, lawyers anonymously rate judges in terms of temperament. And here's what they said about you.

She's a terror on the bench. She's temperamental, excitable, she seems angry. She's overly aggressive, not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament. She abuses lawyers. She really lacks judicial temperament. She believes in an out-of-control -- she behaves in an out-of-control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She's nasty to lawyers. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like. She can be a bit of a bully.

When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the 2nd Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral argument.

GRAHAM: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral argument?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. No, not at all.

I can only explain what I'm doing, which is when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides, and to persuade me that they're right. I do know that, in the 2nd Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral argument each, that the processes in the 2nd Circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country. And that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court, generally, is described as a hot bench -- it's term of art lawyers use. It means that they're peppered with questions.

Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the 2nd Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

GRAHAM: If I may interject, Judge, they find you difficult and challenging more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out. When you, you know, there are many positive things about you, and these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad, and I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. It's hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem?

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

GRAHAM: And in fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line.

But I would just suggest to you, for what it's worth, Judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They're not about your colleagues. You know, the 10-minute rule applies to everybody, and that, you know, obviously you've accomplished a lot in your life, but maybe these hearings are time for self-reflection. This is pretty tough stuff that you don't see from -- about other judges on the 2nd Circuit.

Sotomayor’s Critics Are the Real Radicals

By E.J. Dionne

This week’s hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court represent the opening skirmish in a struggle to challenge the escalating activism of an increasingly conservative judiciary.

The Senate’s Republican minority does not expect to derail Sotomayor, who would be the first Hispanic and only the third woman to serve on the court, and they realize that their attack lines against her have failed to ignite public attention, or even much interest.

Her restrained record as a lower court judge has made it impossible to cast her credibly as a liberal judicial activist. “They haven’t laid a glove on her,” said Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., her leading Senate supporter.

Yet none of this diminishes the importance of the Senate drama that opens on Monday because the argument over the political and philosophical direction of the judiciary that began 40 years ago has reached a critical moment. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, conservatives have finally established a majority on the court that is beginning to work its will.

Republican senators know that Sotomayor’s accession to the court will not change this, since she is replacing Justice David Souter, a member of the court’s liberal minority. But they want to use the hearings to paint the moderately liberal Sotomayor as, at best, the outer limit of what is acceptable on the bench in order to justify the new conservative activism that is about to become the rule.

“They have more or less given up on defeating her, so they are going to engage in a framing exercise,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., a member of the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview. “They’re trying to define a Republican worldview imported into the judiciary as the judicial norm for the country.”

The goal, Whitehouse added, “is to define the political ideology” of the new conservative judiciary as “representing the mainstream, and to tarnish any judges who are outside that mark.”

If you wonder what judicial activism looks like, consider one of the court’s final moves in its spring term.

The justices had before them a simple case that could have been disposed of on narrow grounds, involving a group called Citizens United. The organization had asked to be exempt from the restrictions embodied in the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law for a movie critical of Hillary Clinton that it produced during last year’s presidential campaign. Citizens United says it should not have to disclose who paid for the film.

Rather than decide the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable exercise of judicial overreach. It postponed its decision, called for new briefs and scheduled a hearing this September on the broader question of whether corporations should be allowed to spend money to elect or defeat particular candidates.

What the court was saying is that it wanted to revisit a 19-year-old precedent that barred such corporate interference in the electoral process. That 1990 ruling upheld what has been the law of the land since 1947, when the Taft-Hartley law banned independent expenditures by both corporations and labor unions.

To get a sense of just how extreme (and, yes, activist) such an approach would be, consider that laws restricting corporate activity in elections go all the way back to the Tillman Act of 1907, which prohibited corporations from giving directly to political campaigns.

It is truly frightening that a conservative Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning a century-old tradition at the very moment when the financial crisis has brought home the terrible effects of excessive corporate influence on politics.

In the deregulatory wave of the 1980s and ’90s, Congress was clearly too solicitous to the demands of finance. Why take a step now that would give corporations even more opportunity to buy influence? With the political winds shifting, do conservatives on the court see an opportunity to fight the trends against their side by altering the very rules of the electoral game?

Such an “appalling” ruling, Schumer said in an interview, “would have more political significance than any case since Bush v. Gore.” He added: “It would dramatically change America at a time when people are feeling that the special interests have too much influence and the middle class doesn’t have enough. It would exacerbate both of these conditions.”

So when conservatives try to paint Sotomayor as some sort of radical, consider that the real radicals are those who now hold a majority on the Supreme Court. In this battle, it is she, not her critics, who represents moderation and judicial restraint.

'Government Sachs' Strikes Gold... Again

Connect the dots: Goldman Sachs made $3.44 billion in profit this past quarter, while the US deficit topped $1 trillion for the first time in the nation's history and appeared to be headed toward doubling that figure before the budget year is out. Since most of the increase in the federal deficit is due to bailing out the banks and salvaging the greater economy they helped destroy, why is the top investment bank doing so well?

Well, because that was the plan, as devised by Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs. Remember that Lehman Brothers, Goldman's competitor, was allowed to go bankrupt. The Paulson crowd wouldn't let Lehman change its status to that of a bank holding company and thus qualify for federal funds; soon afterward, Goldman was granted just such a deal, worth a quick $10 billion. Much is now made of Goldman paying back part of its bailout money, but forgotten is the $12.9 billion that Goldman got as its cut of the $180 billion AIG payoff. That is money that will not be paid back.

Goldman is considered a very smart bank because it was early in reducing its exposure to the mortgage derivatives that in large part caused the meltdown. However, it had done much to expand the market and continued to sell suspect derivatives to unwary buyers as sound investments, even as Goldman divested. The firm still holds $1.85 billion in real estate and lost $499 million in the previous quarter on bad loans, but made up for it by playing the vulture role and issuing high-interest debt to governments and companies made desperate by the recession that the financial gimmicks of the banks brought on in the first place.

And Goldman was not just another bank. Before Paulson ran the Treasury Department, another former Goldman head, Robert Rubin, pushed through the repeal of the Glass-Steagall controls on banking activity. While some now play down the significance of this radical deregulation, not so Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd C. Blankfein--at least not back in June 2007, when the markets were still doing well. "If you take an historical perspective," Blankfein told the New York Times by way of explaining his company's spectacular success at the time, "we've come full circle, because that is exactly what the Rothschilds or J.P. Morgan the banker were doing in their heyday. What caused an aberration was the Glass-Steagall Act."

That 1933 act was repealed in a law signed by President Bill Clinton at Rubin's urging, and in the following eight years Goldman Sachs recorded a 265 percent growth in its balance sheet. "Back then," theWall Street Journal reports, "Goldman was churning out profits by trading credit derivatives, speculating on currencies and oil and placing big bets [on] the stock market."

Big bets made in a casino designed by Goldman, which now makes money off loans to the victims. High on the list of victims are state governments that have to turn to Goldman for money because the federal government that saved the banks won't do the same for the states, which have watched their tax bases shrink because of the banking meltdown. As the WSJ noted, "issuing debt to ailing governments" is now a growth industry for Goldman.

Why didn't the federal government just lend the money to the states? Why was all the money thrown at Wall Street instead of needy homeowners or struggling school systems? Because the federal government works for Goldman and not for us. Indeed, when it comes to the banking bailout, Goldman Sachs is the government.

So much so that last fall the New York Times ran a story, headlined "The Guys From 'Government Sachs'," that stated: "Goldman's presence in the [Treasury] department and around the federal response to the financial bailout is so ubiquitous that other bankers and competitors have given the star-studded firm a new nickname: Government Sachs."

One of those stars was Stephen Friedman, another former head of Goldman. Friedman was both a director of the company and chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank when he helped work out the details of the Wall Street bailout. The president of the NY Fed at the time, Timothy Geithner, now secretary of the treasury, requested a conflict-of-interest waiver that allowed Friedman to buy more Goldman Sachs stock, and Friedman ended up with 98,600 shares. At market close on Tuesday that was worth $14,756,476. That's nothing--three years ago, the fifty top Goldman execs made $20 million each, and this year could be better.

They're not hurting. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090714_government_sachs_strikes_gold_again/