« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Midstream update on Sotomayor hearing–Updated again!

Senator Kyl corrected the record on Sandra Day O’Connor vs. Sonya Sotomayor.  O’Connor said she believed a wise man and a wise woman would come to the same conclusion.  Sotomayor said she thought a Latina would come to a better decision than a white man.  That implies a different conclusion.  That implies she thinks a Latina thinks better than a white man does.  Kyl caught the distinction, but in my opinion, didn’t stress it strongly enough.

They are also getting tied up in a red herring of how this has not apparently affected her prior decisions.  The point should be that it is a racist point of view–one ethnic group thinks better than another one does.

He may have also caught the fact that she misquoted O’Connor in her previous answer.  I can’t go into it here, because I just don’t have the transcript.  But in effect, she earlier misquoted O’Connor to imply that O’Connor had claimed a woman would make a smarter decision than would a man.

Paddy Leahy called a quick recess so Chuckie Schumer could put together a review of SoSo cases that show how “fair” she is.

Schumer is now in the process of redefining “empathy.”

————-

Update:  I found the video of SoSo’s evasion to Senator Sessions regarding her take on Justice O’Connor’s statement that “a wise old man should reach the same decison as a wise old woman.”  Quoting SoSo,

I knew that Justice O’Connor couldn’t have meant that if judges reached different conclusions, legal conclusions, that one of them wasn’t wise.

Well, duh!  Of course it wasn’t what she meant.  It wasn’t what she said.  This is artless evasion, plain and simple.  To think that “a wise Latina will reach better decisions than a white man” is a parallel or even contrasting idea as a way of agreement is nonsense.

It’s time to call her on this, again.  Perhaps Senator Cornyn will do so tomorrow.

Tags:

COMMENTS

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    We couldn’t be doing any better.

    What redstaters need to understand is that the payoff for this brilliant work will be in elections to come.

    delayed gratification is a conservative value

    so lets not have all this failure talk or I could have done better or why didn’t Soto writhe on the floor with a mea culpa crap…

    smile

    • eburke

      is a conservative value. Sometimes I think the Left is more patient than we. This blog often has posts that promote a ‘let’s only fight this battle if we can win it.” I couldn’t disagree more and your comment underscores why.

      Sometimes fighting the battle, even if you lose it, sets you up to win the war.

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        the Reagan and Newt revolutions, i.e. saved the economy for 25 yrs, won the cold war and defeated al qaida

    • Flagstaff

      in my blog. Now that you mention it, writhing on the floor would be an entertaining diversion in these hearings.

      Even Lindsey did good. But I’m not the only one who has noticed that we start to reel her in and then let her off the hook. Maybe it’s a strategy for winning the war after this battle. Or delayed gratification, as you say.

      And Kyl was indeed ploddingly brilliant.

      I also appreciated the moment when Lindsey asked SoSo whether she believed there were people plotting right now to destroy the United States. Her long pause told me she was formulating a way to say “yes” without seeming to agree with conservatives. She answered well, but not too convincingly. Sort of, “I have to because the facts are supposedly there.”

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        no ‘staff, not directly, but I do know how hard it is even in a jury trial with rules more conducive than Senate hearings, to not be perceived as leting witnesses off the hook.

        Americans have watched too many Perry Mason or LA Law episodes.

        Even in a jury trial, the witness rarely writhes and admits. In Perry Mason and LA Law, the gratification is w/i 60 minutes.

        In jury trials its w/i hours or days.

        But in politics, the jury only comes in every two years.

        When you see “letting off the hook” I suspect you have a premise that is unrealistic.

        The fact is that Sessions et al have forced Soto to abandon the “misspoke” defense and to give 4 different answers and finally to repudiate utterly the Obama empathy qualification.

        We could not have done better so far and even before the hearings, Soto’s toxic statements had caused a

        30 PERCENT DROP IN HER SUPPORT THAT HAS WOMEN AND HISPANICS OPPOSED TO HER NOMINATION

        LET THAT SOAK IN BRO’

        we are winning but the game aint over till 2010 election day

        • Flagstaff

          but not so bad that she will withdraw or generate sympathy.

          Or maybe we are being too smart (or too subtle) by half, hoping that observers will see her inconsistencies without pointing them out explicitly.

          Obviously, almost anything goes in a SC nomination hearing. Kyl or Sessions or Lindsey or Cornyn can follow up with anything they want to ask. When I say let her off the hook, that’s what I mean. They stop just before the ultimate follow-up; they don’t ask how someone could come to any conclusion but “you think you will make better decisions because of your ethnic background? That’s precisely what you said. You can’t foist it off on Justice O’Connor. She didn’t say a woman would make better decisions than would a man–YOU did. If you didn’t MEAN that, why did you SAY it? And if it was a line that fell flat, why did you use it over five times? Did it only fall flat when it was heard/read by outsiders to your group?”

          I wouldn’t suggest exactly that tone, but the words need to be said.

          And finally, I’d ask, “How does it feel to be questioned by the most junior member of the Senate, a former talk show host and a not very funny comedian? Do you wonder how he ended up on this panel? I do.”

          Just kidding about that one. But it must be maddening to have to answer Stuart Smalley’s questions.

          • eburke

            to the Senate. So, personally I’d pay major dollars to hear someone ask SoSo your question.

            Gotta.Find.My.Jack.

          • Flagstaff

            was a prestigious committee reserved for senior Senators, even “statesmen.” Smalley doesn’t qualify in any way. He should be on a subcommittee checking on construction rules for county airports.

          • eburke

            disqualify *any* Democrat from serving on the committee in perpetuity (hey, you may have hit on something here)

            As for Sen. Buffoon serving on the “Checking on Construction Rules For County Airports” subcommittee – are you sure there isn’t a less complex and vital subcommittee available on which he could serve that would be more in line with his intellectual and maturational capabilities?

            Sigh!

          • Flagstaff

            To Lindsey Graham, “I understand… how those words could be taken that way, especially when taken out of context.” (inexact)

            No follow up to point out the context cut away her excuse, didn’t support it. No follow up to ask how the words could be taken any other way.

            Cornyn has reportedly raised the question of trusting her honesty, outside the Senate.

            And now I hear about a bad “eminent domain” ruling on her part.

            I don’t get to hear Jeff Sessions’ questions–he’s done before I wake up.

        • Flagstaff

          I’d be interested to know just why she gives off those negative vibes. Lawyers are pretty thick-skinned, I think. If they’ve noticed, she must be pretty overtly disagreeable. Not that that’s disqualifying, but the reason behind it might be.

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    So today another loon heckled Sotomayor as being a “baby killer”. This is beginning to smell very fishy to me. Fishy like a leftist plant.

    1. I work during the day so I haven’t been able to watch the hearings but to the best of my knowledge, Sotomayor has yet to make her views on abortion public. In fact, some of us have speculated that given her silence on the issue and her Catholic background, she may in fact be pro-life.

    2. Getting loud in Senate hearings is not the usual MO of pro-life protesters. And yet we’ve had 2 in 2 days.

    I’m smellin’ a rat.

    • Flagstaff

      But why?

      • bk

        The answers to questions like that have become so bland and predictable that the answers tend be meaningless.

        As to the question I posed above – Feinstein voted against Roberts and Alito because they wouldn’t pledge that they would take the pro-abortion side of any abortion-related decision they had to render. So if Sotomayor didn’t make that pledge either, doesn’t Feinstein have to vote against her too?

        • Flagstaff

          Just as the audience chuckled and winked when SoSo caught herself talking about judges and courts creating policy, so liberals will chuckle and wink when SoSo refuses the pledge. It just isn’t necessary for her.

          Chuckie Boy continues to misconstrue Alito’s statement regarding his Italian heritage, as if his comment was comparable to SoSo’s “Latina wisdom.” Not really comparable at all IN CONTEXT. So what else is new.

    • libertymt

      They were nationally known figures in the movement, including Operation Rescue staff and Norma McCorvey (?Jane Roe? in Roe v. Wade).

      • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

        I’m normally one to have Norma’s back too, but not this time. This is disgraceful.

      • Flagstaff

        Transcribed from the news.

        I added it as an edit to the bottom of the Original Post.