Vodpod videos no longer available.
Vatos! You can watch the confirmation here live (I hope) at 9:30 AM (EST). Justice (non-Freudian slip) Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is “simple. Fidelity to the law.” Much like Governor Sanford: “Fidelity to an undetermined amount of vaginas not belonging to his wife.” Feel free to follow along as I use my Jedi legal skills to explain the philosophy of noted mathematician, Senator Kyl.
9:30 – Sotomayor speaks! After Leahy washed her down with a luffa.
9:34 – Judge Sotomayor will “keep an open mind.” By keeping an open mind, she means tar and feathering every last white creature on Planet Earth.
9:36 – Leahy questions the judge on criminal law. Specifically her job as a D.A. in New York. This is where she learned to practice law and distinguishes between “fact” and “legal theory.” She learned about the facts of life at the D.A. As for me, I learned about the Facts Of Life from Tutti — A hooker on the Boulevard in Miami… but that’s not important right now.
9:40 – Sotomayor, as a prosecutor, relates a case about murder cases and the impact on the victim’s family. Obviously, this was not used for any sort of emotional impact and is consistent with sympathy, not empathy. She also gets into evidence code. Specifically, using evidence for purposes of establishing identity in a criminal case (murder). To be even more specific, she is talking about relevancy under FRE 404, identity, and modus operandi. Nevermind all that, she busted down a murderer and that’s just… awful.
9:45 – Leahy goes on to the Ricci case. A/K/A The White Firefighters Case. In law, we call this a preemptive strike or stealing thunder. In the Senate, I call it the same thing. Leahy is trying to take wind out of the sails from the likes of Sessions, Kyl, and to a lesser extent other Republican senators who are pussies and afraid to bring it up for fear of losing the Hispanic vote. Nevermind this is not an issue worth intellectual discussion, it is an issue that is sexy. And when I say “sexy,” I mean “sexy” in a Morton Downey, Jr. after 300 cigarettes smoking corpse kind of sexy.
9:50 – Sotomayor is ready to pounce on Leahy and answer questions before before he finishes asking it. Leahy is a noted Right-Wing Bible Thumper.
9:55 – The judge has learned to control her Tourette’s by scribling down what I’m postive are doodles of white men swinging by a noose so as not to interrupt Leahy.
9:56 – OK! Her answer to her statement concerning “Funky Wise Latinas.” She wanted young Latina women to be inspired. Unequivocally, she believes all ethnicities or groups have equal opportunities. She further states she will be fair and impartial and that her words were taken out of context. She goes onto cite to Justice O’Connor (why I don’t know) as a means for garnering credibility. I have to say, this is shocking. Seriously, I really thought she would say, “OK. Let me be honest. I’m tired of fucking crackers. Eat me.”
10:00 – The Heller case! Guns baby! Sotomayor moves on to the Second Amendment! She is talking about “The Incorporation Doctrine.” Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states visa vis the 14th Amendment. Unless you are a lawyer, you have no idea what she is talking about. Basically, she will keep an “open mind” and will not “prejudge” this issue. To translate, we will have to move to slingshots. And now… of to discussion with Leahy about prostitutes. Can’t think of joke here.
10:04 – Senator Sessions at the plate. He will have different questions than Leahy I suspect. Probably softballs, cotton candy, and a square-dance. He does like “fidelity.” Just like (Insert Politician Here).
10:06 – “Funky Wise Latina” line of inquiry by Sessions. Also, he delves into the “policy” remark by Sotomayor. He wants to know what she really believes, because, as we all know, this entire chamber is devoted to what people really believe. I know. I’m optimistic.
10:08 – Sotomayor responds to “policy” remark she made at Duke. She explains precedent and stare decisis. Precedent has policy implications. For example, should Justice Thomas’ dissent have held the day on the children strip search case, the policy implication would be schools could search the anal cavities of younglings without the consent of parent or child. Sessions must be right. Supreme Court decisions do not have policy implications.
“Life experiences” are important says the judge. We are not “robots.” People have “feelings and experiences.”
Sessions “understands that” but for some reason he just gave her the stink eye.
Ed. Note: There are cyborgs everyone discriminates against. CYBORG POWER.
10:15 – “The law is what commands the result.” No. Dick Cheney does that.
10:18 – Transcript between Sessions and Sotomayor:
Sessions: Yes You Did!
Sotomayor: No I Didn’t!
10:20 – Sotomayor points out “reasonable judges disagree” on outcomes of cases. This is what we call a straw-man (or straw Latina). It assumes judges, or for that matter politicians, are reasonable. Surely, we can all agree, only one side or party can be reasonable at any given moment in time.
10:24 – Sessions rapidly moves forward in his analysis. I mean this is so riveting and totally unpredictable. The Ricci case.
10:26 – Sotomayor relies on the liberal defense of siding with precedent and stare decisis. With regard to the Ricci case her panel did not look at the new law invented by the majority of liberals in the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the white firefighters. Sessions then responds by saying the opinion she did not write was too short. It was a per curium decision and unpublished.
Sessions has a mind-reading device of some sort. He then claims “she misrepresented” what law she is bound by. She already stated she was bound by a man in a leather mask with a zipper for starters. I don’t get it. The added prong under Title VII added by SCOTUS requires a party to show a likelihood of getting sued and losing by an employer. When Scalia and company add a new area of law to disparate impact cases, this is strict construction. When another judge does this, it’s called making law. I think I’ll side with Justice Scalia — every breath he takes constricts me.
10:35 – Sessions is still on the Ricci case. This is rich: Sessions asks Sotomayor whether she has “sympathy” for Frank Ricci — the litigant. To be CRYSTAL CLEAR: Sessions is upset Sotomayor showed no sympathy for Ricci and followed existing law in her circuit and that she showed empathy for purposes of making decisions. Sessions shows he is true logician and also a gymnast capable of contorting his brain into a soggy pretzel.
10:39 – “No matter what Sotomayor might say, no matter how reasonable she is, no matter how much weight of authority she cites to, I will continue to drive this joust into a windmill. I yield the balance of my time. Go fuck yourself.” — Senator Sessions
10:41 – Jefferey Toobin on CNN “Sotomayor makes a good argument” with regard to her response on Ricci. Toobin also crosses his hands by his crotch. Perhaps this is to cover the raging hard-on from yesterday’s publicity over Senator Whitehouse’s planned shout out to him. Book sales baby.
10:46 – Senator Kohl golfing from the Latina tee. He questions Sotomayor on affirmative action. Like we don’t know her answer, “It is firmly my hope that we have siestas every day and compel children to learn how to dance the Salsa like never before. La Cucaracha! La Cucaracha!”
10:52 – Bush v. Gore! Kohl went there. Shocking! Sotomayor thinks it was a healthy discussion but does not opine as to the propriety of The Court taking the case (which was kinda the question posed). It was also a su generis decision, meaning, a case of first impression and one the country had never seeen before and will probably never see again. Personally, I’m hoping we see Bush win over and over and over and over again. Don’t you?
10:55 – Kohl gets into Griswold v. Connecticut. A case concerning contraception which led to Roe. Where is the right to privacy? Sotomayor answers. There is one. The Court said so. It’s somewhere. Sotomayor cites to search and seizure cases to prove this and not the 27th Amendment called “The Right To Privacy Amendment.”
10:58 – The role of cameras in The Court: Judge Sotomayor brings up collegiality with other judges. She is not predisposed. She is not rigid. Just like Justice Scalia. She dodges the “camera” question by saying she would talk about it after they anoint her (sorry, appoint) to the Court.
11:00 – Kohl moves on to term limits for SCOTUS justices. Sadly, she says “get used to me. Viva La Raza. For Life Senator Kohl. For Life.” She also responds by explaining something about the role of congress and policy.
11:03 – Antitrust law. Kohl remarks “Sotomayor has a pro-business record.” So does Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Dang libs.
11:07 – Judge Sotomayor has an amazing grasp on case law and even disputes the fairness of characterizing her opinions as pro anything. This is because, she is against everything. Clearly. Ask Senator Kyl later.
While Judge Sotomayor leaves the chamber, we have time for a short break.
Some thoughts: Each senator has thirty minutes of time each. Apparently the breakdown of that time is 28.5 minutes per senator, and two minutes for Judge Sotomayor.
11:27 – Senator Leahy is back! He is concerned about the time schedule. The caucus needs a break.
12:00 – Time for Senator Hatch: “Is partial-term abortions settled law.” Let me answer that question. Duh. It’s partial law.
Off to footnote 23 on a 2nd Amendment case. Again, the “Incorporation” issue to the State’s under the 14th Amendment. Hatch presses on the Heller case. Sotomayor can not comment because she cannot under the law. However, despite Hatch saying “I accept that,” he’d really like her to break the law and violate the law.
Ed. Note: You see, this is why laypersons get all bent out of shape with lawyers and judges. We want answers to these questions, judges are precluded by law to answer them, and politicians (like Hatch) lie by saying they accept this premise.
11:34 – “I don’t mean to interrupt you,” says Senator Hatch, “but I’ll just talk over you for another few minutes or so.”
11:35 – I am fairly confident non-lawyers will have absolutely no clue when it comes to “The Incorporation Doctrine.” Go read, Palko v. Connecticut. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated to the States yet by SCOTUS. This is the job of SCOTUS. “Incorporation” is a term of art. In other words, rights become “fundamental” only when SCOTUS applies the particular right to the states.
To paraphrase Hatch, Heller does not incorporate the 2nd Amendment to the states. Most folks do not know this. Carrying a gun, is not a “fundamental right” despite Heller. This question is open to SCOTUS. They may very well rule that way in the future. Depite this, I am positive Sotomayor is thinking of shooting a bird at Hatch.
11:45 – Yes! The Maloney case! A Nunchuck case! Next up to testify, Chuck Norris on how he got his ass beat down by Bruce Lee in Way Of The Dragon. Hatch is talking about different levels of review and the “Privileges and Immunities Clause.” To be clear, as Hatch admits, that clause has nothing to do with incorporation of rights. Good thing he’s conflating the issues and confusing the public — all of whom I’m certain are reading each word of the aforementioned italicized opinions I or Senator Hatch mention. From Martial Arts to Ricci — totally common transition.
11:50 – Senator Hatch wheels out the bones of Bruce Lee and shows the disparate impact of nunchucks on his skull.
11:55 – Back to Ricci. Hatch is trying to get Sotomayor to admit the ruling to not have the panel rule en banc was “wrong.” He is trying to show the Ricci case was a case of first impression (despite binding case law in the circuit Sotomayor hails from).
Something doesn’t add up. Hatch is not very good at math. He states “all nine justices thought [the lower court] ruling was flawed. By nine justices, Hatch means five justices agree with him, and four disagree. But, “he is not trying to make a point against her.” He’s right! He’s trying to turn her into a pinata with candy imported by Republicans in bed with the Chinese.
12:01 – Senator Feinstein: Oh how she wishes she had the “temperament” of Judge Sotomayor. Feinstein quickly shaves off the fuzzy math from these Senators who are anything but peaches. Whether a case goes to an en banc panel or not, or whether an isolated opinion is written per curium, are only important if you are Latin.
12:07 – Senator Feinstein is quoting Scalia. You know what that means? She always agrees with Scalia. The intellectual honesty of this hallowed chamber, on both sides, gets me hard. This is exciting. It reminds me of the time I accidentally caught a testicle in something during woodshop.
12:11 – All this Latin with a Latina is discriminatory, evil, and must be stopped. I’ll give you something to stare at. My little Jewish penis.
12:15 – Sotomayor reviews the zone of “Twilight.” A case about gay vampires and their right to marry teenagers who are not officially gay yet.
12:20 – Feinstein said “doody.”
12:25 – Senator Feinstein? I wonder what she’s thinking about for the confirmation celebration…
12:28 – Feinstein brings up the Lopez case. Obviously, Sotomayor cannot respond because she is Japanese.
12:30 – What is this fascination with Eric Estrada?
RECESS! EVERYONE GO OUT AND BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF THE KID WITH THE SPEECH IMPEDIMENT.
Back at two. Wonder how much this pro forma exercise for an answer we already know costs?
Before returning I must say, Sotomayor is a racist piece of beenies and weenies hurl. She wants to inspire young, Latina, law students? What ever happened to inspiring thirtysomething Jewish lawyers?
2:00 – And we’re back. Senator Grassley is up. Takings Clause, agriculture, and property. I wonder if he was involved in the decision to draft Sam Bouie over Michael Jordan?
2:03 – Ok Republicans. Here’s your piece of gold. Judge Sotomayor seemed to forget the “Takings Clause” is in the Fifth Amendment.
2:08 – The reason I think she may have lapsed for second as to the Amendment and Takings is because she pretty much cited the law on condemnation. Anyhow, the Kilo case keeps rearing its head. I don’t know shit about that case. However, they are talking about condemnation and the government reasonably compensating one whose property is… “taken.” Basic constitutional law: the government must reasonably compensate after a “taking.” The issue here is what does “taken” mean within the 5th Amendment. It just got hot. “Why did you not allow Mr. Diddin his day in court.”
2:12 – BABY LOVER. SOMEONE JUST CALLED HER A BABY LOVER!
2:14 – Sotomayor answers whatever the question was before the Baby Lovers. The Diddin (SP?) is a statute of limitation issue. Don’t know this case, however, I do know the question posed above in quotes is very kinkly phrased. Without a loaded word. I’m sure the good Senator never heard of a “statute of limitations.” Like in that… Ledbetter case. Fuckstick. This shit head just paraded around a loaded question, he had to read, and can’t respond to because he has the answer. Worst question of the day.
2:21 – Senator Grassley has to read his questions from a prepared text and sounds like a bad debater in seventh grade. With possible bladder problem. This allows Judge Sotomayor to go on and on and on and on and on…. I’m going to build a pyramid. Be back.
2:36 – I can’t take this. I’m bailn’ like Palin. Good night!
This is important and not an utter waste of time. I’m talking about my liveblog. Sotomayor should be confirmed by more than 75% of the Senate.
Tags: Liveblog, Look At All The Women On The Judiciary Committee, Res Ipsa Loquitor, Senate Confirmation Hearing Day 2, Senate Sotomayor, Senator Franken, Senator Kyl, Senator Leahy, Senator Sessions, Senator Whitehouse, Sonia Sotomayor