Sotomayor: Day Three, More of the S(h)ame?
Jul 15th, 2009 | 12 responses
It appears that today, the third day of Republican grilling of Judge Sotomayor, will once again focus on those horrible, unnatural, non-human life experiences, empathy and “what’s in your heart,” that no self-respecting judge should ever be caught with.
This appears to be the case from listening to dealing-with-disabilities-is-a-game-of-golf Cornyn, who is presently grilling Sotomayor on speeches she made five, ten years ago.
(By the way, Cornyn is so interested in Sotomayor’s views that when she tries to expand on them, he interrupts her, or tries to move on to his next gotcha.)
As expected, Maureen Dowd had some appropriate reflections on this new Republican phenomenon—new, because it has developed since they confirmed Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts to the highest Court, notwithstanding the admissions by these gentlemen that they, too, had such terribly disqualifying flaws.
In this morning’s “White Man’s Last Stand,” Dowd first points to the aforementioned gotchas:
A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.
She then discusses a very interesting phenomenon. That, in order to gain the approval from this club of wise white men, it has become necessary for a living, breathing, human being (especially a woman of color) to tone down—even deny—her life experiences, her empathy, her feelings, “what’s in her heart.”
For example:
The judge’s full retreat from the notion that a different life experience is valuable was more than necessary and somewhat disappointing. But, as any clever job applicant knows, you must obscure as well as reveal, so she sidestepped the dreaded empathy questions…
And,
She even used a flat tone when talking about the “horrific tragedy” of 9/11, when she was living near the World Trade Center. And she was mechanical in explaining to a grumpy Senator Orrin Hatch that banning nunchaku sticks did not dent the Second Amendment because the martial-arts weapons’ swing “can bust someone’s skull.”
In what has become a theater of the absurd, even Democratic Senators had to pose questions and make comments to try to—for lack of a better word—”dehumanize” the judge.
For example
Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer gamely tried to make the judge seem even more coldhearted. Recalling the sad plight of poor families from the Bronx who sued T.W.A. after a jet crashed off Long Island in 1996, he quoted the Bronx jurist’s dispassionate dissent: “The appropriate remedial scheme for deaths occurring off the United States coast is clearly a legislative policy choice, which should not be made by the courts.”
Schumer also cited the case of an African-American woman who filed suit after being denied a home-equity loan, even after the loan application was conditionally approved based on her credit report.
Sotomayor went along and explained “with an iciness that must have sent a chill up the conservative leg of Alabama’s Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III” : “The law requires some finality.”
The only thing I disagree with Dowd is on the type of sensation that Sessions must have experienced. I must believe that Sotomayor’s icy remarks probably sent a warm, tingling thrill up Sessions’ leg.
I have a solution to this empathy, life experience, gender and race “problem”
Let’s replace all nine Supreme Court judges with robots, machines, computers.
Let’s wire them and program them with Boolean decision-making logic, feed them with the Constitution, laws, precedents, etc., etc. (memory is no problem these days), and merely let them, as has been suggested, call “balls and strikes.”
And most of all, let’s do away with this farce called “Confirmation Hearings.”
opinions powered by SendLove.to
12 Responses to “Sotomayor: Day Three, More of the S(h)ame?”
Is the average American even watching this “show”? Does the average American even know this is going on?
Most of the people paying attention are political junkies. It isn't like Dems or Reps are going to convince anyone watching to switch sides. The political posturing is pointless. Reps know they are going to approve her. So why the show? Why make believe that they haven't already made up their minds about her? She's already had personal interviews with half of Washington.
This whole thing is silly and could have taken less than a day.
The whole concept of SCOTUS nominees appearing before Congress in person is relatively new, really nothing more than the Senate realizing it was another excuse to get themselves more free airtime.
And if you want what might be the stupidest grandstand of this nomination, the front-runner has to be having Ricci appear in person to testify.
WTF? What insight to Constitutional law does that layman possess? What can he possibly say or add to the question of Sotomayor's qaulifications?
He is just named person in the lawsuit that eventually made it to SCOTUS. I really, really doubt he participated in any of the Appellate or SCOTUS briefs.
shanonlee and AR, Amen!
Perhaps, in addition or instead of Ricci appearing to testify, we should have “the robot” appear, free of empathy, personal background and life experiences—no race, gender, religion, heart, humanity, etc, to clog the process up.
Dorian
Sotomayor’s testimony highlights the shallowness of liberal ideas.
If there were any depth or any truth in what the left actually believes, Sotomayor would be able to use the 60 vote majority of the Democrats and say exactly what she thinks. For liberals, lying about what their goals are and the paths they want to take to get there is so ingrained, telling the truth simply doesn’t occur to them, even when it’s certain they can’t lose.
Wouldn’t the leftists here love to hear her real thoughts on gun control, affirmative action, abortion and everything else?
jwest
you once again over estimate your insight and under estimate the readers.
Sotomayor qualified candidate for SCOTUS, and right wing talking points don't change a thing.
As for as Dems saying exactly what they believe, do I really have to quote a few choice Repubs?
“Read my lips, no new taxes.”
“The US does not torture.”
“I am not a crook.”
etc etc etc
HemmD:
I could replace your etc etc etc, with pages and pages, but that's not going to change certain people's minds.
Plus, I don't have the time nor the patience
I hate to link to Huff Post, but here's an interesting article about Sotomayor.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allison-kilkenny/…
I personally feel empathy for the young man.
What is even more relevant, interesting, and telling, is that Republican Senators (yes, democratic Senators, too), have refused to mention this case during the hearings.
Would someone care to guess why?
Because it would blow up the case Republicans have been building against Sotomayor skyhigh.
Yes, it would destory their case that Sotomayor has that evil, liberal fault, “empathy.” She stuck to the rules…and the law
If Sotomayor doesn't get elected to the Supreme Court, Moderates and Republicans would be able to ease up on the tension and breathe. Not because everyone “hates Sotomayor.” It's because it would prove that the Democrats in congress can and will think on their own terms. It would show Obama that having a “super-majority” congress doesn't mean you'll get everything you want. Our government is set up as a checks and balances system.
It's also interesting how many media organizations, such as CNN, have been interviewing Latina Women to show Sotomayor's legitimacy. http://www.newsy.com/videos/sotomayor_running_w… I feel like multiple perspective from multiple ethnicities would be more convincing.
“Our government is set up as a checks and balances system.”
Wow, where were these believers in checks and balances during the past eight years?
Ouch! Quit poking me in the eye with your enormous projection!
“The whole concept of SCOTUS nominees appearing before Congress in person is relatively new, really nothing more than the Senate realizing it was another excuse to get themselves more free airtime.”
Well, it's more than that, just another circus. It has become an excuse for a political circus every time, ever since the farther Left chose to deliberately politicize the nomination of Bork and attack him in the most vile manner for blatant political and perverse ideological reasons (including a defense-at-all-costs of judicial activism — preserving a legacy of decades of liberal judicial activism that remains to this day, as we have heard in the very poor remarks and associated behavior of the Democrats, in sharp contrast to that of the Republicans).
It's so bad that Sotomayor's deliberate anti-activist behavior during questioning has commentators asking if she has suddenly become a born-again jurist (rather than be an activist), and even present herself as a “right-wing extremist” (i.e., a moderate and specifically not an activist, and opposed to such illegtimate misconduct so beholden of liberals and Democrats):
“Under normal circumstances, a judge who says the things Sonia Sotomayor has said during her confirmation hearings would not be able to win confirmation in a Senate with a solid Democratic majority. … She's practically a new Robert Bork! How is it that someone with such extreme-right-wing-out-of-the-mainstream views seems set to win every Democratic vote in the Senate? Simple. She was nominated by a Democratic president, and everyone assumes–correctly, in all likelihood–that this is a better predictor of how she will vote than the pieties she utters during her confirmation hearings.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124775868855652…