Sotomayor Faces Dumb Questions
by Tex Norman(121)
The Republicans at the Sotomayor Hearing have heaped shame upon their party as they flooded the atmosphere with stupid, stupid, stupid questions that way too often held a magnifying glass over the secret racism that runs through the Republican Party like marbling in a rib eye state.
Consider these sad, embarrassing examples:
1. 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.
Now consider this: had Sotomayor voted WITH the judge with Pureto Rican ancestry wouldn’t she have been blasted by Sessions because all those Pureto Rican’s stick together like steamed rice.
The Republicans hammered away, day after day on that “wise Latina" comment to make this one point: that Sotomayor would let her personal experience dictate her judicial decision making -- thereby continuing the grievous oppression of white men. Yet here she is dinged for not sticking to her race and voting with another judge that shares her wise Latino background.
Consider Steve Benen's comment:
"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. Arizona Republican Jon Kyl, chose to ask a stupid question aimed at implying a bias in Sotomayor that they could not find in the thousands of legal decisions she rendered from the bench. Kyl asked Sotomayor if she had:
". . . always been able to find a legal basis for every decision that (she's) rendered as a judge.
Now what the hell does that mean? While the question seems somewhat harmless, it is a profoundly stupid thing to say and it does imply, very subtly, some of the racism marbling in the Republican beef. If you ask someone if they always had a legal basis for their decisions, you are actually saying: Have you made decisions that lacked a legal basis?
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."
3. Consider the implications that the imply-er knew were baseless and said so. Senator Oran Hatch said,
"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."
So Hatch knows Sotomayor is not involved with the People of the American Way, she has nothing to do with smearing Frank Ricci, that this whole issue has nothing to do with Sotomayor, but he wants to make it clear that this evil stuff has no place in a Supreme Court nomination hearing. Well Senator Hatch, the only reason it is in the Supreme court hearing is because you brought it up. This is just dumb. He could have said that the assassination of Kennedy was bad and he knows she agrees with him, she was not involved, but he just wants to make the point that it would not be good to have assassins involved in these Supreme Court hearings. Hatch is saying “I mean, no offense, Sonia, and like, I am totally not trying to hold this against you but there is bad stuff in the world and it is often offensive and gee whiz I am glad you agree.”
4. Now let’s consider Senator Lindsey Graham accusing Sotomayor of being a bully judge. Perhaps on this one, we should just readNOW let’s look at a transcript of the exchange.
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.
Article submitted Sunday, July 19, 2009 & read 1684 times.
Leave Your Comments:
8-2-2-0-0-ADSO