The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Supreme Court

Senate Sets Sotomayor Hearing Date

Updated 12:45 p.m.
By Garance Franke-Ruta
The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a date for the start of confirmation hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be associate justice of the Supreme Court: July 13.

"In selecting this date I am trying to be fair to all concerned," said Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in a statement. "I want to be fair to the nominee and allow her the earliest possible opportunity to respond to the attacks made about her character."

"It is not fair for her critics to be calling her racist without allowing her the opportunity to respond," he continued in an apparent reference to widely covered -- and later retracted -- remarks by former House speaker Newt Gingrich calling Sotomayor a racist on Twitter. "I do not want to see this historic nomination of Sonia Sotomayor treated unfairly or less fairly than the Senate treated the nomination of John Roberts."

A quick hearing is something Republicans had hoped to avoid, with Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, saying he thought late summer hearings would be preferable. "I don't think that this should be rushed," he said late last month. "I don't believe we can do this before August."

Leahy appealed to precedent in making his announcement. "This is a schedule that tracks the process the Senate followed by bipartisan agreement in considering President Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court in 2005," Leahy said in a statement on the Senate floor. "....If 48 days were sufficient to prepare for that hearing, in accordance with our agreement and the initial schedule, it is certainly adequate time to prepare for the confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor."

Posted at 12:32 PM ET on Jun 9, 2009  | Category:  Supreme Court
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Republicans Decry Guantanamo Detainee Transfer to US | Next: GOP Fundraiser Offered Dinner and a Circus


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I follow these hearings very closely, and I never heard Sen. Sessions saying that no one needed to read all of Alito's PUBLIC OPINIONS -- that doesn't even sound like something that a FORMER JUDGE would say -- it doesn't come up on Google either. What I do find is a reference to everything Alito's ever written (including CONFIDENTIAL memos during his tenure as assistant to the Solicitor General). That's very different than 4,000+ PUBLIC OPINIONS.

Nice try though.

Posted by: JakeD | June 10, 2009 2:02 PM

If I remember correctly, Sen. Sessions(sour-grapes) stated that no needed to read all of Alito's opinions, just get the seat filled? But now it is important? The "R" party is going the way of the dinosaurs.

Posted by: ILDem | June 10, 2009 1:47 PM

jabberwolff - Given that Judge Sotomayor has turned down discrimination claims in 80% of cases before the circuit court, perhaps it's time you stopped claiming to have looked at her record. It's OK to parrot talking points. We won't think any less of you for it,

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | June 10, 2009 12:04 AM

Here's the actual quote from Justice Samuel Alito, testifying in his 2006 confirmation hearings about how HE ruled from the bench based on HIS ethnicity:

“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background, or because of religion or because of gender and I do take that into account.”

This is much more serious than an offhand comment at some speech. Alito admitted that he let HIS heritage sway his decisions. NOBODY has found similar evidence showing any bias in Judge Sotamayor's rulings, but that hasn't stopped the vicious race-baiting from the right. So it's okay for an Italian-American man, but not a Latina, to speak about her heritage? And, frankly, this former prosecutor, District Court trial judge and Federal Appellate judge is far more conservative than I would have liked, which highlights the hypocrisy even more. She is qualified, experienced and at best moderate. Republicans will keep marginalizing themselves by attacking this good woman.

Posted by: Omyobama | June 9, 2009 9:57 PM

georgegarrett inquired: "...ask yourself 'What...if Justice Alito had made the same comments about the wisdom of Italizan (sic) Americans.'"

HE DID! During his confirmation hearings, Judge (now Justice) Alito claimed to have faced discrimination because of his Italian-American ethnic background and claimed that his experiences in that regard, as well as his experiences growing up in ethnic neighborhoods, made him a better judge.

Now, some of you will try to parse those words and claim that Alito's are, somehow, different from Sotomayor's, but, honestly, it works out to the same thing - judges asserting that their life experiences have made them better at their job.

Critics are having to work really hard to come up with some basis for complaint about Judge Sotomayor. And the best they can come up with is an insincere claim that she is racist. Judge Sotomayor is an exceptionally talented and experienced jurist. She has proven herself to be worthy of elevation to the Supreme Court.

Does anyone think that Republicans would accept any Obama nominee, other than an anti-abortion, pro-business, pro-gun, arch-conservative ?? It's time we all considered the source of this criticism.

Posted by: Speaktruth | June 9, 2009 9:21 PM

georgegarrett inquired: "...ask yourself 'What...if Justice Alito had made the same comments about the wisdom of Italizan (sic) Americans.'"

HE DID! During his confirmation hearings, Judge (now Justice) Alito claimed to have faced discrimination because of his Italian-American ethnic background and claimed that his experiences in that regard, as well as his experiences growing up in ethnic neighborhoods, made him a better judge.

Now, some of you will try to parse those words and claim that Alito's are, somehow, different from Sotomayor's, but, honestly, it works out to the same thing - judges asserting that their life experiences have made them better at their job.

Critics are having to work really hard to come up with some basis for complaint about Judge Sotomayor. And the best they can come up with is an insincere claim that she is racist. Judge Sotomayor is an exceptionally talented and experienced jurist. She has proven herself to be worthy of elevation to the Supreme Court.

Does anyone think that Republicans would accept any Obama nominee, other than an anti-abortion, pro-business, pro-gun, arch-conservative ?? It's time we all considered the source of this criticism.

Posted by: Speaktruth | June 9, 2009 9:19 PM

Hatch described as a "unilateral partisan edict" the decision by Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., to start the hearings July 13.

"Injecting such partisanship at the beginning easily can result in greater conflict and division further down the confirmation road," the Utah senator warned in a speech on the Senate floor.

Democrats, such as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said Republicans are trying to delay Sotomayor's nomination, simply for the sake of delay.

But Hatch said Republicans need the time to review all of the decisions she has made as a federal district judge and a member of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I've been informed that there have been some 4,000 decisions," Hatch said. "My gosh, that is going to take some time to go through those decisions."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
When are the Republicans going to get it through their thick patisan heads that there is lot of work to be done in this country. Either lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Does Hatch really expect to read all 4,000 cases? Does he really think the world is waiting on his vote to decide if Sotomayor meets his approval? She is going to be confirmed no matter what his little whiney butt has to say about it.

Does he have a fly fishing conference in Montana with his financial backers scheduled for that week of the hearings?? Get to work Hatch. You know the dates, get your questions ready. No excuses now.

25 cents says the first words out of his mouth when he is picked the first time at the hearing for her he will snip at Leahy for not giving him the proper time to prepare. In which case I would gladly give Leahy a quarter to biatch slap Hatch's his little @ss and tell him to ask his question or give up his turn.

To the "Just Say No" Party--EITHER LEAD, FOLLOW, OR GET OUT OF THE WAY!!!

Posted by: patrick10 | June 9, 2009 8:12 PM

"That Justice Roberts' hearings were scheduled 48 days after his nomination has absolutely nothing to do with the hearings for Ms. Sotomayor.

Justice Roberts was then and is now a far less controversial individual.

Scheduling these hearing just before the August recess smacks of the "weekend surprises" favored by this administration when releasing controversial information.

Senator Leahy, you can wait until September and do the job right.

I assume Mr. Obama will still be Prresident.

(There may be no country left but he will still be President)

Posted by: FedUp389 | June 9, 2009 12:57 PM"
_______
The 48 days is more than enough time considering Roberts was being appointed to Chief Justice not just one of the Court seats as Sonia is. He was and IS extremely controversial (see, e.g., his roundly criticized his dissent yesterday from the Court's majority opinion that a state court judge who got 3 million from one of the litigants during his campaign for the judgeship should have recused himself from the case--ya think?).

Viva Sonia.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 9, 2009 8:11 PM

Terrific! Buena suerte, Justice Sonia.

There is some reporting that some racis-, er, "ultraconservative" GOPers plan to boycott her confirmation hearings. Whatever. That's a good thing; that means her hearings will go faster.

I am always amused that her opponents--the ones who claim SS (who graduated 2d in her class and summa cum laude at Princeton and was an editor of the law review at Yale) lacks intellectual depth--are the same ones who worship Mrs. Todd ("I can't tell you the name of a single newspaper I have read") Phalin. It's rich that her biggest critics--Rush and Hannity--never graduated from anybody's college or university. And it's a safe bet none of them graduated 2d in their class at Princeton.

It's sad the MSM, including the Post, spent so much time chasing Fox News talking points, they didn't have time to share with the public that Sonia has more federal judicial experience than any nominee for the Court has had in...100 years. Yes, 100 years.

Sonia, start hiring your S. Ct. law clerks and get the rice and beans ready. Viva Sonia.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | June 9, 2009 7:57 PM

Great move. Force the remaining right wing reactionary Republican rednecks to sputter and yell and scream about how this amazing women has no place amongst the honorable gentleman of the high court. They'll make a spectacle of themselves, more thinking people will abandon their ideologically inspired hatred and fear mongering, and the Republican party will slip below 20% of the population. Maybe Newt, Rush, Cheney and Sarah can save them.

Let them explain how their picks for the SCOTUS see nothing wrong with $3 million to buy a judge for a $50 million verdict. That's just good business, right?

Posted by: thebobbob | June 9, 2009 7:37 PM

Every Supreme Court nominee deserves a close examination with all deliberate speed. that is the Court's own prescription. It is ingteresting how similar comments appearing in a dozen speeches over the past ten years can be considered isolated. What do they mean. Decide for yourself. But, while you are deciding ask yourself "What would se be reading the news establishment,if Justice Alito had made the same comments about the wisdom of Italizan Americans." We need to go through the process and then take a vote.

Posted by: georgegarrett | June 9, 2009 7:16 PM

mikeinmidland:

This nation's "original course" (at least as of July 4, 1776) was slavery and women who couldn't vote.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 5:39 PM

As a proud American and a Democrat, I for one will be celebrating Indendence Day (a National holiday) more than usual this year. I feel that this nation is hewing back toward it's original course. The election of Barack Obama and his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor are both signs of that progress.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | June 9, 2009 5:24 PM

Judges are politicians not rule breaking geniuses. Higher court Judges need support from politically powerful and wealthy friends. Sotomayor knows how to play the game. She will follow her advisor`s and rule accordingly. Court clerks are the real geniuses, they write the legal briefs and keep the judge out of trouble.

Posted by: melvin_polatnick | June 9, 2009 5:15 PM

It is quite refreshing to hear that there is an attempt to move forward with the confirmation hearing process as soon as possible. It will be interesting to see how the dialogue and debate over Sotomayor's points of view on the influence of race, gender and life experience in the judicial process evolve during this critical period. Below is a link to a very provocative piece dealing head on with these complicated and divisive issues, particularly interesting ideas concerning her "wise Latina" comments.

"Through the Sonia Sotomayor Looking Glass"

By Matt Semino, Esq.

http://elitestv.com/pub/2009/06/through-the-sonia-sotomayor-looking-glass

Matt Semino is an American lawyer and legal commentator. He is a graduate of Columbia Law School, Cornell University and is a Fulbright Scholar.

Posted by: supreme22 | June 9, 2009 4:30 PM

do some of you not think that those who voted against roe Versus Wade wer4e voting their opinion and not the law.Seems to me they voted their believe the law be dammed.So it is alright for a republican Judge and not a democrat one.There is a judge Lindsay in Harris county who IMO is not following the law and is doing as she please even though she knows and is friends with the plaintiffs attorney and does not read filings, Look her up and wee what kind of judge she is. She may be a democrat the has taken money for her reelection campaign but she should not be trying some of the cases she is and has tried.This is the kind of judge we need to keep out of our high courts

Posted by: bennie1 | June 9, 2009 4:24 PM

"But so far, on most of Sotomayor's cases, she has shown an obvious bias to make racial bias a factor in deciding law."

Er, no. She has rejected discrimination claims most times.

Regarding the Supreme Court, that just demonstrates that:

A) She's relatively liberal, hence, a conservative court overturns her.
B) The Supreme Court overturns 75% of the rulings it chooses to examine (which makes sense; if you're not likely to change it, why bother?).

The current schedule is plenty of time (not like the senators haven't generally made up their minds already; for the opposition, really, the only thing to gauge is the political pros and cons of voting for vs against).

Posted by: SeanC1 | June 9, 2009 4:24 PM

At first I thought the GOP was just being reactionary. At first.

At first, I though Sotomayor's comments were a one off thing, or maybe slight out of context.

But so far, on most of Sotomayor's cases, she has shown an obvious bias to make racial bias a factor in deciding law. She allows for racialism, when she deems its acceptable. opinion of race (what she thinks), and how much racialism to use is NOT LAW BUT OPINION.

A supreme court judge is not supposed to rule on their personal opinion but be racially blind and adhere the law to all, equally, and not make excuses.

Only this way will there ever be equality, for all! Not have a selected group be "more equal" than others.

Posted by: jabberwolff | June 9, 2009 3:41 PM

daler1:

She is "more experienced" at getting overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, if that's what you're asking.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 3:19 PM

JakeD: "Sotomayor simply has more written decisions she has issued than Roberts had to review"

So she IS more experienced than Chief Justice Roberts! I never thought you would admit it.

Posted by: daler1 | June 9, 2009 3:01 PM

bedazzled (apparently so much so as to not even see what's right in front of your face):

There's no requirement for a speedy confirmation, so "according to the law" the Senate could just as easily BORK her. BTW: the 4th of July is not a "Christian" holiday, so I take it you are indeed a Democrat?

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:46 PM

The GOP had already made up their minds to vote "NO' before they knew who the nominee would be. They are the party of no and they got us in this mess that Obama inherited. The problem the GOP has is that they know she has voted both ways and according to the law and she will be confirmed so they will have to pretend with drama.

Posted by: bedazzled | June 9, 2009 2:41 PM

Someone made a comment that Democrats did not celebrate the 4th of July and I had to respond to that nonsense. Democrats are just as Christianly as Republicans and that was bold face lie. Of course if you believe everything that Fox TV says then don't if that was one of their lies.

Posted by: bedazzled | June 9, 2009 2:31 PM

More decisions as a judge should make it easier, not harder, to determine whether Judge Sotomayor is qualified to serve on the Court. For judges with far shorter records, such as Justice Roberts, the Senate needed to delve into the more uncertain territory as off-the-bench readiness.

There's been plenty of time to review Judge Sotomayor's opinions already. Why would greater time be needed?

Posted by: Sonyask | June 9, 2009 2:30 PM

Judge Sotomayor seems like such a wonderful nominee, having greater judicial experience than any sitting justice, having served as a crime-fighting prosecutor for years, summa cum laude at Princeton and a distinguished Yale Law graduate. How pitiful (and narrow minded) of some to question her intellectual capacity for the job. She seems a rather thoughtful individual.

Posted by: Sonyask | June 9, 2009 2:25 PM

FedUp389:

In addition to all that, Sotomayor simply has more written decisions she has issued than Roberts had to review -- I don't think that the 48 days for Roberts took place over the beginning of summer either -- I would like to compare how many WORK days there were.

Posted by: JakeD | June 9, 2009 2:19 PM

Judge Sonia Sotomayor

“A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”.

My opinion:

What if she were African-American and had said:

“A wise Afro-American woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”?

Sotomayor’s words are a real life experience that came from her heart as a Latina woman and I am sure that at one point in her life and her parents’ life suffered discrimination as did the African-Americans for over two hundred years. Both Latina and Afro-American women have been discriminated against in the U.S. and they would both be correct in asserting their feelings of certain anger in this respect. That a judge should say this is a matter of concern that she will have to respond to in a way that is convincing that she would not, as a Supreme Court Justice act out on her past life experience even if she is correct in her comments. It seems like some prejudiced politicians are trying to prejudge Sotomayor before giving her a chance to explain her comments. I call this action “21st Century Subliminal Racism” (Hidden racism) practiced by some politicians who belong to a political party that shares their views. This is how many U.S. politicians cover their feelings of racism. These politicians will use “subliminal racism” by saying: “Oh, I voted against her, not because I am a racist, it’s because she is not qualified!” This “new” type of racism is very dangerous for minorities in the U.S.A. because many politicians could get away with it when it comes to racism. Being a good judge has to do with applying justice in a fair way to all, be it white, Afro-American, Latino, Arab, no matter their cultural background.

Sotomayor is an intelligent woman and I am sure that she will clear all doubts regarding her past comments. I favor her nomination because I believe that true justice will be done in her case and that prejudice based on ethnicity be eliminated forever from the U.S.A.

When I moved to the U.S. from Puerto Rico in 1949, my family suffered discrimination for many years and to cover it up I just worked as hard as I could and got a good education, worked hard and made many friends there. My enemies became my best friends and that is a fact. My mother taught me, not to ever hate anyone, and I never did. And that is the most precious gift she gave me in my life and I thank her for that.

God Bless America!

Ricardo Colón-Avilés
Rio Grande, Puerto Rico

Posted by: ricardocoav | June 9, 2009 1:57 PM

Hearings beginning July 13th and confirmation before the August 7th scheduled summe recess should give the new Supreme Court Justice about the same 2 months (August 7-October 5) to get ready for her new job as newly elected senators have (November-January)to get ready for theirs. Seems fair.

Posted by: jmsbh | June 9, 2009 1:47 PM

robtay12003: I'm a Democrat and I celebrate July 4th as a proud American, just every other Democrat I know. Try meeting a few.

Oh, and "climate of fear that has gripped this nation"? Oh, yes, tell me about all the liberals who say that conservatives are traitors, should be strung up, or beaten over the head with baseball bats, or drowned in floods, etc., etc. You can't find 'em. It's the nation's CONSERVATIVE multi-million-copy best-selling authors who've spent the past decade saying those things about LIBERALS. Look over your bookshelf: see what Ann Coulter and Michael Savage and Hannity and Limbaugh and Beck have been saying about people who dare to disagree with them.

Please. It's always Red Dawn in some folks' imaginations.

Posted by: bcamarda2 | June 9, 2009 1:28 PM

Fast coming date? If the senators and their staff on the Judiciary Committee were/are unable to review three hundred cases from the time her nomination was announced to the start of the hearings, perhaps they are unfit for office. Also, although Justice Roberts may not have been controversial for republican neo-cons, he certainly was and continues to be for many.

Posted by: l_in_nm | June 9, 2009 1:26 PM

Why do the GOP supporters continue to attack Democrats as being somehow less patriotic than they are? Keep mouthing off, keep calling us names, keep up your blatant partisan attacks and you won't ever win another election. Do you not realize the American people are sick and tired of that mean spirited game playing? It's time we come to together as Americans and stop this foolish bickering.

Posted by: genebrake | June 9, 2009 1:21 PM

(Snicker)

See the level of neocon reasoning here, the average Rush listener?

Heard on the news this morning Kim threatened an OFFENSIVE nuclear attack, the kook now thinking he has the military capability of the US, or the intelligence of Britain.

Kook and his generals have no scope, no brains, none at all.

Lot like Rush and his group.

No wonder no one took this country seriously under the newt-neocon zeitgeist.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | June 9, 2009 1:14 PM

robtay12003, this woman confirmation is more fearful for the majority of this country than anything else. So, I think, it would play during her confirmation hearings.

Posted by: aepelbaum | June 9, 2009 1:13 PM

I do not think that this fast coming date would bring another victory for Obama. I think that it would be a defeat, or the beginning of his fast coming major defeat. Pitiful, why does he need to pull this obvious reverse racist into Supreme Court? Now we should expect just another wave of White supremacy, as Hillary Clinton was promoting. Obama is using her (Mrs. Clinton) as a tutor. It is very lightheaded of him, no matter which reasons he had to start it. Remember how she was organizing fights bewteen men and women, Black and White, etc., etc. to promote herself. Obama started to utilize the same technique. But he started to fight the hugest part of this country population. It won't work for him. I think that is the beginning of his major defeat.

Posted by: aepelbaum | June 9, 2009 1:10 PM

Since Democrats do not celebrate July 4th anyway, perhaps the hearings should be moved up. Republicans are too cowardly to ask tough questions anyway, with the climate of fear that has gripped this nation. There's no need for republicans to show up at all, so let the Democrats stroke her and blow kisses at her, along with the media.

Posted by: robtay12003 | June 9, 2009 1:05 PM

Bork her! She was pushed by Schumer to Moynihan and the arrangement between D'Amato and Moynihan gave Moynihan the nomination nod to Bush Sr. It's not like Bush Sr sought her out as the dopes on the left want to make it seem. Bork her and do a Ted Kennedy on her! Gove the dumz a tatse of their own vile puke!

Posted by: vgailitis | June 9, 2009 1:03 PM

Those who deal in sound bites don't deal in fact.

If they're not dealing in fact, I don't give them a second thought. Too stupid for me.

I don't really understand who they are pandering to, in the end, after all of this time, you'd think they would have learned something.

Either way, they're losing, but they're too stupid to understand why -- sad day for the Republican party.

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | June 9, 2009 1:03 PM

RealTexan1,

If she were as biased as you claim, she would not have been confirmed by the Senate to any of her other federal positions--first nominated by President George H. W. Bush and then by President Clinton. Republican Senators held up her confirmation by Clinton by almost a year because they considered her a potential appointee for SCOTUS.

Posted by: gwh2phjames | June 9, 2009 1:01 PM

That Justice Roberts' hearings were scheduled 48 days after his nomination has absolutely nothing to do with the hearings for Ms. Sotomayor.

Justice Roberts was then and is now a far less controversial individual.

Scheduling these hearing just before the August recess smacks of the "weekend surprises" favored by this administration when releasing controversial information.

Senator Leahy, you can wait until September and do the job right.

I assume Mr. Obama will still be Prresident.

(There may be no country left but he will still be President)

Posted by: FedUp389 | June 9, 2009 12:57 PM

This nominee is too biased and not otherwise cerebral enough to sit on the High Court (or any court).

I think it is time the President called a conference and announced that he was withdrawing this nomination. The President owes it to the American people to place a judge that will honor the Constitution and who possesses great wisdom.

President Obama's nominee fits neither.

Posted by: RealTexan1 | June 9, 2009 12:47 PM

This is wonderful news. Senator Leahy is entirely justified. A disciplined and appropriate Republican response to this nomination, in keeping with past nominations, might have made the scheduling less vital. But I agree that leaving a nominee out there unable to defend herself against vulgar, caricatured comments based on isolated soundbites is disgraceful. For the Republicans to have deliberately gone down this road after Senator Sessions's own personal experience of being falsely (as he sees it) labeled as a racist in his own past hearings as a judicial nominee is particularly stunning.

Every time I hear Newt Gingrich opine (or read his "tweets"), I remember his view that the Democratic party was somehow, in his imagination, morally responsible for the South Carolina mother who murdered her two toddlers by sinking them in a car in a lake, then blaming an imaginary black carjacker. The man is a demagogue and a thug, yet his views are so respected that he was the featured speaker this week at a major Republican fundraiser in DC. You can't separate extreme from mainstream voices within the Republican Party anymore. For the moment, they are all the same.

I hope the party can redeem itself somewhat in the hearings with tough but respectful questioning that avoids Gingrich style hate. I hope it can follow what the Democrats did for Roberts by marshalling a considerable number of votes for and against, according to members' actual opinions. (As an aside, comparing the whole Republican Senate membership to Senator Obama back then is comparing apples and oranges -- the correct comparison is the entire Republican vote now vs the entire Democratic vote (which split 50-50) back then.) I hope. But I don't really know what to expect.

Posted by: fairfaxvoter | June 9, 2009 12:47 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company