Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Morning Fix: Five Senators to Watch on Sotomayor



Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing begins today. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

The confirmation hearings for judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court begin today at 10 a.m. and, although the drama has largely been drained from the question of whether she will be confirmed (barring some disaster she will be on the Court), there is still considerable drama in the proceedings.

Why?

Because every senator in the room -- and there will be 19 of them -- knows that cable news will provide gavel to gavel coverage of the proceedings, the nightly newscasts will lead their broadcasts with the questioning all week and, lest we forgot them, the ink stained wretches of the print world and blogosphere will be all over the hearings as well.

While all 19 members of the Judiciary Committee will be on stage, there are a few key players to keep an eye on as the week progresses: some as they set the tone of questioning and others as they try to take advantage of -- with vary degrees of success -- the spotlight the hearings offer.

Here are our five senators on the Judiciary Committee to watch. (Listed in alphabetical order).

Al Franken: The newest member of the Senate -- he was sworn in six days ago -- he might also be its most famous. And that means that whenever Franken speaks, his new colleagues (Democrats and Republicans) will be paying close attention. Franken is on a mission to prove to everyone that he can be a serious contributor in the Senate and now is as good a time as any to prove that. (Worth noting: Franken has the least seniority among Democrats on the panel so his opportunities to speak are likely to be somewhat few and far between.)

Lindsey Graham: The South Carolina Republican is seen as one of his party's best debaters and most able communicators. But, early indications are that he will not be the Republican who takes it upon himself to try and eviscerate Sotomayor during his allotted questioning period. Graham said late last week that "I honestly think I could vote for her" -- a statement that was touted far and wide by Democrats to counter criticism of Sotomayor. Graham could be the linchpin vote for other wavering Republicans when Sotomayor comes up for a vote of the full Senate. If he backs her out of Judiciary, expect to see a number of Republicans -- particularly those in Democratic-leaning states -- follow his lead.

Jeff Sessions: The ranking Republican on the committee, Sessions will have to decide whether he is the one to carry the partisan football for his party or whether he can take a more statesmanlike approach to the case against Sotomayor. In conversations with Democratic and Republican strategists following the hearings closely, several mentioned that Sessions's "tone" matters. Is he combative or conciliatory? The path he takes could help determine how his less senior GOP colleagues act.

Arlen Specter: Specter, the Pennsylvania now-Democrat, has been at the center of confirmation wars before. He was a critical -- perhaps the critical -- "no" vote on the Judiciary Committee that doomed Robert Bork's confirmation in 1987, and fashions himself as a major player in confirmation politics. The problem for Specter is that since his party switch in late April, he has been relegated to the second most junior slot of the Democratic side of the committee. How does Specter deal with that demotion? And, given that Specter is almost certain to face a primary challenge from his ideological left from Rep. Joe Sestak, is there any way he can be tough (at all) in his questioning of Sotomayor?

Sheldon Whitehouse: The Rhode Island Democrat is widely regarded by his colleagues as a rapidly rising star within the caucus. The Sotomayor confirmation hearings could well be his coming-out party as Whitehouse's résumé -- a former U.S. attorney, state attorney general and practicing attorney -- sets him up perfectly to stand out: . Whitehouse, although only elected in 2006, is in the middle of pack in Democratic seniority -- meaning that there will still be a significant spotlight on him when his turn for questions comes around.

Monday's Fix Picks: The winner of the Fix's political scandal poll? John Ensign! Congrats, er, condolences. (Side note: How the heck could Mark Sanford come in third? He left the state -- and the country -- for FIVE days. He called his mistress his "soul mate." Come on people!)

1. Dan Balz on Obama's difficult path on health care reform.
2. David Broder on same.
3. Adam Nagourney on political comebacks.
4. Sarah's staying!
5. David Cameron's quest to save Britain's Conservatives.

White House To Release Jobs Report: The White House Council of Economic Advisers is set to release a report titled "Preparing the Workers of Today for the Jobs of Tomorrow" -- an analysis of the changing labor market in the United States and containing suggestions of the skills and specific educational requirements necessary to prosper in the American workforce in the coming years. The skinny? The health care industry and environmental-related sector are going to be the fast-growers, according to the report. Christina Romer, the president of the Council, will participate in a live chat via Facebook and Whitehouse.gov this afternoon, according to a press release announcing the event obtained by the Fix.

Kirk To Get His Wish: Seventy-two hours after informing several Republican strategists that he was not running for the Senate in Illinois due to concerns of a primary challenge, Rep. Mark Kirk looks almost certain to get a clear field after all. Illinois Republican Party chairman Andy McKenna is nearly certain to bow out in favor of Kirk today, according to numerous conversations with strategists close to the process. Kirk had made clear that he would not run if McKenna also ran. While national Republicans will now likely get their wish -- as Kirk is clearly their strongest potential general election candidate -- his off-again, on-again decision about the race suggests an ambivalence that should be worrisome to Republican recruiters. A Kirk candidacy would give Republicans a real shot at winning the seat being vacated by appointed Sen. Roland Burris (D). On the Democratic side, state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias is the only announced candidate. Merchandise Mart CEO Chris Kennedy is reportedly interested but the fact he isn't in the race yet suggests he may not get in.

A Fix Explainer: Close readers of this blog will note that on Friday we reported that Kirk had decided against a run for the Senate. In retrospect, that report was premature. While Kirk did inform several operatives in Washington on Friday that he had decided not to run, in the course of those conversations he was apparently convinced to change his mind -- which anyone, even a politician, has the right to do. As soon as it became clear Kirk was reconsidering we updated our post to make sure it accurately reflected the state of play. The Fix regrets misleading -- even for a moment -- our loyal readers.

Obama to Huddle with Labor Bigs: President Obama will sit down this afternoon with members of the National Labor Coordinating Committee, a coalition group that includes the heads of the AFL-CIO, Change to Win and the National Education Association. Organized labor is keen on a re-introduction of the Employee Free Choice Act, which, with Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) now a Democrat, could have a chance at passage. Meanwhile, the Workforce Fairness Institute, a conservative organization, is launching a Web site today designed to highlight dissension within the union ranks. For labor and business, EFCA is the be-all, end-all legislative fight. Watch to see if and when Democrats bring the bill back -- do they wait until after the health care debate? -- and whether any conservative Democrats offer their support for the bill.

Say What?: "Everybody assumed that I had the 1,000-page plan in my purse as I traveled through the Senate for my pre-confirmation hearings." -- Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who apparently has a very big purse, to CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

By Chris Cillizza  |  July 13, 2009; 5:35 AM ET
Categories:  Morning Fix  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Fix Weekend Poll: The Worst Political Sex Scandal?
Next: The Most Important Number in Politics Today

Comments

markmwhite essentially argues that the way he sees the world is obviously true and needs no proof, and if other people were honest they would see the world the same way.

That approach sure takes the work out of thinking, doesn't it?

Posted by: nodebris | July 14, 2009 9:57 AM | Report abuse

Sotomayor's bias is transparent in her writing, it needs no further revelation from me. further, my claim was never that all of her rulings were biased, just that they are regularly overturned on appeal. her record of reversals on appeal is public and already well documented in mainstream reporting which i won't repeat here (sorry, sort of), i needn't spend my time doing your research. believe what you like based upon what you already know, or research some on your own. you will either confirm your current understanding or, with an open mind, perhaps amend your views.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 14, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

markmwhite wrote: "it is easy to avoid the inconvenient issues, and also cowardly"

Like the request for an actual citation?

All lecture: no facts. Cute.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 11:26 PM | Report abuse

markmwhite: the request for citation isn't a dodge, it's genuine. The criticisms of Sotomayor don't come much at all from honest legal scholars writing in good faith, they come from right-wingers to whom good faith isn't even a passing consideration, the only consideration being to obstruct and impede and deny, to accept electoral defeat with childish petulance and to do everything to slow down the Democrats.

I doubt seriously you can document Sotomayor's "bias" without posting out of some dedicate right-wing organ.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 13, 2009 8:44 PM | Report abuse

"Please provide some citations of other cases where she has shown racial bias."

any decent commentator on the subject is familiar with her record of reversals of her circuit court decisions. I never said they all were race based, just wrong. feigning ignorance and asking for specifics is hardly a defense when the information is so readily available and thoroughly commented on, even in the MSM. if we were talking about some obscure topic that has had little scrutiny it would be incumbent upon me to educate you. Feeble stall tactic to avoid the issue. Next...

"bring me someone color blind. I trust you will recognise them when you see them. And while you are out there, bring me someone who doesn't use their own life experiences to form their opinions, cause I would like to meet that nitwit."

Life experiences, sure fine, agreed. opinions based upon facts and after applying the relevant law and precedents sure - that belongs in the jduiciary, but not merely opinions based upon life experience. And how do physiological differences play any role? And she isn't advocating simply using her life experiences, she is saying that because of her physical and cultural differences her judgment is superior to a white male.

it is easy to avoid the inconvenient issues, and also cowardly. I would have more respect for sotomayors supporters if they accept what she says and what her rulings were on their face and simply reply - too bad we have the votes to put Ronald McDonald on the SCOTUS if we want and you can't stop us. alas, such honesty may never be found in the arena of public debate again.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

"Please provide some citations of other cases where she has shown racial bias."

any decent commentator on the subject is familiar with her record of reversals of her circuit court decisions. I never said they all were race based, just wrong. feigning ignorance and asking for specifics is hardly a defense when the information is so readily available and thoroughly commented on, even in the MSM. if we were talking about some obscure topic that has had little scrutiny it would be incumbent upon me to educate you. Feeble stall tactic to avoid the issue. Next...

"bring me someone color blind. I trust you will recognise them when you see them. And while you are out there, bring me someone who doesn't use their own life experiences to form their opinions, cause I would like to meet that nitwit."

Life experiences, sure fine, agreed. opinions based upon facts and after applying the relevant law and precedents sure - that belongs in the jduiciary, but not merely opinions based upon life experience. And how do physiological differences play any role? And she isn't advocating simply using her life experiences, she is saying that because of her physical and cultural differences her judgment is superior to a white male.

it is easy to avoid the inconvenient issues, and also cowardly. I would have more respect for sotomayors supporters if they accept what she says and what her rulings were on their face and simply reply - too bad we have the votes to put Ronald McDonald on the SCOTUS if we want and you can't stop us. alas, such honesty may never be found in the arena of public debate again.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 7:32 PM | Report abuse

I listened to it on C-SPAN. Can't say as I can remember any of it, other than commenting on it being his first week and meeting Sotomayor. So, I suspect meh is about the tone Franken wanted to set.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 13, 2009 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Franken's opening statement:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/documents/franken_openingstatement_sotomayor.html

Meh.

==

Sounded just fine to me. What's mehesque about it?

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 13, 2009 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"All this talk of Republicans treading a fine line .. please. When have these guys shown any finesse or nuance? They're not going to carry on a dignified and respectful questioning because that would enrage their remaining supporters. "

I haven't read all the statements; the summaries I've read have said that Sessions was most confrontational, while Hatch & Graham were cautiously critical yet civil; which is really no surprise.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 4:37 PM | Report abuse

All this talk of Republicans treading a fine line .. please. When have these guys shown any finesse or nuance? They're not going to carry on a dignified and respectful questioning because that would enrage their remaining supporters. They'll go for the dog-whistle racism only they'll do such a ham-handed job of it that people with ordinary racial hearing will catch on.

From 33% Latino support in November to 8% now. Way to go, cretins, way to go. Why don't you hand out Swisher Sweets to all your supporters while you're at it.

Posted by: chrisfox8 | July 13, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Diogenes M White, here is your lantern: bring me someone color blind. I trust you will recognise them when you see them. And while you are out there, bring me someone who doesn't use their own life experiences to form their opinions, cause I would like to meet that nitwit.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 13, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Project much, zuke?

Posted by: mattintx | July 13, 2009 3:12 PM | Report abuse

@Zouk - It would seem that you prefer to engage in the back and forth name calling. Otherwise, why the attempt to draw in CF8. My conclusion is that you are trying to start a threadbombing. So many back and forth posts amongst you, drindl, and chrisfox8 that everyone else gives up.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 13, 2009 3:11 PM | Report abuse

"this nominee's judicial experience reminds me of biden's foreign policy experience, they both have a long history of being consistently wrong"

If she has a "long history of being consistently wrong," how come the only case you cite is one that was just overturned weeks ago? Please provide some citations of other cases where she has shown racial bias.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 2:57 PM | Report abuse

we should all be color-blind, especially the judiciary. we can all judge for ourselves whether sotomayor is or not. based upon ricci, i tend to think not - or if not color blind then at least logically and morally cowardly.

physical and heritage differences should never be a relevant topic when deciding lifetime SCOTUS appointments.

this nominee's judicial experience reminds me of biden's foreign policy experience, they both have a long history of being consistently wrong.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Zouk is making it painfully obvious that he has zero integrity, isn't he?

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

"the conclusion remains.

1. drivl cuts and pastes
OR
2. drivl posts hate and insults

Still no evidence to the contrary."

-------

There were other posts in the thread ersponding to your request, including the one below. Nodebris posted a drindl quote that was (as per your request) not a cut and paste from anywhere, and not an insult. It actually fulfills all the parameters as stated by you, to be paid $1,000.

If your word meant anything, you would pay out.


========================================
zouk, pay up:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


'Soyomayor maybe experience and Knowledgeable, but she has made rulings that were wrong and people were hurt by it''

Please provide proof-- facts, details.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse
========================================

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 2:39 PM | Report abuse

wow, you moonbats need to get a life.

and since the post was obviuosly "cut and pasted" what are you trying to say?

the conclusion remains.

1. drivl cuts and pastes
OR
2. drivl posts hate and insults

Still no evidence to the contrary.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Detractors of Sonia Sotomayor know that no matter if Judge Sotomayor would not have made the Latina vis-a-vis White male comment (something viewed as 'racist' when she was making an observation of fact) there would be anti-Latina/o voices against her anyway based merely on her heritage/ethnicity. For some reason, the majority in power (Whites) continue believing in the stereotypical images they have of Latinas/os as they are portrayed in mainstream television and film. The reality is, the vast majority of Latinas/os in this country are not illegal immigrants (by the way, how about the millions of other 'illegals' from Canada, Australia, Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East who don't receive media attention or interest from Homeland (In)Security?), are not drug-traffickers, are not gang-bangers, do have have babies out of wedlock, and are not on welfare. Do the quantitative/statistical research if you believe otherwise. You believe what you wish to believe to refrain from having to think critically and because it is easier for frustrated people to blame people of color for whatever personal problems "haters" are experiencing. History shows the so-called "dominant" culture always needs others, especially the least politically powerful, to push around to maintain elevated socio-political status. Judge Sotomayor is better qualified than most of the current Supreme Court justices, who because of race and privilege, were not targets of the same type of negative hype prior to pre-confirmation hearings that Ms. Sotomayor has encountered thus far.

Posted by: Calexico | July 13, 2009 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Since one of the more "useful idiots" of the far right - Lindsey Graham - can see his way to voting for Sotomayor, my guess is she's a shoe-in.

Posted by: jhbyer | July 13, 2009 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"I offer a thousand dollar reward for anyone that can find a single post from drivl that is not of the form "insult, insult, insult" or "cut and paste from hate site".

I offer my apologies for the confusion. I was referring to the actual offer that you made, which is quoted above. You didn't offer a hypothetical thousand dollars to someone who could find a drindl post of "merit and substance." The terms of your offer were quite clear:

1. Must not be of the format "insult, insult, insult."

2. Must not be "cut and paste from hate site."

That's it. Now, I'm not one to use the actions of one to generalize an entire group of people, but I will say that There may be conservatives out there whose word is good for something, but that you, K_o_Z, are not one of them.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

First: I believe the Ricci case decision from the Supreme Court was the right decision, because the test was vetted by all races involved. However, Sotomayer’s decision was based on precedence and the existing laws. If you don’t like a law, change it which apparently the Conservative Court has initiated. As far as her confirmation goes, The Republicans have little evidence to disqualify her other than a few statements made outside of her judicial record which proves she is not and never has been an activist liberal judge. The Republicans have made it clear that they are against any and every proposition made by either President Obama or the Democratic controlled Senate and Congressional law makers. Even the Conservative Wall Street Journal published an article today stating that the Republicans want to have only 20 no votes as a sign of dissention, but any more votes might alienate the Hispanic population. This is another case of the Republican political strategy to be the party of no and attempt to regain some seats in the next election.

Posted by: dncevans | July 13, 2009 2:23 PM | Report abuse

For the interested, the link, again, to the 'wise latina' speech:

http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/05/26_sotomayor.shtml

The summary of the article says:
"She spoke at a UC Berkeley School of Law symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation." "

Which is to say that she was asked to speak about the impact of race and culture on the judiciary. Regarding physiology, which contextually seems to be as much about gender as 'race,' she says "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."

She goes on to discuss that individuals, whether judges or not, approach life from the perspective of their own lives, but that individuals who make an effort can step out of their own biases in order to understand those who's backgrounds and experiences differ.

In her conclusion, she discusses the importance of ensuring that presonal experiences in the form of biases and preconceived notions do not get in the way of seeing justice served, which is exactly what judges are supposed to do:

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 2:16 PM | Report abuse

markmwhite, I went back and looked for that paragraph about physiological differences:

"Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

She uses a lot more flourishes than I will, but mostly what she says is mild as milk:
Judge Cedarbaum says we on the bench should be very careful that our gender and racial differences don’t influence our decisions. I’m a little less worried about this than she is because I think maybe these inherent physiological differences (male or female, young or old) and cultural differences (black/hispanic/white/towny/country boy/etc) work for us , and any rate I’m not sure we can totally get rid of the influence of where we come from and what we have experienced. There isn’t just one way to be wise, and I hope that my life has prepared me to take into consideration things that another judge might not.

I also sign my own name.


Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 13, 2009 2:11 PM | Report abuse

But I just wanted to point out that your post said nothing of "merit and substance," these are factors that you added after your initial challenege was rapidly completed.

Posted by: VTDuffman
>>>>>>>>>>>>

Original post:

drivl, if you ever said anything of substance or merit I think the world would stop.

I offer a thousand dollar reward for anyone that can find a single post from drivl that is not of the form "insult, insult, insult" or "cut and paste from hate site".

the raving lunatic can not change its spots.
so far today, not a single instance.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 12:06 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

nope, nothing about merit and substance there.

Now Libs are steamed that I included a phrase that was not explicetly used in the offer, even though it was.

notice the actual point that there is nothing that drivl offers is till in place. Now there are other Libs with plenty NOT to offer.

yet they feel free to change global warming when it is turned into cooling, war on terror, baby killing, taxing, cheating, tax avoidance, etc.
Maybe a new Czar could deal with this. As far as I know, none have been appointed yet this week. but it is only Monday.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 2:06 PM | Report abuse

"It shouldn't be a challenge to find a transcript of Sotomayor's speech online. I did and read it. It isn't long. You should be able to find it, read it, and respond by the time i get back from lunch. It is surprising that people who are commenting (either way) on Sotomayor's speech and the racial implications haven't actually read the speech."

---

I've read it, there was nothing about physiological differences in it. You're the one who made the statement, it's your job to provide corroborating evidence to support said statement. If it's "not hard," why didn't you do it? It's not my job to do yoru homework for you.

*Sigh* That's what I get for having faith, posting unsubtantiated nonsense and then running away when called on it...Oh Well...

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 2:01 PM | Report abuse

It shouldn't be a challenge to find a transcript of Sotomayor's speech online. I did and read it. It isn't long. You should be able to find it, read it, and respond by the time i get back from lunch. It is surprising that people who are commenting (either way) on Sotomayor's speech and the racial implications haven't actually read the speech.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

It shouldn't be a challenge to find a transcript of Sotomayor's speech online. I did and read it. It isn't long. You should be able to find it, read it, and respond by the time i get back from lunch. It is surprising that people who are commenting (either way) on Sotomayor's speech and the racial implications haven't actually read the speech.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Having shot the fish zouk in his barrel, I leave the wounded carcass to swim around chomping on its own offal.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 1:58 PM | Report abuse

These hearings as always are a joke - mere grandstanding for the voters. This is where Chris has missed the boat on this one.

The Republicans are merely creating an image of an out of control judge - the goal is to taint all of Obama's judicial nominations so it becomes the defining issue in 2010 - the question is not to watch 5 Senators on the committee - it is a done deal - there is nothing to watch.

WHO WILL BE THE 5 DEMOCRATIC SENATORS VOTED OUT OF OFFICE BECAUSE OF SOTOMAYOR?

That is the question. The Repubs, and rightfully so, will post all over the place Sotomayor's comments on policy making and a Latina being better qualified to make a decision in key states wherein they think they can win in 2010.

The message will be clear - The Republicans need to be able to stop Obama's nominees so vote Republican for US Senate.

Obama and Sotomayor threw these 5 Senators who will loose under the bus. Obama also committed political suicide because after 2010 he will become a lame duck president unable to get anything done.

History will record Sotomayor as the biggest political miss step of any president since Nixon ordered Watergate covered-up

This is straight up and down political analysis indepedent of one's personal views of Sotomayor

Bobby Wightman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | July 13, 2009 1:57 PM | Report abuse

"so according to this dufus, this constitutes merit and substance."

---

Ugh. I'm not a fan of replying to you b/c all it does is give you more of that sweet, sweet attention that you crave so desperately...

But I just wanted to point out that your post said nothing of "merit and substance," these are factors that you added after your initial challenege was rapidly completed.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 1:48 PM | Report abuse

BB - would I engage with a couple of morons? about what? between drivl and nodebris, there isn't a half wit in collusion.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 1:47 PM | Report abuse

"do you have any defense of Sotomayor's physiological differences assertion or do you simply agree with it?"

Alright, I'll give you a shot, let's hope you don't dissappoint like your cohorts.

I argue that she made no such "physiological" reference and that you are misinformed. Please link me the transcript of the speech you cite and we can go from there.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 1:46 PM | Report abuse

drivl, if you ever said anything of substance or merit I think the world would stop.

>>>>>>>>>>>

zouk, pay up:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


'Soyomayor maybe experience and Knowledgeable, but she has made rulings that were wrong and people were hurt by it''

Please provide proof-- facts, details.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: nodebris


so according to this dufus, this constitutes merit and substance. I guess if you are that much of a dimwit, then any words strung together could be considered merit and substance.

not in my book. Try again.
besides the fact that this was cut and pasted from a hate site.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

The Fix doesn't think senator Kohl will drop the bomb on Sotomayor;)

Posted by: caribis | July 13, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Note that dbw stopped posting as soon as he/she was called on to provided a substantive response. **bow**

Sadly, Zouk just ignores any attempt to engage and returns to schoolyard bullying.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 13, 2009 1:39 PM | Report abuse

hey drindl and all the other democrat lapdogs posting here,

do you have any defense of Sotomayor's physiological differences assertion or do you simply agree with it?

I use my own name when posting, no hiding required.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 1:35 PM | Report abuse

>>Ricci never relied on the government to intervene.. he relied on the courts to get justice.

...Just wow. Sometimes I wonder about the future of this country with statements like that.

Pro-tip: The judicial system is part of the government of the US. So when you go to the court system to intervene in employment affairs you are asking for the government to do so. Just a different branch than the legislative or executive.

That's not to say that at times there is not justification that warrants intervention, but to say it's not the government is ironically completely idiotic. Good job there. Gold Star.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 13, 2009 1:21 PM | Report abuse

What, zouk, no mention of the $1k you owe bsimon1 and me (and now mnteng as well)? Looks like your exhibiting that typical conservative skill of seeing only what you want to see.

Or is your word is as worthless as your posts?

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 1:20 PM | Report abuse

When Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says she is carrying around the 1,000 page bill in her purse, she is demonstrating the possibilities of the new electronic medical records system, that is, she has the bill on her Kindle.

Chris, doing a great job. Any news on the Corzine/Christie race? Go Hoyas!

Posted by: duanelaw1 | July 13, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Re: Kirk--

No one could seriously blame you. People change their minds, though not always for the right reasons.

His ambivalence means trouble from the get-go. Suggest you title your follow-up article on this subject 'Kirk, the Reluctant Candidate'.

Also, it's diva-tactics to insist he wouldn't run if McKenna stayed in the race. If he wants it enough, no amount of competition should stop him. Look at Joe Sestak in PA!

Re: Sotomayor--

Your 'Important Number' is SO troubling. This is a LIFETIME appointment we're talking about. Imagine if Harriet Miers (sp.???) had succeeded in getting a 'Justice' in front of her name! I wish I could make Americans see how much of their own lives are affected [note to CC: Affected, NOT Effected! ;-)] by the decisions SCOTUS make.

A President who's an idiot, one can outwait; a Supreme Court Justice is for life.

Sen. Sessions will be particularly interesting to view b/c of his history of racial bias (which, of course, defeated his own potential nomination to SCOTUS).

On the other hand, he was on one of the Sunday shows and, as they say, 'butter wouldn't melt'. Perhaps he's decided to keep his powder dry for the next nominee? As we all know, he can be a mean hombre (sorry, Sen. Sessions--I meant 'bubba') when riled, and with enough margin of safety behind him.

Re: Ensign/Sanford--

Finally, Chris, it's seldom I disagree with you, but I take strong exception to your, 'How the heck could Mark Sanford come in third? He left the state -- and the country -- for FIVE days. He called his mistress his "soul mate." Come on people!'

Is this the sort of unrelenting cynicism we should expect from a journalist as deeply in love with his own wife as you apparently are??? It's true that most politicians are too narcissistic to fall in love with anyone other than 'the man in the mirror', but it DOES happen (though rarely).

Perhaps I'm a hopeless romantic, but the fact that Gov. Sanford is--purportedly, at least--in love is a mitigating circumstance to me. And do stop referring to the Argentinian woman as Sanford's 'mistress', won't you? There is NO evidence that she was being kept by Sanford, or benefitted in any monetary way. They were merely having an extramarital affair that got out of control.

If Sanford deserves any political criticism, it's for his disappearing act, his use of a political business trip to detour to Argentina, and for not appointing a surrogate in the event there were a disaster which befell his state in his absence. On THOSE grounds (and those alone), I agree completely.

Which brings us to Ensign, who richly deserved to 'win' the poll because of the calculated and cold-blooded way in which he paid off a woman who had, apparently, been nothing more to him than a willing recepticle for his lust. The plot sickens!

Posted by: sverigegrabb | July 13, 2009 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Might as well get in on the free $1K action.

@KOZ:
"I'm still waiting for documentation and factual support for the attacks on Sotomayor, her rulings, and her membership in LaRaza. Please provide d etails on the 'racist' activities of LaRaza. Please provide Consitutional cites of provisions that she has violated.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:22 AM"

PayPal works for me too.

Posted by: mnteng | July 13, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

For those of us old enough to remember, Al Campanis was quoted as saying that blacks are inferior swimmers because of "inherent physiological differences" (lack of buoyancy). Jimmy the Greek Snyder said that blacks are superior athletes because during the generations of slavery they were bred to emphasize certain desirable "physiological differences." The were both fired, and appropriately so. Lawrence Summers was excoriated for merely suggesting that physiological differences between males and females was a legitimate area of study to explain gender performance differences in science.

If one reviews Sotomayor's paragraph which is the source of the now famous quote about "wise Latina women," you will notice that in the first sentence she states that among other things this superiority of Latina women could be attributable to "inherent physiological differences," - perhaps greater buoyancy or intentional breeding for judicial superiority? I would like one of our senators to ask which physiological differences leads to better judicial reasoning. We should then look for this in all of our nominees.

Also since the inflammatory remarks were part of a prepared speech (as part of a larger conference on the same topic) on the topic of Latina identity and its influence on the bench and the speech was later published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal (with time for revision/clarification as needed), it is not in any sense plausible that the remarks are taken out of context or an accidental error.

Posted by: markmwhite | July 13, 2009 1:10 PM | Report abuse

offer a thousand dollar reward for anyone that can find a single post from drivl that is not of the form "insult, insult, insult" or "cut and paste from hate site".

the raving lunatic can not change its spots.
so far today, not a single instance.

Posted by: king_of_zouk

armpeg is a good example of the whiny white racist republican base. and just for good measure, he throws in his simple-minded kindergarten-level of what passes in the sandbox as 'wordplay.'

Posted by: drivl | July 13, 2009 12:56 PM

for my next prediction:

chrissuxcox will enter and declare that "Evolution is not a theory"

then moonbat drivl will state plainly that Exxon is not entitled to a profit.

simply because no one will pay her for her work, she thinks that applies to everyone.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

SCOTUS CAN'T ACT SWIFTLY TO DISMANTLE THE EXTRAJUDICIAL POLICE STATE 'TORTURE MATRIX' SPAWNED OR EXPANDED BY BUSH-CHENEY.

BUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS CAN. AND MUST.

***

The "aware" call it "the program."

"The program" is a nationwide, federally-overseen multi-agency coordinated action...

...A SECRETIVE SECURITY / INTEL / MILITARY EXTRAJUDICIAL TARGETING AND PUNISHMENT 'TORTURE MATRIX' THAT IS DESTROYING THE LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS OF UNTOLD THOUSANDS OF UNJUSTLY 'TARGETED' AMERICANS.

This is an entrenched, GPS-activated high-tech American Gestapo fronted by federally-funded volunteer community police and town watch organizations. It makes a mockery of the rule of law at the grassroots -- literally holding Americans hostage in their own homes -- terrorizing, vandalizing, destroying lives, reputations and livelihoods.

This "torture matrix" also has WEAPONIZED the electromagnetic spectrum and the silent TORTURE of Americans via so-called "directed energy" microwave and laser radiation weapons. The victims have been deemed as "undesirables," "dissidents," or "social deviates" -- in other words, anyone that those in power seek to neutralize.

The mainstream media already has begun to buy into the cover-up.

The true story -- as reported by a longtime mainstream journalist and a victim of this Bush-era spawned- or expanded "torture matrix," can be found HERE:

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA: Govt't Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 13, 2009 1:00 PM | Report abuse

JakeD
"Deep down, you libs KNOW that Sarah is staying and would win if she decides to run against Barack."


One thing Gov Palin can beat Pres Obama at, hands down. Tearing the GOP apart:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-palin-gop13-2009jul13,0,2642211.story

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

armpeg is a good example of the whiny white racist republican base. and just for good measure, he throws in his simple-minded kindergarten-level of what passes in the sandbox as 'wordplay.'

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Sonia Sotomayor will be Souters replacement on the SC, despite the fact that she's a racist and has been a long time member and supporter of the racist hate-cult La Raza.
1- The Republicans can't stop her because the Democrap Socialists have the votes.
2- A lot of Republicans believe that they'll lose the rare Hispanic votes that they usually get in their states, so they'll go along with the Obama-racists to confirm her.
3- The Democrap Socialists don't care about racism or hate crimes if those are against white people, so her racist desision in the Firefighters test results and her remarks about Latinas being better judges than white men (which would disqualify any white person who would have said that about Hispanics in reverse) is pooh-poohed and ignored--i e no big deal.
4- The Democrap Socialists don't care about Sotomayors long time La Raza support and membership because this racist Nazi-like cult targets white people.

Sotomayor will be confirmed, and we'll have a racist on the US Supreme Court who will always vote along racist lines to create laws, or uphold laws that favor minorities, even when those desisions are against our Constitution.

Posted by: armpeg | July 13, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse

I suppose Five is a nice number for the purposes of your article, but surely Sen. Patrick Leahy is the key senator to watch. He is, after all, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and has played a crucial role is assuring that the hearings were not delayed as long as the Republicans wished.

Sen. Leahy may not be as famous or colorful as Al Franken, but I am sure that Franken would be the first to tell you that what Leahy says is FAR more important than anything Franken says, and that Leahy has had more impact on our judiciary and legal system than most members of the Senate.

By the way, another reason for Franken to speak carefully in these hearings is because he is not a lawyer. I'd be curious to know if he is the only non-lawyer on the committee.

Posted by: canzo | July 13, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

zouk, don't disappear before you make arrangements to pay me my $1k.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 12:35 PM | Report abuse

"KoZ is dumber than ever today."

It's because he's actually posting original content (i.e. his own posts). After reading some of them, I now understand why he generally sticks to the strategy of "Just copy and paste something that someone else wrote/said."

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse

"a decision that was overturned was "unconstitutional."

then why was it overturned? Because it was constitutional?"

There's just a bit of a difference between "unconstitutional" and "incorrect," clown.

But by all means keep talking like an ignorant rube. That will make it easier for people to ignore your posts.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 13, 2009 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Someone, somewhere gets hurt by just about every ruling a Judge makes. Judges have hard jobs -- the slam-dunks do not go to court; the close calls go to court. Their decisions get overturned sometimes, too. That is a measure of how close many cases are. KoZ is dumber than ever today.

You get justice in heaven. In court you get the law. (I didn't make that up -- someone else did.)

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 13, 2009 12:31 PM | Report abuse

zouk, pay up:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


'Soyomayor maybe experience and Knowledgeable, but she has made rulings that were wrong and people were hurt by it''

Please provide proof-- facts, details.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 12:20 PM | Report abuse

zouk, drindl's 12:05 post is from Talking Points Memo, which is clearly not a hate site.

I take paypal.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

drivl, if you ever said anything of substance or merit I think the world would stop.

I offer a thousand dollar reward for anyone that can find a single post from drivl that is not of the form "insult, insult, insult" or "cut and paste from hate site".

the raving lunatic can not change its spots.
so far today, not a single instance.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Senator Feingold takes on Republicans' use of the "judicial activism" epithet.

About time.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 12:06 PM | Report abuse

Senator Feingold takes on Republicans' use of the "judicial activism" epithet. Born as a label invoked by conservatives for decisions relating to social issues (primarily abortion), liberals increasingly are using the term for today's Court, which by some counts has been more willing than any Court in history to overturn as unconstitutional the actions of the people's representatives, both statutes enacted by Congress and state legislatures and acts of the Executive Branch and state and local officials.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Notice that zouk never even tries to have a serious conversation.

Nor do any rightwingers here -- all useless trolls.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

a decision that was overturned was "unconstitutional."

then why was it overturned? Because it was constitutional?

you moonbats don;t even speak english anymore. Global warming means cooling? an organization called "The Race" is not racist? A person who brags about being superior for racist reasons is not racist? Killing our enemies overseas is now known as .... I forgot, the definitions keep changing.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:57 AM | Report abuse

"Senator Schumer, echoing Senator Feinstein, harkens back to Chief Justice Robert's "umpire" analogy. After reciting a bunch of statistics showing that Judge Sotomayor voted in overwhelming percentages of cases against immigrants' claims, in favor of the government, and with colleagues appointed by Republican Presidents. Then turning to the Supreme Court's recent decisions, he asked rhetorically of Chief Justice Roberts "did he call balls and strikes or did he try to change the rules."

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"

ddawd writes, of Sen Franken
"There's a youtube video of him drawing a map of the US with all the state borders. It's all from memory and its a very good drawing even if it weren't."


I recall you've posted that before. So what? Sure its impressive, but doesn't tell me whether or not he will be an effective Senator.

Posted by: bsimon1"

I know, I know. It wasn't meant to be a serious post. I'm still just really impressed with this particular ability.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 13, 2009 11:47 AM | Report abuse

"does a surpeme court overturning of the ruling count? that is by definition "unconstitutional".."

Not that anyone needed proof that zouk is ignorant, but here is some. People who understand how the law works would never say that a decision that was overturned was "unconstitutional." That's something a dummy would say.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 13, 2009 11:43 AM | Report abuse

Let us encapsulate the moonbat view:

the left nominates a person based on their race or gender. that person brags about how that race or gender makes them better than others. When asked about this stance, the Libs reply, you are all racists.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:41 AM | Report abuse

The whining commences.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The first racism charge -- from Senator Jon Kyl in Arizona.

I do hope his constituents are listening.

"Senator Kyl reframes the President's reference to "empathy" and Judge Sotomayor's "wise Latina" statement into what comes close to a charge of bias -- that Judge Sotomayor will favor Hispanic and other minority litigants regardless of what the law requires. "

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:37 AM | Report abuse

When Frank Ricci testifies against Judge Sotomayor, it will be worth recalling that under any other set of facts he would have looked to his GOP sponsors like the kind of unscrupulous professional litigant Rush Limbaugh lives to savage. Is America's conservative movement really ready for an anti-affirmative action hero who has repeatedly relied on the government to intervene on his behalf to win him-and help him keep-a government job?"
Posted by: drindl
_____
Absolutley.. Ricci is a great example for what the Conservative movement is fighting for.. EQUALITY in hiring and promotion for ALL Americans.. not JUST minorities. Ricci never relied on the government to intervene.. he relied on the courts to get justice. His case where he and 18 other firefighters were not promoted because they weren't the RIGHT race New Haven wanted is a WINNER for Republicans and those who support EQUAL JUSTICE and a loser for Democrats and those who support racial quotas.. And if Dems plan is to attack a firefighter who's only crime is to study hard to pass a test which he came in 6th.. They are the ones who will come out looking like IDIOTS!!

Posted by: sovine08 | July 13, 2009 11:36 AM | Report abuse

If there's a commitment hearing for jaked, this post should be admitted as evidence that he is completely nuts:

"Deep down, you libs KNOW that Sarah is staying and would win if she decides to run against Barack."

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 13, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

"rewarding you with plenty of time to post your ignorance."

now watch him post every 2 minutes for the rest of the day.

once gain, all you have to do is listen to what a rightwinger accuses others of, to know precisely what they are doing. Remarkable projection.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:35 AM | Report abuse

So zoukie, you want to hurl baseless attack now too?

Of course, that's all you do.

Please provide proof of your assertions, or admit you are a useless troll.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

So you supported the nominations of Alito and Roberts, and thought the Democrats in the Senate were wrong to skewer them as they did? You believe the Democrats were out of line to run Anita Hill up to the stand to accuse Thomas of unsubstantiated charges in an attempt to embarass him?

I may not have supported their nominations, but that's because I'm not a fan of conservative Judicial Activism. But yes, all that skewering or whatever was un-called for.

The hypocrisy of Democrats to stand behind their Senators as they pillaged nominees of Republican presidents, and then turn around and express faux outrage at a GOP senator asking Sotomayor a question about an actual ruling she made that is outside the opinion of a majority of Americans is the issue, and only issue, I've tried to demonstrate here.

What Democrats have cited "Faux Outrage at a GOP Senator asking Sotomayor a question about and actual ruling she made?" be specific, because this is what I'm talking about when I accuse you of creating a hypotethical opposition and then arguing against it. drindl named it earlier, but it's a standard "Strawman" logical fallacy.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 11:30 AM | Report abuse

hey moonbat.

does a surpeme court overturning of the ruling count? that is by definition "unconstitutional"..

I must also assume you do not speak spanish, being able to barely muster english without curses and other lowbrow invective.

Look up LaRaza in the spanish-english dictionary and then come back and report that is has nothing to do with "race".

you are getting battier by the day. Now you don't even understand simple noun-verb formulations. I thought you were a writer. I guess the market has figured out your skills in that arena, rewarding you with plenty of time to post your ignorance.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:27 AM | Report abuse

We're still waitng for you to stop attacking Democrats, dbw, and explain what Sotomeyor did is 'out of the mainstream' -- which rightwing judicial activism is trying to pull further and further right.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"Deep down, you libs KNOW that Sarah is staying and would win if she decides to run against Barack."

Click your heels thrice as you repeat that, and maybe you'll find yourself back in Kansas.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Great liveblogging of Sotomayor hearings by DC's Head of State:

headofstate.blogspot.com

e.g.

"10:40 Cliffhanger #1: Will Sessions be able to contain himself (one Twitterer just referred to him as the "angry leprechan")beyond his usual pressure-cooker outrage.

So far, level of conservative attack is dialed to a semi-contained notch 3 (of 5).

Hatch is trying to use Janice Brown, Estrada as stalking horses. Note that he said little about Soto's actual record--yet carefully laid in the premise that work on the SC is different than on the 2nd Circuit--a trope to be used later, to attempt to negate the fact that her record is an unbiased one.

Also note that when he referred to the much-to-be-heard-and-distorted concept of "empathy", he labelled it "personal empathy."

Let's get it clear from the start: Empathy is not sympathy. It is the ability to stand in the shoes of another, and see the world through another's eyes, from another's perspective.

Empathy is an inherant part of the law. The ability to comprehend Mens Rea, for example--state of mind--the fundamental concept of criminal law--depends upon the ability to stand in the shoes of another--to attempt to apprehend their world--quite literally, their state of mind."

Posted by: caraprado1 | July 13, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I guess drivl's short career ended. another out of work Lib sucking off society yet still managing to blame and hate her benefactors.

Maybe Michael Jackson's doctor could help you. It would certainly help the rest of us.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:23 AM | Report abuse

I'm still waiting for documentation and factual support for the attacks on Sotomayor, her rulings, and her membership in LaRaza. Please provide d etails on the 'racist' activities of LaRaza. Please provide Consitutional cites of provisions that she has violated.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

@dbw - Ironically, you were about 5 posts in until you didn't write a post that was attacking someone.

With regards to Ricci, the relevant issue is hypocrisy. That was pretty much the theme of yesterday's commentary on scandals. It would appear that Ricci has sued multiple times for discrimination. Yet, someone he's the poster boy for reverse discrimination. A more complete picture suggests someone willing to use the legal system to get ahead.

That does not mean he shouldn't testify nor that the Supreme Court was wrong to take up the case. With regards to anti-constitutional rulings, the SC decision was 5 - 4. If the case was as obvious as you think, then it wouldn't have been so tight.

Yes, I now, liberals are incapable of deductive reasoning. Then riddle me this. The vast majority of scientists are politically liberal. How exactly have people incapable of reasoning been able to make any discoveries?

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 13, 2009 11:22 AM | Report abuse

VT:

So you supported the nominations of Alito and Roberts, and thought the Democrats in the Senate were wrong to skewer them as they did? You believe the Democrats were out of line to run Anita Hill up to the stand to accuse Thomas of unsubstantiated charges in an attempt to embarass him?

The hypocrisy of Democrats to stand behind their Senators as they pillaged nominees of Republican presidents, and then turn around and express faux outrage at a GOP senator asking Sotomayor a question about an actual ruling she made that is outside the opinion of a majority of Americans is the issue, and only issue, I've tried to demonstrate here.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 11:21 AM | Report abuse

Please provide proof-- facts, details.

Posted by: drivl

clearly its head is about to explode.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

It will be amusing to watch two white southern male conservatives attempt to discredit her without appearing racist or sexist. Substantive issues aside, the mute image itself says so much.

Posted by: nodebris | July 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

How the heck could Mark Sanford come in third? He left the state -- and the country -- for FIVE days. He called his mistress his "soul mate." Come on people!

For what its worth the order of finish makes sense to me.
1. Ensign - How much dirtier and low down can you get than seducing your top aide and friend's wife? Then he mishandled the cover-up to boot.
2. Edwards - Having the affair while running for Prez and your wife is being treated for cancer comes pretty close though. He also mishandled the cover-up.
3. Sanford - Unlike the other two this guy really seems to have fallen in love so you gotta cut him some slack. No indications that this was true in Ensign or Edwards affairs plus Sanford didn't try to cover it up by using hush money etc.
4. Spitzer - He got caught availing himself of the services of a prostitute in a strait sex for money business transaction. Not a sexual affair with his best friend's wife or a campaign worker much less a love affair. If we forced every married man who had ever done this to quit their jobs most poltical offices would be vacant and the unemployment rate in the US would be at least triple or quadruple what it is now.

Posted by: claffiteau | July 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse

"Here's the fundamental problem I'm noticing about you: You don't seem to actually want to discussing anything with me. You want to invent a hypothetical opposition, "libs like yourself" then you imagine what they would hypothetically be arguiing, and argue against that."

You might as well give up, VT. they won't actually have a discussion -- just continue to put up one straw man after another. Because that's all they know.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

"Please provide proof-- facts, details."

Not only proof, but an explanation as to why that would disqualify her for a seat. It's pretty funny that someone can spend all this energy criticising a nominee, and then turn around and say "but I'm not against seating her."

It's rather silly.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

When you have some original thoughts to share that don't involve name-calling, feel free to chime in. If one is looking for hate, intolerance, and whining, all one has to do is read most of your posts.

Posted by: dbw1


Heee, heee, ha ha.

Need it be said that the sky is blue? Libs will deny it and Repubs will look at you like you are a child.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:16 AM | Report abuse

"If you read my past posts, nowhere do I imply that Sotomayor should not be seated. What I'm doing is calling out the hypocrisy of liberals like yourselves who believe that all-out attacks on Alito, Roberts, or anyone else nominated by a Republican president are fine, but even questioning Sotomayor somehow makes the Republican senator(s) racist, intolerant, et al."

Where did I say that "all-out attacks" on Alito and Roberts were fine? You made that up.

Here's the fundamental problem I'm noticing about you: You don't seem to actually want to discussing anything with me. You want to invent a hypothetical opposition, "libs like yourself" then you imagine what they would hypothetically be arguiing, and argue against that.

Personally, I don't see any point in that. I'm right here, the least you could do is have the decency to actually address the things that I'm saying.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 11:14 AM | Report abuse

'Soyomayor maybe experience and Knowledgeable, but she has made rulings that were wrong and people were hurt by it''

Please provide proof-- facts, details.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Jake, I'm not going to get ito another argument with you.

As I stated, I had hoped that you would temper some of your vitriol and attacks, and you respond by attacking me with an unprovable statement. The fact is that you and I cannot prove a single thing about each other based along on a screen name, and that's all you really know about me and I about you.

But your knee-jerk reaction to attack many people here, demean the intelligence of liberals, really makes it very hard to listen to you.

It is clear that you have very firmly held views and are passionate about them. While I disagree with nearly everything you ahve ever posted to this board, I nonetheless honor the passion and commitment you bring to the debate. It's a shame that you can't respect that in others.


Posted by: thinman1 | July 13, 2009 11:12 AM | Report abuse

dbw1:

They exceed at taking things to absurd conclusions, not even realizing that were the GOP to use the same, exact standard set by SENATOR Obama, every one of them could vote against Sotomayor.

Posted by: JakeD | July 13, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

I asked you to defend your accusations about Sotomeyor, dtw. Clearly, you can't, so you are trying to weasel out. Figures.

You keep making accusations and calling names without any substance or proof or facts.

All you have is empty rhetoric.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:11 AM | Report abuse

Even if the New York Times and Chris Matthews still get a tingle up their leg when they look at Obama, most Americans hate socialized medicine and cap and trade; they hate the idea of the feds being in bed with the unions and nationalizing banks and car companies; they hate the idea of dismantling our missile defense system at the very same time that Iran and North Korea are threatening us; they particularly hate the idea of our president going abroad and bad-mouthing America every chance he gets. Even Bill Clinton stopped doing that once he was past draft age and had gotten a haircut.

Unless I’m very much mistaken, those Democrats who are going along in order to get along are likely to discover next year that the voters are going to tell them in no uncertain words to move along.


the result of Lib policies? move on.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Soyomayor maybe experience and Knowledgeable, but she has made rulings that were wrong and people were hurt by it'
She leans to the lift too much.....have you not seen what Liberalism has done?
She will be another puppet in the cast of Obama's Secular progressive movement
let Congress know how you feel.

Posted by: akeegan2 | July 13, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

"when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer."

LOL. The Exxon Wh*re in Chief is here. Did everyone know that Exxon is spending $1.4 MILLION A DAY to defeat climate legistlation and ensure that they remain the MOST PROFITABLE CORPORATION IN THE WORLD?

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

Don’t miss “The Political Chick” tonight live at 10 PM on chataboutit.com with host Lisa Chase. Lisa will discuss the facts and analyze various topics pertaining to the national and international political climate. Lisa is an active stock trader, who helps individuals navigate through the plethora of information regarding the economy, immigration, national security, education and day-to-day issues affected by politics, such as real estate and finance. Tune in or call in!
Monday 10-11 PM EST
Call 877-CHAT-212!

Posted by: ChatAboutIt | July 13, 2009 11:08 AM | Report abuse

For President Obama "Not one single dime" is the new standard, and given his approval rating slip to 49% in Ohio this week, and his "strongly approve" numbers trailing his "strongly disapprove" numbers by 8%, it appears that those who make under $200,000 are beginning to understand that they've been had.

Of course he also promised the unemployment number would never go above 8% on his watch.


Lib promises.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

You've proven yourself to be wrong a lot.

Posted by: JakeD | July 13, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

drindl and VT:

As a conservative, I'm actually consistent in my views. For instance, short of evidence she's done something illegal somewhere along the line, I believe Sotomayor should be confirmed. Why? Because I believe in the Constitution when it limits the Senate to 'advice and consent'. Democrats believe in the more limited 'advice and consent' when a Democrat president is doing the nominating. When a Republican is doing the nominating, suddenly liberals believe in "interrogate and defame".

If you read my past posts, nowhere do I imply that Sotomayor should not be seated. What I'm doing is calling out the hypocrisy of liberals like yourselves who believe that all-out attacks on Alito, Roberts, or anyone else nominated by a Republican president are fine, but even questioning Sotomayor somehow makes the Republican senator(s) racist, intolerant, et al.

Look in the mirror, friends. Would you have accused all those Democrat senators of all manner of ill for questioning Alito, or Roberts, or any other GOP nominee in the past 25 years who was subjected to much harsher interrogations than anything Sotomayor will face this week?

I didn't think so...

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Lib science:

Carlin is not a scientist. He's an MIT-trained economist, albeit with a degree in physics from the California Institute of Technology, who has worked as an analyst at the EPA since 1974. In March, he co-wrote a 98-page paper that began, "We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming." He fears politics are steering what should be scientific research.

The analysis noted that global temperatures have declined over the last 11 years while carbon emissions have increased. It cited a 2009 paper that found "solar variability" may have had more to do with any warming over the last few decades than rising greenhouse gas levels. Carlin also wondered why the EPA bought into global-warming doom scenarios, when, despite increased greenhouse gas levels, U.S. crop yields are up, air quality is improved and Americans are living longer.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 11:04 AM | Report abuse

JakeD,
I've never suggested guilt by association. That was something you conjured up on your own. I was just stating the fact that you share the views of a white supremacist, and let everyone here draw their own conclusions.

I had hoped that taking something like that to an absurd conclusion as I did would cause you to temper your usual baseless vitriol. But I guess I was wrong.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 13, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Look at Session's continuing record before you cast any stones, buddy.

Here are witness against Sotomeyor:

An ideological grabbag of whining culture war artifacts:

Sandy Froman, Esq., Former President, National Rifle Association of America
Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Attorney
Tim Jeffries, Founder, P7 Enterprises
David Kopel, Esq., Independence Institute
Frank Ricci, Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH(
Lieutenant Ben Vargas, New Haven Fire Department
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

thinman1:

You are hardly one to promote "logic" given your past "guilt by association" posts.

Posted by: JakeD | July 13, 2009 11:01 AM | Report abuse

Here is a witness list for Sotomeyor:

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor, City of New York
Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
David Cone, former Major League Baseball pitcher
JoAnne A. Epps, Dean, Temple University Beasley School of Law, on behalf of the National Association of Women Lawyers
Louis Freeh, former Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Michael J. Garcia, former U.S. Attorney, Southern District of New York
Wade Henderson, President and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
Patricia Hynes, President, New York City Bar Association
Dustin McDaniel, Attorney General, State of Arkansas
Robert Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York County, New York
Ramona Romero, National President, Hispanic National Bar Association
Congressman Jose E. Serrano, New York 16th District
Theodore M. Shaw, Professor, Columbia Law School
Kate Stith, Lafayette S. Foster Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, Chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Deep down, you libs KNOW that Sarah is staying and would win if she decides to run against Barack.

Posted by: JakeD | July 13, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

Actually, the accusation of Senator Sessions as a racist stem from issues that were raised during his own confirmation hearings regarding actions he took as a federal prosecutor to suppress the African-American vote in Alabama.

Now, does that mean Senator Sessions is, today, a racist? I have no idea. To adopt that rationale would mean that Senator Byrd, despite having been and cancelled his KKK membership over 50 years ago is still today a racist.

Both statements are idiotic.

What I am troubled by is Senator Sessions actions to call a panel of witnesses from the NRA, Right to Life, and other organizations in an attempt to besmirch Judge Sotomayor's record. The irony here is that Senator Sessions and others have already gone on record decrying a confirmation process that is given up to the interest gorups. Yet that is what he is doing.

More signs that the GOP is ideologically bankrupt.

Posted by: thinman1 | July 13, 2009 10:57 AM | Report abuse

"You mean, like calling a Senator a "racist" because, for some weird reason, he may dare to ask a nominee to the Supreme Court about her racist rulings and membership in a racist group?"

Again, I have to refer to you Justice Alito and his membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

I have to be honest here, for someone who is claiming to desire rational political discourse, you seem to be mostly throwing sensational accusations around. Your lack of concern for Future Justice Sotomayor's actual rulings, her actual judicial philosophy, and her actual qualifiations is quite striking.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

Please detail what LaRaza does that is racist.

Please detail how Sotomeyor ruled that was unconstitutional.

I'm waiting.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I ask again, dtw, please stop being willfully ignorant and provide evidence of your charges against sotomeyer.

FACTS. cites from the Constitution. Evidence that LaRaza is racists.

FACTS -- do you know what that means?? It's diferent from your baseless attacks.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:52 AM | Report abuse

"I hate to cause you so much pain laughing, but when you fail to address Sotomayor's un-Constitutional views in the firefighters case and resort to simply attacking the plaintiff in the case,"

Sotomayor's Ricci ruling disagreed with the majority of the Supreme Court, but it still agreed with 4 of the 9 justices, including the one she is slated to replace.

Having rulings overturned by the Supreme Court is by no means a disqualification for a seat, Justice Alito actually had a 100% overturn rate for cases heard by the Supreme Court.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 10:50 AM | Report abuse

drindl:
"...accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of."

You mean, like calling a Senator a "racist" because, for some weird reason, he may dare to ask a nominee to the Supreme Court about her racist rulings and membership in a racist group?

The hypcrocisy of libs like drindl would be funny if it weren't so scary. How they can view the world through one lens and not see the other side is simply an act of willful ignorance.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 10:49 AM | Report abuse

"but when you fail to address Sotomayor's un-Constitutional views in the firefighters case and resort to simply attacking the plaintiff in the case, "


Please provide a cite from the constitution that references what you mean by that and I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

"Oh, and you also continue to brilliantly prove another great skill of liberals. Copying and pasting from leftist blogs."

---

Are you new here? Because the most egregious offender of this on this board is about as far from "liberal" as you can get.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 10:46 AM | Report abuse

For the really nasty attacks, depend on Jeff Sessions. He has a history of rampant racism and in the reflexive projective fashion of today's R party-- that's what he will accuse her of.

Remember that is their main behavioral trait -- accuse others of what you yourself are guilty of.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

I hate to cause you so much pain laughing, but when you fail to address Sotomayor's un-Constitutional views in the firefighters case and resort to simply attacking the plaintiff in the case, how can one reach any conclusion other than that you are another typical liberal, unable to speak intelligently to the issues?

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 10:44 AM | Report abuse

"How, exactly, is John Edwards not guilty of exactly the same thing? I seem to recall him initially denying this accusation. That's not lying?"

---

I think the original poster was referring to how Gov. Sanford actually left the country for a week and didn't tell anyone where he was going.

Posted by: VTDuffman | July 13, 2009 10:43 AM | Report abuse

There's also a YouTube video of a monkey drawing a map of the United States. So?

Posted by: JakeD | July 13, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

Oh, and you also continue to brilliantly prove another great skill of liberals. Copying and pasting from leftist blogs.

When you have some original thoughts to share that don't involve name-calling, feel free to chime in. If one is looking for hate, intolerance, and whining, all one has to do is read most of your posts.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 10:42 AM | Report abuse

dbw -- you have dimwittedly demonstrated how wingers handle things.

They whine and whine and whine. I am still laughing painfully hard at the idea that I can't challenge YOU on intellectual grounds. You don't have any, which is clear from everything you write.

You also have that curious rightwing habit of accusing people of doing wha in reality -- I know that's a tough concept for you -- that you yourself are doing, which is nothing but constantly attacking and whining.

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I would have been idiotic for McKenna to challenge Kirk for the GOP primary, nothing but an act of hubris. The only thing he could have done is soften Kirk up for Giannoulias. While Kirk has a chance to win, McKenna would have been in Alan Keyes territory.

Posted by: mnteng | July 13, 2009 10:37 AM | Report abuse

every single one of dbw posts is a long whine... a perfect wxample of the what columnist frank rich wrote yesterday:

"The essence of Palinism is emotional, not ideological. Yes, she is of the religious right, even if she winks literally and figuratively at her own daughter’s flagrant disregard of abstinence and marriage. But family-values politics, now more devalued than the dollar by the philandering of ostentatiously Christian Republican politicians, can only take her so far.

The real wave she’s riding is a loud, resonant surge of resentment and victimization that’s larger than issues like abortion and gay civil rights.

That resentment is in part about race, of course. When Palin referred to Alaska as “a microcosm of America” during the 2008 campaign, it was in defiance of the statistical reality that her state’s tiny black and Hispanic populations are unrepresentative of her nation. She stood for the “real America,” she insisted, and the identity of the unreal America didn’t have to be stated explicitly for audiences to catch her drift. Her convention speech’s signature line was a deftly coded putdown of her presumably shiftless big-city opponent: “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a community organizer, except that you have actual responsibilities.” (Funny how this wisdom has been forgotten by her supporters now that she has abandoned her own actual responsibilities in public office.)

The latest flashpoint for this kind of animus is the near-certain elevation to the Supreme Court of Sonia Sotomayor, whose Senate confirmation hearings arrive this week. Prominent Palinists were fast to demean Sotomayor as a dim-witted affirmative-action baby. Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, the Palinist hymnal, labeled Sotomayor “not the smartest” and suggested that Princeton awards academic honors on a curve.

Karl Rove said, “I’m not really certain how intellectually strong she would be.” Those maligning the long and accomplished career of an Ivy League-educated judge do believe in affirmative-action — but only for white people like Palin, whom they boosted for vice president despite her minimal achievements and knowledge of policy, the written word or even geography."

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:35 AM | Report abuse

drindl:

You have brilliantly demonstrated how liberals handle things. They can never defend issues or positions on ideological or moral grounds. So all they can do is attack the person.

A citizen has questions about Obama's plans to raise taxes on businesses? A woman politician is conservative and pro-life? A fireman was inappropriately denied a promotion, sued and won, and the President's nominee for the Supreme Court was on the wrong side of the decision?

Joe the Plumber. Sarah Palin. Ricci. It's impossible to defend the liberal positions, so you attack the person. Skewer them. Belittle them. Defame them.

That's the Democrat strategy. It has to be, because fellow Dem's like "drindl" are not equipped to defend their political views or issues on intellectual grounds.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

ddawd writes, of Sen Franken
"There's a youtube video of him drawing a map of the US with all the state borders. It's all from memory and its a very good drawing even if it weren't."


I recall you've posted that before. So what? Sure its impressive, but doesn't tell me whether or not he will be an effective Senator.

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 10:30 AM | Report abuse

Wonder if any of the senators will have the guts to question Sotomayor on her membership in La Raza - "THE RACE" - and if that isn't as bad as the KKK, I don't know what is.

Posted by: Utahreb | July 13, 2009 10:27 AM | Report abuse

"I was really stunned that anyone thought John Edwards' cheating was more egregious than Sanford's. Edwards cheated on his wife -- Sanford not only cheated on his wife, he lied to his aides and to his constituents!"
________________________

How, exactly, is John Edwards not guilty of exactly the same thing? I seem to recall him initially denying this accusation. That's not lying?

It's simple. Everyone who cheats on their spouse is a liar. And everyone who cheats on their spouse is a hypocrite (especially if they are a politician). There is no gradation here. They all committed shameful acts, they all should be winners (losers) in this poll.

Having said that, I also believe in contrition, forgiveness and redemption. I don't believe that any of these figures necessarily have to be "finished" in serving the public if they demonstrate contrition, seek forgiveness and strive for redemption. I am, however, more than a little skeptical that any of them will actually do so (other than just paying lip service to those concepts, which is what all politicians do best).

Posted by: etpietro | July 13, 2009 10:25 AM | Report abuse

@drindl - Very interesting information. Sadly, picking on a dyslexif firefighter is bad TV, so he'll get away with it.

Sessions is droning on and on and on at the moment. I think he's looking for payback for his own denied confirmation.

BB

Posted by: FairlingtonBlade | July 13, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

si it seems the Repubs had a secret plan to kill al queda. now the Libs are up in arms over this. Ninny Peloony thinks we should have been serving them ice cream instead.

Posted by: king_of_zouk | July 13, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Layman's guide to confirmation hearings:

If the President doing the nominating is a Republican, then Democrat Senators are free to dig up anything and everthing the nominee has ever done, question them endlessly, and if there is even a hint that the nominee might actually use the Constitution to make future rulings, that is enough grounds to oppose the nominee and whip up outrage at both the nominee and the president who nominated them.

The President doing the nominating is a Democrat, it's un-American to ask any questions about the nominee. Obviously a Democrat would never nominate someone who wasn't the absolute best jurist for the country, so daring to even ask the nominee about past controversial decisions is hateful, intolerant, and quite possibly treasoness.

At least, that's how this thing works if you are a liberal or member of the leftist state media covering the hearings.

Posted by: dbw1 | July 13, 2009 10:19 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans will be bringing in Frank Ricci the firefighter as a witness -- and asking that we feel that dreaded emotion, EMPATHY, for him.

I guess that would be easier if we didn't know his history as a serial plaintiff, continously suing the government to get it to help him get and keep government jobs. The man is a bloody leech.

"According to local newspapers, Ricci filed his first lawsuit against the city of New Haven in 1995, at the ripe old age of 20, for failing to hire him as a firefighter. That January, the Hartford Chronicle reported that Ricci sued, saying "he was not hired because he is dyslexic." The complaint in that suit, filed in federal court, alleged that the city's failure to hire Ricci because of his dyslexia violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Frank Ricci was one of 795 candidates interviewed for 40 jobs.

According to his complaint, the reason he was not hired was that he disclosed his dyslexia in an interview. That case was settled in 1997 with a confidential settlement in which Ricci withdrew his lawsuit in exchange for a job with the fire department and $11,143 in attorney's fees.

In 1998, Ricci was talking about filing lawsuits again, this time over a dispute with his new employer, Middletown's South Fire District-which had hired him in August of 1997. According to a Hartford Courant report of Aug. 11, 1998, Ricci was dismissed from the Middletown fire department after only eight months. He promptly appealed his dismissal, claiming that fire officials had retaliated against him for conducting an investigation into the department's response to a controversial fire. A story in the Hartford Courant dated Aug. 9, 1997, has Ricci vowing "to pursue this to the fullest extent of the law."

In August of 1998, a state Department of Labor investigation cleared Chief Wayne S. Bartolotta of any wrongdoing in the firing. The Aug. 3, 1998, letter from the state Department of Labor indicated that the case was closed with a finding of no violation. "After a thorough investigation, it was determined that the South Fire District did not discriminate against Mr. Ricci." Ricci's response? According to the Courant, Ricci contended "Their decision was political, it has nothing to do with who was right and who was wrong." He told the paper he would "pursue the matter in civil court."

When Frank Ricci testifies against Judge Sotomayor, it will be worth recalling that under any other set of facts he would have looked to his GOP sponsors like the kind of unscrupulous professional litigant Rush Limbaugh lives to savage. Is America's conservative movement really ready for an anti-affirmative action hero who has repeatedly relied on the government to intervene on his behalf to win him-and help him keep-a government job?"

http://www.slate.com/id/2222087/

Posted by: drindl | July 13, 2009 10:18 AM | Report abuse

"Is he as sharp as his supporters claim, or a hack?"

There's a youtube video of him drawing a map of the US with all the state borders. It's all from memory and its a very good drawing even if it weren't.

Posted by: DDAWD | July 13, 2009 9:59 AM | Report abuse

bsimon, I also worry that Specter will be so intent on reminding us how intelligent he is that he will forget to be a humble junior senator on the committee.
Franken will behave beautifully, as he has for months now even when under stress, so I'm not sure why the Fix wants us to watch him.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 13, 2009 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Having waited with bated breath for Al Franken to become MN Senator, I will be happy to hear him speak, no matter how little he's allowed as the Junior Senator.
It was a long haul for the win. I am a Democrat living in the very Red State of AR.
Barb

Posted by: brobb3305 | July 13, 2009 9:45 AM | Report abuse

"Yeah, does anything think Franken is going to do anything interesting in his first week?"

MN media outlets are watching closely, expecting a boring display of Senatorialness, secretly hoping for some SNL flashbacks. "Judge Sotomayor, do you think you're good enough, smart enough, and people like you for promotion to the Supreme Court?"

As a Minnesotan, I find it a little curious that Franken is on the Judiciary Committee. He's not a lawyer, so I am somewhat interested in how he will perform. Is he as sharp as his supporters claim, or a hack? What does he want to hear from a SC nominee before voting yea or nay?

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse

I would expect that most all the Republican senators will put on some kind of show for their base. At least to demonstrate, they are "fighting" for conservatism. However, these same Republican senators will tread a careful line, know that their every word will be closely studied by both women and hispanics come the next election. My gut tells me that these Republican senators will actually play nice, not out of desire, but of their own need for self-preservation.

Posted by: Continuum | July 13, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Conservative and Republican opposition to Sotomayor, and the extreme rhetoric, have ensured extraordinary coverage of her nomination.

The big story is: "Will the Dems overcome Repub opposition to the first Hispanic nomination?" Their message looks like Republican anti-Hispanic agitation, and that Dems support Hispanics against Repub opposition.

What a great gift to the Democrats, strengthening Hispanic support!

Democrats benefit from every minute of coverage. Repubs should have kept their mouths shut and let this one slide through without fuss.

Posted by: JNDrummond | July 13, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

mark_in_austin writes
"I am surprised at CC's pick of Franken as someone to watch in the SJC this week. I would add Cornyn and Feingold to the "watch" list."

Cornyn I can understand. Why Feingold? He's already on the record as deferential to the President's prerogative to select jurists; do you see an area where Sen Feingold might clash with Judge Sotomayor?

From the political perspective, The Fix is correct about Specter & Franken - the former being senior only to the latter, technically speaking. Does Specter try to run the show, as he was accustomed to until quite recently? Does he defer to his 'senior' colleagues? Or does he revert to form, and play at the tough questioner before rolling over and dutifully voting 'yea' (I admit to surprise he voted to bork Bork).

Posted by: bsimon1 | July 13, 2009 9:19 AM | Report abuse

>>Her nomination is a shoo-in. So can we please stop pretending there is anything especially interesting about to happen?

Well there was talk of bringing in those firefighters which to be honest I find is completely inappropriate and uncalled for in a senate confirmation hearing. It's interesting from the point of until it starts there's no real way for us to judge the criticism she faces, what specifically are they going to hammer on and what are they content with letting go of in opposition.

Also unless you have severe mental problems the political theater is very real. What they do has an effect on us. So unless you're denying that people exist or that you don't have to abide by the governance of the U.S. government at federal, state, and local levels saying it's not 'real' is pretty stupid. It's real and important for people to pay attention to.

Posted by: mtcooley | July 13, 2009 9:05 AM | Report abuse

POLITICOS OF ALL STRIPES: Wake Up and Smell the Ongoing Bush-Cheney- Spawned Police State that Turns Politics and SCOTUS Hearings into Bread and Circuses


***


A grassroots-based, federally-enabled extrajudicial targeting and "torture matrix" has deployed a Gestapo-like vigilante army in EVERY county of the United States -- persecuting hundreds of thousands of unjustly "targeted" Americans...

...making a mockery of the political process and the rule of law.

This vigilante Gestapo apparatus employs a high-tech GPS tracking system and silent, injury- and illness-inducing microwave radiation "directed energy weapons" to stalk, harass, terrorize and TORTURE their neighbors.

Now this federally-spawned bypass of the judicial system is being exposed -- despite the mainstream media's propensity to swallow the cover story about an "on-and-off" program that "never got out of the "planning stages."

I encourage those who place their faith in the political process to wake up and smell the police state that Bush-Cheney holders -- and their own naivete -- has enabled.

PLEASE READ THIS AND PASS IT ON:

http://nowpublic.com/world/gestapo-usa-govt-funded-vigilante-network-terrorizes-america

OR (if link is corrupted / disabled):

http://NowPublic.com/scrivener RE: "GESTAPO USA: Gov't-Funded Vigilante Network Terrorizes America"

Posted by: scrivener50 | July 13, 2009 8:57 AM | Report abuse

Given that John Cornyn has hired Orin Kerr, I think you might want to bump Cornyn into your top five.

Posted by: aravir | July 13, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Can we not please tell the truth about this hearing? There really is "no one" to watch. Sotomayor is a good pick, well qualified. She's in the high 90s in her percentage of opinions. Her nomination is a shoo-in. So can we please stop pretending there is anything especially interesting about to happen? It's all just kabuki theater. A handful of the usual GOP suspects will make some noise, but that's just what it is: noise. Static. Sound and fury, signifying nothing.

There is "nobody to watch" because nothing much is going to happen. Sessions or Coryn or somebody may throw a hissy fit, but that's all it will be: a hissy fit. So can we please dispense with the notion that political theater is somehow "real"?

Posted by: curmudgeon6 | July 13, 2009 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Hi everyone,

I read The Fix every day but this is the first time I'm posting.

I wanted to share a 1 minute trailer for a comedy pilot I just finished about small town politics called THE CAMPAIGN.

Please give it a view and vote FUNNY. I promise it will make you laugh! Also, we're trying to get as many eyes on it as possible, so please share it with friends who enjoy political comedy. Thanks!

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/baf3ef8e40/the-campaign

Posted by: TheCampaign | July 13, 2009 8:24 AM | Report abuse

"I am surprised at CC's pick of Franken as someone to watch in the SJC this week. "

Yeah, does anything think Franken is going to do anything interesting in his first week?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 13, 2009 8:16 AM | Report abuse

So Mark Kirk only decides to run if Madigan doesn't run and he has no primary challengers? Is this guy really that formidable?

Posted by: DDAWD | July 13, 2009 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Every Republican on the Judiciary Committee should be watched for the level of vitriol with which they question Sotomayor. We'll see of there are cracks within the GOP's anti-Sotomauor game plan.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl1 | July 13, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Edwards cheating had potentially disastrous consequences for the Democratic Party had he won the nomination. His narcissism alone makes him the worst offender, add on top of that possible campaign violations around her compensation for work along with all the other cover up activities and I think you easily have the worst sex scandal in a while. For disclosure, I am a Democrat but always thought Edwards to be a fake and a lightweight, although I didn't think him capable of this with a wife having breast cancer....further proof that real life is always more interesting/entertaining than fiction.

Posted by: Halfaworldaway | July 13, 2009 7:24 AM | Report abuse

I am surprised at CC's pick of Franken as someone to watch in the SJC this week. I would add Cornyn and Feingold to the "watch" list.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | July 13, 2009 7:03 AM | Report abuse

George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of 'your reasons for doing what you want are really just your excuses for doing what you want.'

A personally ambitious person like Governor Palin reminds us of how true those words are. Every reason she gave for walking away from the responsibilities she sought for herself has been shown to be a straw man, and it has taken just 9 days for her to acknowledge the real reason she has denied Alaska her vision and her leadership -- she sees a bigger venue for her vision and leadership, one with better rewards, and she cannot be bothered with meeting the promises she made 3 years ago.

Posted by: margaretmeyers | July 13, 2009 6:55 AM | Report abuse

Odd results on the cheating poll...

Re Sotomayor: not sure how much a 'hero' anyone will be if they try to beat up on her. It's almost become standard during these hearings for nominees to say as little as possible.

Re Kirk: the GOP should be worried. He doesn't sound like he's got the fire in his gut.

Posted by: RickJ | July 13, 2009 6:33 AM | Report abuse

I was really stunned that anyone thought John Edwards' cheating was more egregious than Sanford's. Edwards cheated on his wife -- Sanford not only cheated on his wife, he lied to his aides and to his constituents!

Posted by: truble2301 | July 13, 2009 6:28 AM | Report abuse

Republicans are seriously dreaming with their Mark Kirk boosterism. Giannoulias is going to annihilate him.

Posted by: mattfugazi | July 13, 2009 6:24 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company