Soto-Mania!

From Stepanie Mencimer, of Mother Jones:

Graham's cross-exam was quite nasty (I take back what I said yesterday about his Southern manners.) At one point, he cattily instructed Sotomayor, "Don't become a speechwriter if this law thing doesn’t work out." Later, he said, 'I like you, for whatever that matters"— then called her a bully and quoted unflattering comments about her from anonymous lawyers. Sotomayor offered that the complaints may have been made by attorneys who may have found the Second Circuit's unique procedural rules difficult and challenging. Graham shot back, "Lawyers find you difficult and challenging. Do you think you have a temperament problem?" His unsolicited advice: "Maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection." It’s hard to imagine a senator being so thoroughly patronizing to Roberts or Alito.

From John Dickerson, of Slate:

Republicans talk about President Obama and the standards he applied to Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts. They've also talked about Miguel Estrada, who never made it to the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Democrats remind the audience how Roberts said he was going to call balls and strikes as a judge, then say that he turned into an activist once he became chief justice.

Both sides benefit from the narrative of Supreme Court as liberating crazy house where judges finally get to embrace the secret activism they've been kindling secretly in their hearts. Democrats say that's what Roberts did, and Republicans are saying that's what they fear Sotomayor will do. Sessions put it this way: "On the Supreme Court … checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge's philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom."

Round and round we go. Each side uses the other's arguments from previous confirmations.

From The Associated Press, via MSNBC:

Coburn observed at one point that the 55-year-old appeals court judge would have "lots of splainin" to do if she were to get a gun and shoot him — words that evoked memories of the 1950s TV show "I Love Lucy" featuring a Cuban-American bandleader and his madcap wife.

Note: I actually watched the video of this and I think it's one of few moments when someone wasn't talking down to the nominee.

From Dahlia Lithwick, of Slate:

I believe we are seeing quite a different Sotomayor today than we saw yesterday. When Cornyn confronted her about the "wise Latina" remark, she didn't flee from it like she did yesterday. Instead, she said,My rhetorical flourishes can't be read literally. She did that thing where she apologized for the fact that it was misunderstood but not for having said it: "My message was different than I understand my words have been understood by some." Tangled syntax? Yes. But repentant? Not really. She wouldn't even retreat on her claim that "physiological differences" may affect judging. In fact, she pushed back at Cornyn, saying it's better to ask these sorts of hard questions. "Ignoring them isn't the answer."

The Sotomayor I have seen so far this morning is far more confident and less deferential than the automaton we met yesterday. Her message today is also clearer:I am human, my background makes a difference. I am not sorry for exploring whether and how it makes a difference, but when I apply the law to the facts—if you look at my record—the law always wins.

From Andrew Sullivan's blog:

I've written all this before, but let me make what I think is a fairly obvious point: There's absolutely nothing wrong, much less "arch," about criticizing Sarah Palin for being an anti-intellectual demagogue while simultaneously demanding respect for Sonia Sotomayor.Palin's whole shtick is that she's an ordinary American with ordinary American concerns.Which is completely fine. But I'm of the mind that our leaders should be exceptional people -- hard-working Type-A meritocrats with actual expertise -- and I think Sotomayor is one of those people. (Palin, not so much.) That's my preference, of course, and not necessarily the country's.

Why would I cover such nonsense? Because you want to read it, silly. But also, these quotes distract us from something far more important: Sotomayor's confirmation boils down to a vote that is likely already decided. In other words, Sotomayor isn't being vetted; she's being initiated. I understand that the process is constitutionally bound, but we all know that the hearings wouldn't be as divisive if the candidate were a white male.

Furthermore, Republicans keep pressing Sotomayor for a promise to vote beyond her background while Democrats keep pointing to her judicial record (where a nun scratching her knee seems pornographic by comparison). Talk about hogwash. No judge has sat on the Supreme Court and not voted their background because the court doesn't exist in a vacuum. That's precisely why there is a need for a diverse body. Neither Sotomayor nor any other nominee--whether brown, white, or chartruese--should have to apologize for where they came from. And no politician should have to prove how white her voting record is.

Is voting by the letter of the law important? Absolutely. But in the past, we've often looked to the Supreme Court to actually make us better at following the law. Brown Vs. The Board of Education, anyone? It's hypocritical to act as if Sotomayor might actually ruin some precedent. In fact, she might improve one. 

Ultimately, the initiation of Sonia Sotomayor is one more example of how we go on being racist c*nts even when we've sworn off the hate juice. The 24-hour cable news networks did it to Obama when there was a chance he was in the same room as a racist black man (and I use "racist" very loosely). You'd think Idi Amin was the Democratic nominee last year, not the male Oprah. Here's Sotomayor with a judicial record that is yellow with its middle-of-the-roadness and, because she struck common ground with some fellow Latin Americans, she's forced to pretend that her skin and reproductive tool kit won't keep her from voting like Pat Buchanan. It's this sort of embarassing circus act we call U.S. Politics that tells me we have to elect officials like Sotomayor and Obama--to force the John Cornyns and Lindsey Grahams to be just slightly smaller assholes.

Comments

[Cristyn]

"no politician should have to prove how white her voting record is." brilliant. couldn't have said it better myself. and i tried.

it's spelled "chartreuse," punkin.

[Adam Coronado]

Thanks for reading. Now I know you give a damn.

And effing spell check told me "sartreuse" was okay. *shakes fist at spell check*