Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings

[jbakguy]

So I have been sitting at work this week listening to the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings and was surprised not to see a thread on LSD discussing. What does everyone think of her performance? Are the Republican lines of attack (cursory opinion in the white fire fighter case, the 'empathy' comments, the 'wise latina' comments) effective?  Are we learning anything about her we did not know already?  How do you think she will (barring a 'meltdown') affect the court in some of the expected rulings over the next several years?

[hilikus]

having read many of her decisions, i think she's a fair judge who follows the law...one could argue she followed the law in Ricci...

she's obviously extremely nervous, her fluttering eye lids are driving me crazy...but she knows the law and i have no problems with her being on the bench...

if this is the best the republicans can come up with, i think she'll be a fine SCOTUS judge...she's no Harriet Myers though

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

She definitely knows her stuff and you can tell she's being very cautious about her words since they've already been taken out of context before she even stepped into the room. 

There's been much ado about nothing made about the "wise latina" comment, and about the Ricci (white fireighter) Case as well, even though I understand he's about to give testimony at the hearing today ()

The irony is, the Republicans are giving her a hard time just because she's an Obama appointee who they presume is going to be a liberal justice, however she's not a very liberal judge at all.  In fact, she's pretty moderate, sometimes even right leaning on some issues.

[Sheshe]

Over the past few days I've been following the confirmation hearings religiously, however I'm starting to get a little bored with the whole thing.  I don't think asking the same questions to which you already know her answer will give any real insight into how she will rule on a case. I don't understand why they've asked her about the wise latino comment so much.  Its not like she's going to say anything besides the fact that it was in bad taste.  Sotomayor is very careful about her speech so I highly doubt she'll have anymore slip ups. In all I think she's a fine a judge and her record is impecable. 

[Miss P]

She definitely knows her stuff and you can tell she's being very cautious about her words since they've already been taken out of context before she even stepped into the room. 

There's been much ado about nothing made about the "wise latina" comment, and about the Ricci (white fireighter) Case as well, even though I understand he's about to give testimony at the hearing today ()

The irony is, the Republicans are giving her a hard time just because she's an Obama appointee who they presume is going to be a liberal justice, however she's not a very liberal judge at all.  In fact, she's pretty moderate, sometimes even right leaning on some issues.

This is all designed to pull socially conservative and/or racist white voters who abandoned the GOP due to economic problems back into the GOP fold.  There's nothing intellectually honest about it.  They just see the opportunity to stoke racial resentments and fears of gun regulations and abortion on demand, and with a somewhat stiff and very New York-y opponent to boot.  I see the value of having hearings even if her elevation is a foregone conclusion (as Lindsay Graham acknowledged), but not if they're going to look like this.

Glenn Greenwald on the Ricci testimony:

Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing?  Since he's obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him "sympathetic" so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor's ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn't everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP's alleged judicial principles?

[mbw]

I was amazed to see Hatch attempt to assert that Sotomayor had decided Maloney wrong - essentially claiming Heller forced the 2nd Amendment on the states, incorporating it and overturning Presser.  But Heller specifically did not overturn Presser, so Sotomayor couldn't rule to overturn it (and didn't Maloney specifically address that?)  Plus, Hatch tried to argue Privileges or Immunities, whereas Slaughterhouse Cases had already shelved that form of incorporation over a decade earlier.

Or am I completely off base and Hatch was a legal genius?

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

She definitely knows her stuff and you can tell she's being very cautious about her words since they've already been taken out of context before she even stepped into the room. 

There's been much ado about nothing made about the "wise latina" comment, and about the Ricci (white fireighter) Case as well, even though I understand he's about to give testimony at the hearing today ()

The irony is, the Republicans are giving her a hard time just because she's an Obama appointee who they presume is going to be a liberal justice, however she's not a very liberal judge at all.  In fact, she's pretty moderate, sometimes even right leaning on some issues.

This is all designed to pull socially conservative and/or racist white voters who abandoned the GOP due to economic problems back into the GOP fold.  There's nothing intellectually honest about it.  They just see the opportunity to stoke racial resentments and fears of gun regulations and abortion on demand, and with a somewhat stiff and very New York-y opponent to boot.  I see the value of having hearings even if her elevation is a foregone conclusion (as Lindsay Graham acknowledged), but not if they're going to look like this.

Glenn Greenwald on the Ricci testimony:

Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing?  Since he's obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him "sympathetic" so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor's ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn't everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP's alleged judicial principles?

I agree.  A lot of grand standing.  By both sides.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I was amazed to see Hatch attempt to assert that Sotomayor had decided Maloney wrong - essentially claiming Heller forced the 2nd Amendment on the states, incorporating it and overturning Presser.  But Heller specifically did not overturn Presser, so Sotomayor couldn't rule to overturn it (and didn't Maloney specifically address that?)  Plus, Hatch tried to argue Privileges or Immunities, whereas Slaughterhouse Cases had already shelved that form of incorporation over a decade earlier.

Or am I completely off base and Hatch was a legal genius?

My 2nd amendment jurisprudence is pretty rusty but that sounds about right, although I think you meant over a century earlier with the Slaughterhouse cases, since, as I recall off the top of my head, those cases took place around the late 1800's.  But you are correct, they did kill the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment and forced the Court to go a whole other route after that ever since.

[mbw]

I was amazed to see Hatch attempt to assert that Sotomayor had decided Maloney wrong - essentially claiming Heller forced the 2nd Amendment on the states, incorporating it and overturning Presser.  But Heller specifically did not overturn Presser, so Sotomayor couldn't rule to overturn it (and didn't Maloney specifically address that?)  Plus, Hatch tried to argue Privileges or Immunities, whereas Slaughterhouse Cases had already shelved that form of incorporation over a decade earlier.

Or am I completely off base and Hatch was a legal genius?

My 2nd amendment jurisprudence is pretty rusty but that sounds about right, although I think you meant over a century earlier with the Slaughterhouse cases, since, as I recall off the top of my head, those cases took place around the late 1800's.  But you are correct, they did kill the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment and forced the Court to go a whole other route after that ever since.

Presser was 1886, Slaghterhouse Cases, 1873, no?  Although, didn't Presser actually reaffirm Cruikshank? (To be honest, incorporation is still pretty new, as I picked up my orientation reading yesterday and that apparently will be the focus - timely, neh?)

ETA: "a whole other route" being Due Process Clause, correct?  Although, didn't Breyer attempt to stir up P or I ghosts in Saenz v. Roe.  I'm thinking of becoming a fan of Justice Black and jumping on that train

ETA2:  Nope - it was Stevens.  Silly me.

[Burning Sands, Esq.]

I was amazed to see Hatch attempt to assert that Sotomayor had decided Maloney wrong - essentially claiming Heller forced the 2nd Amendment on the states, incorporating it and overturning Presser.  But Heller specifically did not overturn Presser, so Sotomayor couldn't rule to overturn it (and didn't Maloney specifically address that?)  Plus, Hatch tried to argue Privileges or Immunities, whereas Slaughterhouse Cases had already shelved that form of incorporation over a decade earlier.

Or am I completely off base and Hatch was a legal genius?

My 2nd amendment jurisprudence is pretty rusty but that sounds about right, although I think you meant over a century earlier with the Slaughterhouse cases, since, as I recall off the top of my head, those cases took place around the late 1800's.  But you are correct, they did kill the P&I clause of the 14th Amendment and forced the Court to go a whole other route after that ever since.

Presser was 1886, Slaghterhouse Cases, 1873, no?  Although, didn't Presser actually reaffirm Cruikshank? (To be honest, incorporation is still pretty new, as I picked up my orientation reading yesterday and that apparently will be the focus - timely, neh?)

ETA: "a whole other route" being Due Process Clause, correct?  Although, didn't Breyer attempt to stir up P or I ghosts in Saenz v. Roe.  I'm thinking of becoming a fan of Justice Black and jumping on that train

ETA2:  Nope - it was Stevens.  Silly me.

Ah, I thought you were talking about Heller, not Presser. My mistake.

And yes that whole other route turned out to be 14A Due Process, which only became popular after the P&I clause was killed as we talked about.