-
Thesis Writing 101
September 4, 2009 | 3 comments
-
Happy Cost of Government Day!
August 12, 2009 | 5 comments
-
A Warning From Our Future
August 6, 2009 | 5 comments
-
Pence Amendment Defeated
July 24, 2009 | 4 comments
-
Sotomayor Final Wrap-Up
July 17, 2009 | 20 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Slate Magazine’s Dahlia Lithwick predicted Saturday what we would see today at the Sotomayor hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee: “The judicial confirmation process is more or less the political equivalent of Dancing With the Stars, in that the senators perform complex leaps and turns while admiring their hair in the mirror, while the nominee shuffles her feet a bit and calls it the foxtrot.”
If there were any surprises today, it was that Sotomayor gave a few more inches of ground than expected in detailing her judicial policy, and the senators were a hair less long-winded. (Slate, for whatever reason, also constructed this stopwatch comparing senator-to-nominee speaking time, for your independent verification.)
Sen. Jeff Sessions set an aggressive pace for the hearing, questioning Sotomayor’s judicial impartiality and her assertion, from a 2005 panel at Duke University, that judges make policy. In response to the persistence of Sessions and senators Orrin Hatch and Lindsey Graham, Sotomayor dropped a few clues about her stance on the issue every Supreme Court nominee tries to avoid: Roe v. Wade and the constitutionality of abortion.
Hatch established Sotomayor’s belief that Roe was “settled law” (somewhat true, but so were Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York, and dozens of others — all overruled now.) Later, Sotomayor told Sen. Feinstein that “the health and welfare of a woman must be compelling consideration” in abortion-related cases. These admissions are somewhat short of a policy brief, but noteworthy during a hearing to which the original plaintiff Roe paid a protest visit.
Sotomayor early in the day attempted to recant for all time that niggling quote from a 2001 speech about the exceptional judiciary prowess of a wise Latina woman, explaining that she was adding a “rhetorical flourish” on a quotation from a female predecessor that, in reality, said roughly the opposite: “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.”
Blogger William A. Jacobsen unearthed an article from the NYU Law Review that settles the quote’s origin for all time (Sotomayor attributed the words first to Sandra Day O’Connor, then to “Supreme Court Justice Coyle.”) The line belongs to Justice Jeanne Coyne of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and the article (by Justice O’Connor) goes on to say that “asking whether women attorneys speak with a “different voice” than men do is a question that is both dangerous and unanswerable.”
So I’d guess that Sotomayor hasn’t seen the last of her “wise Latina.”
And Graham, the liveliest of the speakers yesterday, created today’s longest uncomfortable pause when, riffling through his notes to find the precise language of Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” quote, asked her to recite it for him from memory. Was his motive efficiency, or a mischievous streak? At any rate, he found the quote before she found her voice, so we’ll never know what sort of skirmish might have ensued.
View all comments (14) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Hope Hodge
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/14/sotomayor-hearings-wrap-up-day
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Confessions of a Soft-Drinking Newspaperman
- Lean Feminism
- Back in the Fray
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 1:39AM
“Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 1:45AM
“Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committe links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 1:45AM
“Americans Opposed to “Wise Latina” Sotomayor For Supreme Court …Update: AP Sotomayor links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 8:11AM
Top Stories – 10th links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 10:24AM
Top Stories – 11th links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.15.09 @ 12:44PM
Top Stories – 13th links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 7.16.09 @ 2:40AM
“Ah! the benefits of summer Supreme Court confirmation hearings(not all that many peo links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
runescape gold | 7.16.09 @ 10:54PM
I know a lot of people who -- even though they'd be appalled at seeing someone walk into a bar with a pistol -- are using people's reaction as a wedge against the administration. Unbelievable.
Devoirs| 7.19.09 @ 6:42PM
SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHALL BE AN ASSET TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
SOTOMAYOR IS BRILLIANT.
_____________________
SCANDALS! SCANDALS! SCANDALS!
DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!
GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER!
“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (go to Google, type “blog of drizzten Margie Schoedinger,” and hit “Enter”).
“George [Bush is personally complicit] in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).
McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.
Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.
During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape. However, the vast majority of such scandalous cases will never come out (the grisly details are typically hard to substantiate). A prosecutor really can lawfully charge a former president with murdering one or more people in the disgusting way Bush murdered Schoedinger. The American people unfortunately live in a world where evil presidents can murder any number of people—figuratively—with a wave of a magic wand and get away with it.
(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death” or “George W. Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape,” hit “Enter,” and readily find hundreds of copies.)
(Please feel free to go to Google, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY blog of Andrew Wang,” and hit “Enter.”)
_____________________
Andrew Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
Best Canister Vacuum | 4.22.11 @ 10:43AM
another scandal from Sotomayor, wow, she never ceases to amaze me. How many time did i hear about her scandal? 3 or 4 times?
So much for her "wise Latina" title