Voting “No” on Sotomayor (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
Because of her “breathtaking dishonesty” in explaining her “wise Latina” remarks:
“Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her ‘wise Latina’ remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t “agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey,” as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, “that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.”
Sotomayor will apparently say anything to succeed.
UPDATED 1: Another negative Sotomayor review from via Randy Barnett at Volokh, including some “brutally candid” thoughts from a Georgetown Law professor.
UPDATE 2: The AP weighs in and it’s not pretty.
— DRJ
Breathtaking dishonesty … that us par for the course with the dirty little socialists.
Racists
JD (3086d2) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:09 pmHer initial “lie” was about a “wise latina woman.” She is incapable of truth-telling, like Obama himself.
GM Roper (85dcd7) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:10 pmThe more she says the more I like the fact that she’s going to be on the court. She’s no worse than Souter on the conservative/liberal divide, and while I like Souter’s placement in the formalist camp I am willing to pay that price in order to give people something to point at to show the folly of identity politics.
Much like Souter for the GOP it will not surprise me if the hard left ends up highly displeased by this choice in the end. Except because of their rabid have to play nice tendencies no one will actuallybe able to admit it even as they weep. Kinda like Obama himself with all the campaign backtracking.
Soronel Haetir (2a5236) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:14 pmDidn’t Hitler teach about how to Lie? 1) If you are going to Lie, go ahead and make it a douzy, the bigger the Lie the better, because no one would believe that you would make up something so preposterous! Also, 2) when you Lie, keep repeatng the Lie over and over again, and get others (MSM) to keep repeating the Lie over and over again and eventually people will have heard the Lie so often they’ll think it must be true.
I think that this is even in the Basic Democrat Playbook they hand out to all representatives, senators, staff, and the Media.
J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:18 pmDo we know anybody who will say anything to get elected? Anybody come to mind?
bill-tb (365bd9) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:22 pmSoronel Haetir,
I agree Sotomayor likely won’t be a force on the Court, at least at first and possibly never. However, I’m stunned at her inability to come up with a better explanation than this, and that the Obama people would let her do it. Their incompetence makes the Bush White House look brilliant.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:22 pmComment by J. Raymond Wright — 7/14/2009 @ 1:18 pm
Herr Goebbels was a great practitioner of The Big Lie; but, I do think you’ll find the instructions on use and implementation in the first few pages of Marxism for Dummies.
AD - RtR/OS! (1699eb) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:23 pmIncompetence? Incompetence is defined as an inability to accomplish one’s goals…and I see no evidence that Obama ain’t getting her on the Court.
steve sturm (369bc6) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:40 pmDRJ – Is explamation a euphemism for breathtaking dishonesty?
JD (3086d2) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:41 pmWhy, DRJ! Didn’t you get the memo?
Everything that the current President does is brilliant and selflish and carefully planned. Pitch-perfect, even.
Everything the previous occupant of the White House did was stupid and venal and evil.
Isn’t that Teh Narrative?
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:43 pmDRJ, knowing your thorough intelligence, I assume you’ve read all of the “Wise Latina” speech. For others, I would suggest doing so. It’s at: Sotomayor 2002 Speech.
Reading it in full for the first time, I was struck by her two additional comments in her concluding paragraphs immediately following the “wise Latina” line and wondered what you thought of them. To me, she seems to be arguing that it is impossible to free oneself from your experience, but that you must constantly be aware of the tension between the limits and benefits of that experience.
Peccator Dubius (0a6237) — 7/14/2009 @ 1:48 pmPeccator, dejame explicarte algo, um Nice Try.
I have seen the arrogance of Ivy Minorities and it is BREATH TAKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
She meant it exactly as she said it.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:02 pmShe is BHO latina vers. 1.0
Graham just gave her every chance to disavow the ridiculous positions taken by the Puerto Rican Defense Fund as pertains to Medicaid-funded abortions (to deny funding being akin to slavery) and she would not.
He asked her to recite the infamous “wise latina” quote and she would not.
This is BHO through and through. Hint at your true self, associate with true believers, but never allow yourself to be sullied by your own words on any contentious issue.
I loved, loved, loved, her rejection of “labeling.” She would not allow herself ot be labeled in the hearing. But does Graham come back at her with her evil labelling of “white men?” Of course not.
Pathetic.
Ed from SFV (fabfbd) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:02 pmShe really is the perfect Obama nominee. Her gender and ethnicity are what defines who she is and how she will judge.
And here I thought that being an American citizen was the requirement — and allowing the color-blind Constitution to be your guide, the duty — of a Supreme Court justice.
Change really has come.
Icy Texan (43c637) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:02 pmThe woman lacks the most basic qualifications for the post she seeks. For Sotomayor, Justice isn’t blind to the skin color or the national origin of those who come before her. She’s on-record as willing to deny white men equality under the law in favor of a naked racial quota system. That makes her unfit to sit in judgment of anyone.
Ropelight (bb3af5) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:10 pmI really hope all the Conservatives vote NO using EXACTLY the words and phrases Obambi, Leahy, et al used in bashing Alito and Robert.
Identical words. Not one different….
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:18 pmWhy not take Sotomayor at her word? After all, she she graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton University, earned her law degree from Yale, and was the editor of the Yale Law Journal – surely when she made the wise Latina comment (made many times over the years), she knew what she was saying and why she was saying it – because she truly believed it. This is not an inarticulate person who has not evidenced the ability to think and express a thought process. Why that’s been a integral part of her professional life.
I, for one, am not going to argue with her and claim such an accomplished person didn’t really mean what she said – even if she’s the one telling me that.
I give her more credit for having expressed a serious opinion and conclusion drawn during her adult life re ethnicity and gender – apparently even more credit than she gives herself as evidenced today by her lack of integrity.
Dana (57e332) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:19 pmPlagiarize and then when the MSM says anything tell them Biden does it …..
Tit-for-tat.
HeavenSent (641cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:19 pmThis all sounds like the debate over, “what the meaning of is, is”, redux…
I though I’d only have to hear that pathetic weaseling once in my life…
Apparently not though…
Bob (99fc1b) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:19 pmHe asked her to recite the infamous “wise latina” quote and she would not.
This was significant. She certainly knows that this is a giant red flag to the Republicans yet her unwillingness to comply with something seemingly as innocuous as reciting a belief she has repeatedly made in front of other audiences only casts further doubt upon her honesty.
And that’s because the statement is anything but innocuous.
Dana (57e332) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:35 pmReally? I’m not shocked at all.
After all, Biden was apparently in charge of prepping her…
Scott Jacobs (ed2c09) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:45 pmDid Sen. Maple Syrup for Brains moon anyone today?
Has Sen. Alf*ckingfranken snorted a line of coke off the production assistant’s ass yet?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:54 pmIt is really astonishing that they chose to brazenly lie about the “wise latina woman” quote that she used repeatedly over several years.
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:57 pmI am stunned to see our country going the direction it is. This is really bad.
Tuf Speedman (b2907a) — 7/14/2009 @ 2:59 pmSenator Smalley’s still working on his latest magnus opus porn epic – he’s been paid good money for that kind of work previously, why give up a good perk at this junture?
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:26 pmthen again, this tale counsels on voting yes:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/07/14/great-moments-in-supreme-court-confirmation-hearings.aspx
imdw (704cde) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:30 pmThe trollish types should have their marching orders and talking points any time now.
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:36 pmImdw – are you going to defend her bald-faced lies?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:37 pm“He asked her to recite the infamous “wise latina” quote and she would not. ”
Now we understand what the point of this questioning is.
imdw (3c2713) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:39 pmI vote “no”. She’s not the woman for the job.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:43 pmI am surprised they had a hearing. Why not just confirm her by a voice vote and get it over with?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:44 pmHell, she did not even know the basics of ConLaw. She makes Harriet Miers look like a good pick.
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:47 pmDid any of the esteemed Senators say “That is a lie, and you are a liar” ?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:52 pmHere’s the thing with the GOP Senators. They think there’s such a thing as a Hispanic or Latino. They think that Mexicans don’t know that they’re not Puerto Ricans and that Puerto Ricans don’t know that they’re not Mexicans. They also think that the 80% of Mexicans who did not vote for them this time are not going to vote for them again if they annoy Sotomayor.
nk (1e550c) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:58 pm#11
Sotomayor hangs herself in your example. What one chooses to “see” disqualifies her as a candidate for any legal position. A judge has to see everything, not selectively see things. She argues the empathy nonsense, something she denied today.
So she’s a racist who believes people can pick and choose what they believe and see.
Reminds me of many of the comments I see here.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/14/2009 @ 3:59 pmNow,
What — the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.
Then.
The Emperor (1b037c) — 7/14/2009 @ 4:02 pmSecond, 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.
Pants on fire!
Thomas I Why do you have such a damned burr under your saddle?
JD (7f75c9) — 7/14/2009 @ 4:05 pmI would have asked Sotomayor “Is it possible to legally discriminate against whites?”.
I’m not sure how she’d answer that question. If she answered “yes”, I’d ask her for some examples of it. If she answered “no”, well, that would lead to some fireworks.
jcurtis (14bf32) — 7/14/2009 @ 4:22 pmPlagiarize and then when the MSM says anything tell them Biden does it …..
Tit-for-tat.
Comment by HeavenSent — 7/14/2009 @ 2:19 pm
This goes back to the Republicans being the party of good manners. We don’t sink to those levels, we don’t play like the left, we rise above and set the example because surely they will follow suit.
Dana (57e332) — 7/14/2009 @ 4:23 pmIt was also entirely instructive that she denied knowledge of the Geneva Conventions. Graham asked her to acknowledge that they provide for indeterminate incarceration for “certified” combatants – that there is no mandated time for the return of those captured in war. She pleaded ignorance.
Well, given that this question is at the very heart of the polity at this time, and that SCOTUS is guaranteed to decide the questions of detainment, how could she not be prepared to answer this philosophical question? Do or do not prisoners of war have a right to a time-specific sentence/incarceration, or are their rights trumped by security needs of the state which captured them?
This is basic and she is yet again found wanting.
Ed from SFV (fabfbd) — 7/14/2009 @ 5:12 pmComment by Dana — 7/14/2009 @ 4:23 pm
You’ve nailed it, the essence of a losing strategy!
AD - RtR/OS! (1699eb) — 7/14/2009 @ 5:14 pm“I am surprised they had a hearing. Why not just confirm her by a voice vote and get it over with?”
Hey they were even whining about how this hearing was too rushed.
imdw (de7003) — 7/14/2009 @ 5:51 pmThomas I Why do you have such a damned burr under your saddle?
More like a ginormous jalapeno up his backside. Why he comments here continues to mystify – go home and kick your poor dog instead, pal.
Dmac (e6d1c2) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:20 pmPeccator Dubius #11:
I apologize for the length of this comment but it’s necessary to adequately respond to your point.
Here is the paragraph from your link where Sotomayor talks about the “wise Latina”:
You purport to quote from “her two additional comments in her concluding paragraphs immediately following the ‘wise Latina’ line,” but it’s not immediately following, is it? So we can get a full picture of what Sotomayor was talking about, here is the remainder of her speech after that paragraph. I’ve bolded the parts you left out:
If you are a male lawyer, Peccator, have you achieved those “great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach” yet? If not, you need to work on it. Apparently women and minority lawyers don’t.
At what point will there be enough “women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences [they] will and are making”?
If Sotomayor is so concerned about judging fairly, why does she treat “women and people of color on the bench” as a monolithic group whose effect on society can be measured once they reach “statistically significant numbers”?
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 6:59 pmAn extraordinarily poor performance by Sotomayor. She showed a pathetic lack of basic competence in constitutional law issues.
This is such a quintessential Obama appointment – superficial, incompetent, poorly prepared and poorly presented.
SPQR (2304cc) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:00 pmWhere’s Anita Hill when you really need her…
Frank Drackman (c2d1a4) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:13 pmObama and Sotomayor share the same basic incoherent leftist philosophy – we need to end discrimination by perpetuating it and institutionalizing it.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:30 pmShe also shares with Obama the technique of hiding her actual views with poorly disguised dishonesty.
SPQR (2304cc) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:36 pmLosers.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:52 pmSore losers.
Pitifully sore losers.
Losers in perpetuity.
Sessions made mincemeat out of her. In essence, she was saying she lied to the Hispanic students to make them feel racially superior to whites. That is her version of “inspiring.” Her reasoning today was as pathetic as it was because she knows she is going to be confirmed. Obama is going to take a further hit with this activist judge.
She ought to run for office, not sit on the SC.
Patricia (48ec63) — 7/14/2009 @ 7:57 pmObviously Patricia, you didn’t get the memo from Feinstein’s office,
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., quickly jumped to Sotomayor’s defense, saying the judge had been unfairly labeled “an activist” for her ruling in the firefighter case.
“So what’s happening here, ladies and gentlemen and members, is that this very reserved and very factual and very considered nominee is being characterized as being an activist when she is anything but,” Feinstein told the panel. “And I have a problem with this, because some of it is getting across out there. Calls began to come into my office, ‘Wow, she’s an activist.'”
“In my view, because you have agreed with your Republican colleagues on constitutional issues some 98 percent of the time, I don’t see how you can possibly be construed to be an activist,” Feinstein continued.
Dana (57e332) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:04 pmThank you, Larry. Your insightful and profound comment has made us all better people.
Racist
JD (355e34) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:15 pm“Larry Reilly” will be a good source of fun in November 2010. I remember the triumphalists before the 2004 election. It’s the Pauline Kael syndrome
Mike K (2cf494) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:22 pm“Sessions made mincemeat out of her. ”
I missed it. Did she bring up what kept sessions from being a judge?
imdw (e20863) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:23 pmI’ve updated the post with an interesting Volokh link.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:24 pmIf we exclude her comments because they may be open to interpretation, can we judge her on the clubs/societies she joined? These would not reflect well on someone we wish to be an impartial judge relying on the United States Constitution for guidance.
J (5fe0a1) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:25 pmSurprisingly, Lindsey Graham did a very nice job dissecting Sotomayor today with his southern gentleman routine. Allah has the entire clip at HotAir. It’s long, but worth a look.
shortened url 😉
Somebody shorten the url.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:43 pmThat Georgetown Law Prof does not think very highly of Ms. Sotomayor, huh? That one will leave a mark.
JD (355e34) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:44 pmThis was just strange.
With respect to that question, moreover, even if it’s not incorporated against the states, the question would be would the states have a rational basis for the regulation it has in place. And I believe that the question there was whether or not a prohibition against felons possessing firearms was at question, if my memory serves me correctly, if it doesn’t. But even Justice Scalia, in the majority opinion in Heller, recognized that that was a rational basis regulation for a state under all circumstances, whether or not there was a Second Amendment right.
What’s “even if it’s not incorporated against the states” doing there? I could understand it if what she had said had been “even if it’s not incorporated, the states have to have a rational basis, and they don’t”. But “even if it it’s not incorporated, the states have to have a rational basis, and they do” suggests that she thinks that even if the AM2 is incorporated against the states, the law in question is still valid.
But she doesn’t explain why she would think that.
aphrael (4163e2) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:50 pmThen there’s this:
HATCH: What’s your understanding of the test or standard the Supreme Court has used to determine whether a right should be considered fundamental?
It’s a shame that she dodged this question, because it’s a good question: as far as I can tell the Supreme Court has not been able to articulate a coherent answer to this. Sure, “fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty”, etc … but the list of things which have been held to fall within this seems utterly incoherent.
aphrael (4163e2) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:54 pmLarry Reilly – Thanks for stopping by. Your insightful comments really make a valuable contribution to study of the intellectual depth of the political left.
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/14/2009 @ 8:56 pmaphrael,
I don’t understand about half of what she said. Maybe we had to be there.
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:02 pmShe appears to not understand Kelo and its progeny either.
JD (355e34) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:08 pm“UPDATED: Another negative Sotomayor review from Randy Barnett at Volokh, including some “brutally candid” thoughts from a Georgetown Law professor.”
Supreme court candidate upsets founder of CLS movement. Film at 11.
imdw (490521) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:15 pmimdw has turned into a poor version of alphie.
JD (355e34) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:21 pmimdw,
As the link states, the “brutally candid” review was by Georgetown University Law Center professor L. Mike Seidman aka Louis Seidman, an Obama and Kerry donor.
[In the interest of clarity, I’m editing the Update to say “via Randy Barnett” instead of “from Randy Barnett.” — DRJ]
DRJ (6f3f43) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:29 pmIt’s situations like this that make me so disgusted by certain people of the right who, because a Republican isn’t 100% perfect for the White House (eg, John McCain), will therefore sit out the election, vote for some nominal third-party candidate (and, in effect, throw away his or her vote), or, more stupefyingly, vote for the Democrat.
Yes, I know, some of the most left-leaning members of the Supreme Court (eg, David Souter) through the decades have been selected by, for example, George Bush Sr or a few other Republican presidents. But, by and large, the greatest percentage of nitwit liberal jurists occupying not just the highest court of the land, but throughout the federal judicial system overall, have been appointed by people like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and, now, Barry Obama.
Mark (411533) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:32 pmDRJ – Your patience with their asshattery is legendary.
JD (cd470a) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:36 pmI don’t understand about half of what she said.
Bernanke is rumored to have put dibs on her for a Fed position if the Court thing doesn’t work out. Evidently Big Al was wowed by her off-the-cuff obfuscations and give Ben the heads up. Treasury will have a hissy though. Not that she hasn’t any banking experience, more that she’s never worked at Goldman Sachs.
political agnostic (527501) — 7/14/2009 @ 9:59 pm“Supreme court candidate upsets founder of CLS movement. Film at 11.”
imdw – That is big news. Aren’t the feminazis big CLS supporters too?
daleyrocks (718861) — 7/14/2009 @ 10:14 pmJD:
Res ipsa loquitur.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/15/2009 @ 12:46 am“As the link states, the “brutally candid” review was by Georgetown University Law Center professor L. Mike Seidman aka Louis Seidman, an Obama and Kerry donor.”
Indeed. He’s the founder of CLS.
Read a bit on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_legal_studies
And tell me if you want a supreme court justice that pleases him or upsets him.
imdw (e97992) — 7/15/2009 @ 4:54 am“[In the interest of clarity, I’m editing the Update to say “via Randy Barnett” instead of “from Randy Barnett.” — DRJ]”
If you read the link, you’ll notice that Barnett refers to Seidmann as “a cofounder and intellectual leader of the Critical Legal Studies movement in the 1980s.” Incorporating this into your understanding of the significance of this statement may be intellectually more difficult than looking up this person’s donations, but you should do it. It will be rewarding.
imdw (6eb217) — 7/15/2009 @ 5:29 amAmericans lack the analytical ability to identify lies. Or maybe we just don’t care about truth. After all, we are bombarded with advertising lies all the time. We like them.
They tell us what we want to hear.
Amphipolis (b120ce) — 7/15/2009 @ 7:20 amA Sotomayor Slapdown From…Academia?…
Maybe Republican Senators should take off the kid gloves and, as they say, “grow a pair”. Sonia Sotomayor has an established and documented judicial record, which puts her in conflict with our Constitution on many issues. For those Rep…
The Barton Bulletin (60f32e) — 7/15/2009 @ 6:17 pmA performance like this on constitutional law questions would have resulted in a C- grade at my law school.
SPQR (26be8b) — 7/15/2009 @ 6:34 pm#74
Nice comment. Americans have een through an educational system which makes them feel good about their ignorance. Whether it be Obama’s impressive knowledge of geography or Barney Frank’s economic mastery, or the other brillant examples of our educational system that render Americans unable to weigh, evaluate and comprehend facts before the inevitable crisis.
Combine this with a MSM that has gone missing. I read only one article warning about NINJA loans during the 2007-2002 period and that was a WSJ article that described a 700,000 mortgage given to a Mexican couple who worked asa maid and casual laborer. No mention of their status nor that many loans were given to illegal aliens, nor that loans were given to people without regular or noraml income sources. It was too busy covering events like Princess Diana, or Jackson rather than minor events that might destroy your old age savings or put you in a financially disasterous position due to our government’s activities.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/15/2009 @ 9:21 pmWhen Biden uses his own version of the English language or when GW Bush mangles its syntax and its pronunciation -nucular eg.- no one I am aware of ever ascribed their errors to either their race or ethnicity or their sex. But conservatives of a certain stripe lose no time in linking Sotomayor’s difficulties with English to her ethnicity. In some ways she asked for it with her ridiculous “wise Latina woman” remark. That aside, conservatives have to figure out a way to deal with Americans who are of Latino heritage. Liberals condescend and pander to what they call “people of color” and that is bad enough. You might review what Ronald Reagan brought to his party and begin to emulate him.
mhr (916354) — 7/16/2009 @ 9:50 amGosh, spqr.
Mea cupola. I didn’t realize that all these snarky, childish, circle-jerking comments were not attacks on Sotomayor. My bad.
I’d actually come back to this little room to look for more of your own brilliant, incisive, authoritative analysis of Sotomayor’s knowledge of the law. The other day you wrapped all that brilliance up in this single trenchant, laconic sentence, and left it at that: “She showed a pathetic lack of basic competence in constitutional law issues.”
So like, do you teach as an adjunct at Harvard Law School or something? Your analytical skills and your ability to present them in writing are blinding.
p.s.
Larry Reilly (45e7a4) — 7/16/2009 @ 10:04 amIs this the first Senate Judiciary hearing for a Supreme Court justice nominee you’ve followed? I ask because you commented that the nominee was being dishonest.
Perhaps you were busy mopping floors in Rick’s Cafe over in Morocco during the Roberts and Alito hearings. And maybe you were unborn when Clarence Thomas testified that he’d never, ever, in any way, not even at Yale Law School, discussed abortion law and Roe v. Wade with anyone.
What an amusing contrast the Roberts’ and Alito hearings were, Larry. They actually understood the legal issues they were questioned upon, and were able to make coherent responses about them. In stark contrast to Sotomayor.
Meanwhile, Larry, you still have no response to the fact that you and your BDS infested ilk claimed that these kind of verbal mistakes were indicative of a lack of intelligence and qualification for high office …
SPQR (5811e9) — 7/16/2009 @ 10:10 amLarry-79
SPQR does his best to amuse us with his clown act and drive by snarkings. Too bad there is never anything of substance.
You were too kind to think he could mop floors.
Thomas Jackson (8ffd46) — 7/16/2009 @ 5:00 pmWell, Thomas, you know that tomorrow is Hawaiian shirt day. So, you know, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt and jeans.
SPQR (5811e9) — 7/16/2009 @ 5:13 pmSPQR – Isn’t it sad when the ones from the right are as bad, if not worse, than the left?
JD (f2f4d2) — 7/16/2009 @ 5:21 pmI vote worse in this particular case. Arrogance and ignorance do not combine well, as Thomas Jackson demonstrates.
Stashiu3 (ed6467) — 7/16/2009 @ 5:37 pm