The Hearing- My notes

Does anybody actually listen to the words this nominee is saying? It's almost like people are under that hypnotic funk of
"i like the way she talks..uh duh!"that helped B.O. get elected. You know how on elementary school standardized tests they have you read a paragraph and point out the parts that are "fog" and then what parts were necessary to the questions at hand? You don't? Well I do. And that's exactly what I am reminded of when I hear her convoluted responses that in no way answer the question asked. I guess it's an improvement from just stating "no comment", but many liberal media pundits are whining over republican senators continuing to question her "wise Latina" and "courts make policy" statements, and her dismissal of the New Haven firefighters case, because she never gives a definitive answer or explanation! She could have helped that at least somewhat, by admitting that the 'wise Latina' comment was her mistake or that she misspoke. But after all, it doesn't really matter if she admits any wrong-doing because this is pretty much going to be a party-line vote, and if you couldn't tell by the salivating of certain lib senators, she's got it in the bag.

Here's my favorite show, Red Eye's summary of what is going down:

Fast forward to 2:26 if you want "Hardball's" blowhard Chris Matthews to make you barf.
And then to 2:48 to have Jim Norton make you feel better...
and then to 3:20 to have that handsome former CIA operative Mike Baker make you chuckle.

And today we had Ben Cardin taking a turn at kissing her ass, as he excitedly invited her to the Baltimore stadium--yes, during the hearings. This hearing goes from a serious questioning on a broken record by republicans who never get answers, to a joke with each democrat groveling for her, her large family's, their Latino constituency's, and the Messiah B.O.'s approval.

What irks me about the wise Latina thing, is that instead of owning up to a racist mistake, she does the backhanded 'apology' that I hate, by saying I'm sorry that YOU misunderstood me or, it's unfortunate that people interpret it THAT way. Look at this quote, and then look at the next one, and tell me they are both equally acceptable:

“[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.”

and then:

"A wise white man, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than an Asian woman who hasn't lived that life."

Already, it's established that we hold her to different standards than every other nominee. But it wasn't just that she mentioned these sentiments half a dozen times in her career, she went farther in stating that she disagrees with former Justice Sandra Day O'connor's claim that "a wise old woman and a wise old man reach the same conclusions." Her only explanation for these comments was that she was trying to "inspire" young Latino law students, and female law students to strive for greatness...the question was asked by Sen. John Cornyn, of whether she thinks that her statements may have influenced those audiences to believe that white male judges are any less fair or wise in their rulings--but it's obvious that that is what she wanted to imply. To see Sen. Cornyn's questioning about the New Haven case, click here.

But my favorite was Sen. Lindsay Graham:

click here to watch parts 2 & 3
I appreciated Sen. Graham's questioning of Sotomayor, although he was never truly answered. He questions her on her 12 years of service to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, on which she was a board member. She claims to be unaware of the fact that the fund fought for tax-payer funded abortions. They said that when abortions for low-income women are not funded by tax-payers, it is equivalent to slavery...She didn't distance herself from that decision, or even seem bothered by the idea.

In the second video, Graham questions her about military law, regarding whether the enemies captured must be released to return to battle at a certain point. She admitted she isn't knowledgeable on military law, but he asks her to consider this question for further questioning later on. He also in the third video, repeatedly asks her if abortion is mentioned in the Constitution, whether it states at what point in what trimester a baby is viable (as the weak and ridiculous Roe v. Wade case legalized abortion up until the "point at which the fetus becomes viable" which isn't vague at all huh?), or whether the constitution "prohibits the legislative body at the federal or state level... from protecting the rights of the unborn in the first trimester?" She couldn't answer, other than , "no the word abortion is not used" and the expected explanation that the constitution has 'broad provisions'.

In this, Graham is quoting numerous lawyers statements on her temperament from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, in which lawyers routinely anonymously leave remarks on judges. From "she's a terror on the bench," and "she lacks judicial temperament" and "she abuses lawyers" to "she'll attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like." Although she defends herself by saying she 'asks tough questions' and 'pushes lawyers' to do more, it's quite obvious that she has been and will be an activist judge.

Frank Ricci, his co-plaintiffs and their attorney
One of the biggest and most recent conflicts was her involvement in the dismissal of the Ricci v. DeStefano case. Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff filed the suit initially because he is dyslexic and paid $1000 for tutoring and studying to pass the test, which he did. The firefighters who were discriminated against as a result of her dismissal (later to be victorious when the case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court), were in attendance at the hearing. It was revealed that she and the other 2 panelists who reviewed their case, dismissed it with an unsigned unanimous dismissal of 8 sentences. They didn't even allow it to go to a jury to decide, and the only reason it was even seen by the Supreme court (and subsequently overturned) was because the ironically Puerto Rican second-circuit Judge Jose Cabranes (nominated by Clinton) read about the case and urged the Supreme Court to review it.

Justice Samuel Alito-the good guy*

An interesting new revelation, was that the possible motivation (according to Judge Alito) was that the mayor and other city officials seem to have

"worked behind the scenes to sabotage the promotional examinations because they knew that, were the exams certified, the Mayor would incur the wrath of [Rev. Boise] Kimber and other influential leaders of New Haven’s African-American community.”

Furthermore, Alito says:

This admission finds ample support in the record. Reverend Boise Kimber, to whom the District Court referred, is a politically powerful New Haven pastor and a self-professed “‘kingmaker.’” … On one occasion, “[i]n front of TV cameras, he threatened a race riot during the murder trial of the black man arrested for killing white Yalie Christian Prince. He continues to call whites racist if they question his actions.”

This article explains the deep connections Mayor DeStefano has with the political activist Kimber, in his campaigning etc. Here is a threatening statement Kimber put out back when the case was first made in 2004, trying to (and somewhat successfully) intimidate the Mayor, the city, and the district court:

Rev. Boise Kimber

“I look at this [Board] tonight. I look at three whites
and one Hispanic and no blacks. . . . I would hope that
you would not put yourself in this type of position, a
political ramification that may come back upon you as
you sit on this [Board] and decide the future of a
department and the future of those who are being
promoted. … “(APPLAUSE).”

Good for Alito and the 4 other concurring judges! Sotomayor says the Supreme Court basically set a new precedent for these types of cases, and therefore before that point, she and the other panelists didn't have any other option. BS. There is no doubt in my mind that were she already sitting on the Supreme Court bench, she would have sided with Ginsberg in her dissent, regardless of any "new" perspectives the court saw.

Yes, as Graham says, barring a total "meltdown," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is going to be confirmed. But it should matter to all of us, that she is being given the power as a Supreme Court justice, of basically unchecked power, with the true capabilities (as she pointed out before she knew she would be in this position) of virtually making policy, through setting precedents. Take note of all the corruption, prejudice and incompetence, and use your votes in 2010, and 2012, to make a stand for the Constitution, justice, life, for true American values.