Today was the second day of the Sotomayor hearings and the big news is the shabby treatment the judge received at the end of the day from Senator Graham despite nervously interjecting from time to time that he liked her:Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), dove head-first into the personal when it was his turn to pepper Judge Sonia Sotomayor with questions, reading from anonymous listings in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary. "When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the second circuit you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament," said the South Carolina Republican, who went on to call Sotomayor a "bully." "I do ask tough questions at oral argument," she responded, before Graham cut her off. "Are you the only one who asks questions at oral argument?" he asked."No," Sotomayor replied. "Not at all." Finally Graham, who repeated that he liked Sotomayor personally and could end up voting for her confirmation, got even blunter. "Do you think you have a temperament problem?" he asked. "No sir," Sotomayor replied. "I can only talk about what I know about the relationship with the judges of my court and the lawyers who appear regularly before our circuit. And I believe my reputation is such that I ask the tough question but I do it evenly to both sides."
TPJ: Here's the full exchange:
I don't have a problem with her being seen by some lawyers as someone to be respected and yes, even feared at times. Should we honestly vote against a candidate for SCOTUS because some poor attorneys whined (anonymously of course) that she was too tough? Do we really want a push-over of a judge at the district level because some poor anonymous attornies can't hold their own and persevere in a district that is known for it's heavy work load and stressful environment? This isn't small claims court we're talking about. Since when did being known as a bit of a hard-ass prevent a justice from being nominated or seen as having a solid temperment? It sure as shit didn't stop Scalia whose known to be hard-nosed and caustic at times. She sat through Jeff Sessions yammering without popping his tiny, bulbous head off like a grape and whipping it across the room by his elfen ears--she passed MY temperment test.
Senator Graham's questioning near the end of the day on her temperament raised a red flag in my mind. She had received tough questioning from others too but Graham was going about it in a very (I thought) disrespectful, condescending manner, which seemed outright sexist to me. When male judges ask hard questions, are no nonsense and firm in their court they are considered tough but admired for their strength. No but when a female judge conducts court in that manner she is considered a, "bully" or unstable both of, which are historic pajoritive ways of saying a woman can't handle the pressure. As one female commenter (catrst) on HuffPo discussing this topic said, "Women are accused of "behavior unbecoming to a lady" when they are smart and assertive and men are patted on the back as being good leaders." TPJ: These clowns on the right think she's woefully unqualified yet Sarah Palin is qualified to the president?!!! OMG.
I understood that the "Wise Latina" comment would appear and sat patiently through the first, second and third time but as the day went on it seemed that it was all that the insecure pasty, old, white men could concenrate upon. It was like watching a movie stuck on the same scence for hours and hours--it was beyond annoying. Then when Graham came around for his last round of questioning and went to that "Wise Latina" well one more time and I groaned. So what ensued was this awkward moment where he looks up and grins, then proceeds to flippantly ask Judge Sotomayor if she remembered the "Wise Latina" comment!!
No, cheese brain!!! She had only been bombarded with it for the last 6 hours and weeks before in the press--Of course she remembered it Senator Graham Cracker!! I'm surprised he couldn't recite it back to her with how many times it's been brought up in the hearings so far. So then she just smiles politely at him while he fumbles with his papers trying to find the fucking quote. Then he proceeds to ASK HER TO REPEAT IT TO HIM!!!! Like he was some grade school teacher. His whole tone was like that of a tutor or therapist saying, "You really should seek anger management." And this coming from the man who wanted Hot Head McCain to be in charge of the nukes in being prez!!! It was then that I considered ripping my eyes out with a fork but obviously decided, wisely (maybe like a wise latina-Insert sarcasm-) to throw a pillow at the teevee instead.
The thing about Senator "Who Moved My Cheese?" Graham and those who think like them is that they are making a mountain out of a mole hill. No one is worried that Puerto Rican women are going to take over America and crush white culture beneath their fashionable yet professional heels because it's absurd. There hasn't been a historic and systematic oppression of white people by Puert0 Rican women and I don't think that a comment, which was taken out of context is the pre-determined signal for a race war led by Puerto Rican female judges!!! Hey Republicans!! Paranoid much?!! Then again I'm no Nostradamus.
The other point is that it's o.k. for an Italian American male to say (As Justice Alito said in his hearing) that his decisions couldn't help but be influenced by his heritage. However, it's racism for a Latina woman to make a similar claim?!! Pathetic and sad but that's today's Republican Party!! R.N.C pretty much means Racists, Nuts and Christians anymore. They've purged everyone else with any sense.
---End of Transmission---
6 comments:
...When male judges ask hard questions, are no nonsense and firm in their court they are considered tough but admired for their strength.
Graham is such a f*cking tool. I doubt seriously if he would have a problem with Scalia's posing "tough" questions, before or after his tenure on the bench.
hi... just dropping by!
http://www.fileafro.com
http://mobileandetc.blogspot.com
http://kantahanan.blogspot.com
Hello Mr. Junkie. The enemy here, a white, educated, right-winger who can independently think and is conservative by choice. After searching for substance in your blog I gave up. But, thanks for covering the very points over and over again that you said your were tired of hearing about! At least of the libs bent center will keep hearing about the type of people that Obama aligns with. Sotomayor doesn't matter to us, the balance of power does not change in the Supreme Court. Conservatives want people to hear how much Sotomayor thinks like you do. And while you and your fellow libs are incessantly name calling and visciously attacking, we just want to let the facts speak for themselves. So, this christian, red-kneck, in-bred, hate-monger will leave with this thought. Sotomayor is just a tool for us to fry a bigger fish. We are after the one who is spending our childrens inheritance, making us feel guilty to be Americans, smiling while destroying the middle class, and debilitating the greatest military on earth that protects the very rights you have to visciously attack mainstream Americans and save the pacific farm spider from extinction. Good luck in your liberal endeavors..but may you fail.
Saveamerica: If Sotomayor doesn't matter to your side then why did the Cons on the Judicial Committee spend the last few days grilling her? I guess they were just going through the motions--something your side is good at. And if she doesn't matter than why do, "Conservatives want people to hear how much Sotomayor thinks like you do?" As you stated.
Hmm, funny that you're so worried about the spending when I didn't hear a peep from your side when Bush wasted the treasury on Iraq. And blew the surplus from Clinton. Now I hear from conservatives that, "I opposed Bush spending all that money."
How come we didn't hear from these masses when he was robbing us blind? Where were your tea parties then? All we heard during his 8 years was that opposing his spending was, "Unpatriotic." If you opposed his spending so much then why did you re-elect him?
The main reason that Obama has had to spend this money is to keep the capital in the economy from drying up completely due to Bush's irresponsible spending. Obama's spending is targeted to help the sector's that need the most influx of cash. It's odd that so-called Capitalist's would oppose a bailout of our financial industry, which any true Capitalist would know is the engine of our economy. Without a working financial industry our economy collapses completely.
You guys never take responsibility for anything. So no, I'm not going take any lessons and lectures from your crowd on "fiscal responsibility." Spending isn't always a bad thing--It depends on what you're spending on.
As for Liberals "viciously attacking and name calling" if we do it we do it to defend ourselves from the slime you say and throw at us. And to keep us sane. Besides, sometimes insults are true--ever consider that angle? I doubt it. This is an odd attack coming from a party, which has spent the last 3 days viciously attacking and insulting Sotomayor. As if your side are saints. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for 2 minutes and he's already insulted half of America.
Why would you feel guilty about being an American unless you had something to feel guilty over? How is Obama destroying the middle-class when he is working to provide health care options to the middle-class, which won't cost them hardly a dime.
Unless of course you consider the top 1.2% of Americans who WILL be taxed to pay for it--Middle-class. That figure comes from the Congressional Budget Office itself. So 98.8% of Americans won't pay taxes because of it but that's hurting the middle-class. Riiiiight. Up is down in your world--don't you get dizzy?
Oh and he's destroying the middle-class by putting them back to work with infrastructure projects and green technology jobs? Most people who work construction (I know many) are middle-class. You guys are speaking too soon that the stimulus isn't working--half of the money is still yet to be disbursed!!! And unemployment is a lagging indicator.
The mantra that Obama is destroying our military is a old attack. Obama is increasing troops to Afghanistan and bringing some home bit by bit from Iraq so they can finally get some relief from endless tours.
It will allow us to repair the equipment which was destroyed and worn out from the war. But in your upside down world I can see how you'd think Obama is debilitating the military.
If you guys represent mainstream America then why do barely a quarter of Americans identify with the Republicans right now? P.S.: Would you guys PLEASE, nominate Sarah Palin in '12? We'd take that fight any day. P.P.S.-Darwin loves you.
saveamerica,
This is actually a very substantive blog, and it deserves a lot more readers than it gets. At least he actually has something to say instead of repeating empty taking points, which, judging from your comment, is all you know how to do.
Thanks Bill.
Post a Comment