Here’s the Law Dork liveblog of Day One of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings. [Warning: Sotomayor does not speak until 2:54 p.m. The hearing was gaveled to a close for the day by Chairman Leahy at 3:03 p.m.]
10:05: HERE WE GO!
The opening statement by Judiciary Committee Chair Leahy was, well, not all that surprising.
10:13: Sen. Sessions let us know that he hates all cases in which his view is on the losing end. He also unveiled the GOP talking point for the week, a line that I’m sure some people heard when the Republicans polled it: “Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.”
10:24: Sen. Kohl gave prepared remarks.
10:35: Sen. Hatch shows Sen. Sessions how to be classy and biting in your opposition. Hatch is not attacking Sotomayor, he is attacking President Obama and the Senate Democrats.
10:42: Sen. Feinstein, the first female senator to speak at the hearings, goes through the breadth of Sotomayor’s experience. Seeing recent rulings from the Supreme Court show that judges are “much more than umpires calling balls or strikes.” Feinstein gives the opposite list of the one given by Sessions.
10:53: Sen. Grassley is wondering aloud whether Sotomayor will be able to “resist the temptation” to mold the law. I wonder what Chief Justice Roberts answered when Grassley asked him that question.
Although Grassley distinguished Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment from Justice O’Connor’s oft-states line about an old man and an old woman reaching the same decision, Justice Ginsburg noted the unfair simplicity of that statement when visiting Ohio State earlier this year. She since has spoken several times about such issues. Ginsburg said, as published in The New York Times Magazine this past weekend, from an interview with Emily Bazelon:
I’m sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table. All of our differences make the conference better. That I’m a woman, that’s part of it, that I’m Jewish, that’s part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me.
11:03: Sen. Feingold, with a healthy glow, talks about how “judicial activism” is now an empty phrase.
11:07: Sen. Kyl says that her background makes “a prima facie case for confirmation.” But, he says, she’s suggested that her opinions, not the facts, will determine the outcome of the case. He suggests that Obama has issued a “new model for judging,” which, of course, includes “empathy.”
Kyl’s statement that Judge Paez and his jury instruction is misleading because it ignores that the instruction was almost the same exact point that was made by Sotomayor in the “wise Latina” speech. She said:
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
11:16: Sen. Schumer is up. One cannot underestimate what the combination of Schumer’s partisan fire and his New York pride could lead to if Republicans get out of hand.
11:23: Sen Graham: “No Republican would have picked you. We would have picked Miguel Estrada.” His point, as awkwardly as it was presented, was, I guess that Republicans know Hispanic would-be jurists too. Graham then says, absent a “melt-down,” Sotomayor would be confirmed.
Graham says that elections matter and, in a striking blow to Sen. John McCain, announces that McCain lost the election.
Graham is on the attack against Obama. I seriously think that, in his mind, he wants to vote for Sotomayor to show Obama that he is a better person than the President.
Graham says, “I think you will do well.” I know that it is possible that Graham thinks he’s being nice, but is it possible to be any more paternalistic: “Have you earned the right to be here?”
11:36: Sen. Cardin, despite the prepared remarks portion of it, is showing some great awesomeness. I think that Marylanders should be proud.
Noon: After a break, we’re back!
12:04: Sen. Cornyn, in a slightly more coherent manner than Sen. Sessions, goes through all the bad cases, like PGA v. Martin and Kelo. Cornyn is hopeful that we might return to a “written Constitution.”
12:12: Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, rocking the hearing. He has made a mockery of the umpire analogy, quoted both Jeffrey Toobin and John Marshall, and acknowledges that he believes Sotomayor has the judgment needed to make a good justice.
12:20: The hits just keep on coming. Now up, Sen. Coburn! “I think we’re starting to see cracks.” If we take on what Coburn asserts is Sotomayor’s views of judging relating to objectivity or subjectivity: “We lose the glue that binds us together as a nation.”
On the judicial oath: “It doesn’t reference foreign law anywhere.”
Coburn says the word “gay” — not “homosexual” — and is not stuck by lightning. Seriously, though, Coburn was saying that justices understand what it’s like to be a pregnant teen-ager or gay or old, and then says, “Most of our judges understand what it’s like to be old.” Does he realize he dismissed his point in an aside while trying to make his point?
12:33: Sen. Durbin speaks about cases where courts have considered the rights of women. Ledbetter, this term’s strip search case, the Carhart late-term abortion cases. Seemed a bit strained to me.
12:40: LUNCH BREAK!
2:00: WE’RE BACK!
2:02: It’s Sen. Klobuchar, who promises not to hold against Sotomayor that she wore a coat in Minnesota in June.
2:15: Sen. Kaufman is impressive. He makes a strong case that when Senators leave mid-term, a staffer should get the job.
2:19: Sen. Specter thinks it took too long to have non-white, non-male justices. You can tell he’s a Democrat now. “A voice as strong as your’s in the conference room” might make a difference.
[Can you tell this is getting a bit repetitive?]
2:30: Sen. Al Franken is up. He tells Sen. Sessions, in a nice back-handed statement, that he’ll be just like Sen. Wellstone . . . in that he’s eager to work across the aisle.
Franken is making a “serious” speech, but it’s interesting to see him as a new senator. He was the first one to really, muddle up any of his prepared remarks. Interestingly, Franken chose to take some of his time to mention that the Supreme Court is the last place for investors to go with claims of security fraud.
2:40: Only 70 minutes behind schedule, Sens. Schumer and Gillibrand are now introducing Judge Sotomayor — saying the same things we’ve heard many, many times.
2:54: Judge Sotomayor.
Sotomayor said that as a prosecutor, more or less, she learned a lot about empathy. She gave solid examples of what she saw and how it gave her insight into major problems in our legal and social systems. She went through the rest of the resume, explaining that she has seen “the human consequences of my decisions.” The decisions, though, show her belief in the “rule of law and faith in the impartiality” of that system.
3:03: Sotomayor concludes; Leahy gavels a recess until 9:30 a.m. Tuesday.
Popularity: 27% [?]
Chris Geidner is the award-winning senior political writer at D.C.'s Metro Weekly and has written for The Atlantic Online, Advocate.com, Salon and other publications, as well as at his blog, Law Dork. In 2011, he received the Excellence in News Writing Award from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association for his coverage of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal. Prior to moving to D.C. in 2009, he served as an attorney on the senior staff at the Ohio Attorney General's Office and had earlier worked for a leading Columbus law firm. An extended biography can be found
If — as implied by his speaking first — Jeff Sessions is the new ‘ranking member’ of the Republicans on the Judiciary, this can only benefit us. For the Republicans to choose as their ‘public face’ on the panel someone who was refused a Judgeship because of his proven racism — a charge that I never use loosely — can only bring them further defections.
Hatch’s ideas were frequently hideous, but his charm, class, and collegiality made him acceptable.
For those of you who don’t remember Sessions, Steve Benen mentions several examples, including the following:
The article he links to, while dating from 2002 gives a far more complete history.
A WaPo blogger compares Sessions to Hatch — much to Hatch’s favor.
On the other hand, Sessions fulfills the demand for blood that was coming from some Republicans who are still angry about the hearings for Bork, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Hatch’s making essentially the same points, but doing so in a courteous and thoughtful way, wouldn’t have been enough to make the base happy. They wanna make Sotomayor’s mama cry (though I think they’ll find she’s got a thick enough skin to handle it — raising two children in the projects on one’s own will do that).
The key fact about Sessions’ speech is that, because the Republicans rotate ‘ranking member’/chairman posts rather than sticking to seniority, the ‘face of the Republican Party’ will be Sessions — and because it is, the stories of his racism will continue to come out and be covered.
I know she won’t, but I would love to hear Sotomayor answer his first question about her remarks something like this:
“Unlike some people, when I make remarks that are seen as controversial or which may have been understood, I explain them, rather than claim I had merely been joking when I said them.”