Comments on: Facing Down Condescension and Lectures, Sotomayor Teaches Senators About Civics and More

By: gexx

gexx — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:46:57 +0000

I watched/listened to the hearings when I could on CSPAN. I was appalled by some of the things said to her and that when her record was read and , like Tom Foolery stated, Senators continued to ask if she would follow the law.

She was so patient,

All I know, is that there were times where, if I were her, it probably would have degraded to:
http://punditkitchen.com/2009/07/16/political-pictures-sonia-sotomayor-mihand-urface/

(and I *hate* violence… that’s how much the “you got some ‘splainin to do” statemet bothered me)

By: Jill

Jill — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:00:54 +0000

Ha, wow. I can’t believe I did that. I am a fool. Thanks for the correction!

By: Athena York

Athena York — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:37:56 +0000

haha, I mistyped as well — the case is Dred Scott v. Stanford.

By: Athena York

Athena York — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 20:37:11 +0000

I think you have the name of the case wrong in your article: it’s “Dred Scott v. Sanford,” not “Dredd v. Scott.” You should probably fix that, as it’s a pretty obvious mistake and majorly detracts from the effectiveness of the piece.

Jill, you’re a lawyer, you’re supposed to know these things :)

By: Thom

Thom — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:24:14 +0000

Geez, Jill….I am have a way tougher time picking out one moment as “the most offensive..” :)

Great column.

By: Tom Foolery

Tom Foolery — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:50:41 +0000

In his line of questioning on Wednesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked Sotomayor her opinion on judges “reading rights into the Constitution.” Certainly Sen. Hatch is familiar with the Ninth Amendment, which states simply that “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” – in other words, just because a right isn’t explicitly delineated in the Constitution doesn’t mean that the government is free to violate it.

I don’t think Sen. Hatch or any of the other senators questioning Sotomayor need to worry about her erring on the side of more rights for people. Sen. Schumer pointed out that she’s ruled in favor of the government in 92% of the criminal cases she’s judged, and in favor of the government in 83% of immigration cases (which is the statistical mean for that court, but nevertheless, strongly in favor of the state).

The whole Republican narrative about Sotomayor being empathy-driven and soft-hearted is totally surreal. Everything I’ve read suggests she’s firmly on the side of federal authority.