You are here: Home / Archives / 2009 / July / 15 / Sotomayor Open Thread

Sotomayor Open Thread

By Jill on 7.15.2009

What did you all think of the hearings?

Posted in ,

Author: Jill has written 4631 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

13 Responses

  1. 1
    chava 7.15.2009 at 2:21 pm |

    GAHHHHH.

    That is all.

    Seriously, I think she’s doing well, although the *&^%!!! room full of white men barely bothering to hide their misogynist and racist selves while they *shake their fingers at her,* insult her intellect, and wonder if she’ll have a “meltdown” made me have to turn off the TV.

  2. 2
    SarahMC 7.15.2009 at 2:36 pm |

    The very image of Sotomayor sitting across from a group of sneering white men made me ill. You can imagine how I felt once things got started. She’s got more brains than the lot of them; they are determined to make a fool of her.

  3. 3
    Natalie 7.15.2009 at 2:59 pm |

    I have never felt so insulted, I think I cried out of pure disgust.
    Why do they call her ma’am? Isn’t there a more professional title?

  4. 4
    chava 7.15.2009 at 3:10 pm |

    I recommend you all to watch Jon Stewart’s riff on it. He manages to capture just how offensive they all were and then ridicule the living bejeesus out of them. Good for the soul.

  5. 5
    AnonymousCoward 7.15.2009 at 3:35 pm |

    So much racism packed into such a tiny little room.

    It bothers me that none of the Democrats have the fortitude to point out that, for instance, yesterday’s discussion of Sotomayor’s “temperament” was more than a little racist. Sure, Sen. Graham would have fallen back on his anonymous critiques, but what, exactly, do you think is driving those criticisms?

    I’m also getting really frustrated with Sens. Hatch and Sessions for continually misstating legal concepts, when both of them really know better.

  6. 6
    DaisyDeadhead 7.15.2009 at 3:36 pm |

    I think I am ashamed of Lindsey Graham, but then, I usually say that once a week or so already.

  7. 7
    Nicholas 7.15.2009 at 3:58 pm |

    Brilliant political theatre. I feel like in some room of the president’s advisors a few weeks ago, the conversation went:

    Advisor #1: Well, this Judge Sotomayor is overwhelmingly qualified, we’ve vetted her, and there’s nothing in her past that will cause media firestorm enough to prevent her confirmation. Although she’s more moderate than some of our base may like, I think she’s an excellent selection.

    Advisor #2: Plus, there’s always the added bonus that the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will grossly overplay their hands and say something stupid that will offend Latino and/or women voters.

    Advisor #3: I mean, I know they’re disorganized, but they’re not so stupid or suicidal to imply she’s fiesty and spicy or to invoke Ricky Ricardo from I Love Lucy or anything like that.

    /pause

    /numerous above-head lightbulbs illuminate

    All (simultaneously): Get the President in here and tell him Judge Sonia Sotomayor it is!

  8. 8
    amandaw 7.15.2009 at 4:14 pm |

    Why do they call her ma’am? Isn’t there a more professional title?
    “Judge”? (I’m not being snarky, honest question-suggestion.)

    Do we pretty much know she’ll be confirmed, or is it in question at this point?

    I’m hoping it’s pretty much certain, because then I can tell myself “Well, they can cry all they want, but we have a smart woman of color gonna be on the Supreme Court and they can’t touch her once she’s there. We win.”

    I’m also really hoping it will become obvious (once/if) she is confirmed: perhaps it will cement that these arguments (anti-AA etc.) just aren’t widely credible anymore, and that they only let everyone know what a neon-blinkin’ racist you are, so that sort of talk will be rightly marginalized in the larger discourse.
    …. I *hope.* I may be dreaming.

  9. 9
    amandaw 7.15.2009 at 4:17 pm |

    it makes me happy that Obama chose a woman of color who DOES have a paper trail of openly appreciating her background and the insight it gives her — rather than finding someone who is squeaky clean of anything indicating she might ever think of race EVER.

    Assuming she is confirmed, it should finally take us one baby step past the whole “colorblind” bs. Hopefully.

  10. 10
    CombatQueer 7.15.2009 at 6:19 pm |

    On FoxNews’s coverage they’ve called the judge a “person of gender” a couple of times. That’s a fascinatingly telling term. They’re going out of their way to point out that they have a real problem with a woman being in any sort of power.

    They’re othering over there just as hard as they can.

  11. 11
    Safiya Outlines 7.15.2009 at 6:46 pm |

    I’m sorry this isn’t relevant, but I really have to share this story:

    http://www.citizen.co.za/index/article.aspx?pDesc=100250,1,22

    “A leading Zambian journalist was hauled before court Tuesday for circulating photographs of a woman giving birth in a hospital car park during a medical workers’ strike…The pregnant woman was turned away from the hospital, despite being in labour and urgently requiring medical attention because the baby was breached. Bystanders tried to assist her but the baby was dead on delivery.”

  12. 12
    joe_D 7.15.2009 at 9:45 pm |

    Why in the world would they schedule the nomination hearings when the people most interested in watching are studying for the Bar?!?! For Pete’s sake, can’t they wait just two weeks!

  13. 13
    jemand 7.16.2009 at 2:27 pm |

    well, you said it was open so I’ll throw in my trepidation at how pro-choice she actually will. She’s only ruled in one tangentially related case and in favor of the anti side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Reproductive_Law_and_Policy_v._Bush

    so… I’m slightly concerned. Abortion always seems to be a teetering right and I don’t want a justice who will chip away at it, and ESPECIALLY one who the anti’s can point to and say “she’s a woman, you can’t disagree with her!”

Comments are closed.