Jul 13th, 2009 at 10:11 am
Sotomayor!
So . . . Sotomayor hearings start today. Summer news is always hard to come by but I, personally, am going to try to resist the temptation to over-hype this. I don’t think anybody thinks that replacing Souter with Sotomayor will substantially alter the course of American jurisprudence nor does anybody think that Sotomayor won’t be confirmed. The show is just a show; a spectacle with little real meaning.
24 Responses to “Sotomayor!”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
DC
Denmark
Economics
Economy
education
Energy
Environment
Finance
Gender
Germany
Health Care
History
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Pakistan
Palestine
Philosophy
planning
Political Reform
Proliferation
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Science
Sports
Stimulus
Sweden
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
July 13th, 2009 at 10:19 am
But… but… she was rebuked by the Supreme Court in a unanimous 17-0 decision! The woman is a radical.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:24 am
“The show is just a show; a spectacle with little real meaning.”
Of course, this only holds true if, like Matthew, you hold to the mistaken theory that electoral politics is irrelevant to the way American politics functions…
July 13th, 2009 at 10:25 am
You didn’t provide a link. Here’s a live webcast:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/webcast/livewebcast.cfm
July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 am
I don’t think anybody thinks that replacing Souter with Sotomayor will substantially alter the course of American jurisprudence.
I actually think this is a bit of tactical underhyping. It is true that given the current composition of the Court, swapping Sotomayor for Souter probably won’t change much. But if you contemplate further changes over time, it could actually matter.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Getting Sotomayor through this hearing will highlight the dwindling power of the conservative noise machine. If it demonstrates to the democrats that they can beat the Republicans and their hordes of loyal media supporters in the arena of public opinion, we might see some more agressive politicking among them.
Democrats with courage and confidence. What a concept!
July 13th, 2009 at 10:29 am
1) Actually, it is an EXCELLENT chance to embarrass/discredit the Republicans. Although our courage-free Democratic leaders will almost certainly pass on the chance.
2) When the Republicans bleat about the “impartiality of law” and the need to be free of ethnic prejudice, ask them what fucking percentage of black men between the ages of 18 and 40 are in prison.
Then ask them what percentage of rich, white men are in prison.
Then ask them who has been indicted and convicted for bringing the economy to the point of near collapse. Such that $10 TRILLION of the taxpayers money has had to be committed to the rescue.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:41 am
To throw a little relish on the discussion, how about some discussion of the case histories of black men freed from Death Row in Southern prisons by DNA tests? I guess all those cops, prosecutors and judges were impartial as well.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:51 am
I loved her performance at the Michael Jackson pre-funeral celebration.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Of course, this only holds true if, like Matthew, you hold to the mistaken theory that electoral politics is irrelevant to the way American politics functions…
Meh. The effect of Supreme Court nomination fights on electoral politics is marginal at best. This is a sideshow because voters aren’t actually paying attention.
July 13th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Oh, I forgot. Senator Jeff Sessions can attack Sotomayor over the “Impartial Rule of Law” while representing a Shithole like Alabama — and Democratic Senators will not let out a peep:
————-
“In the last several years, Alabama has sentenced more people to death per capita than any other state in the U.S.
At a time when the number of death sentences nationwide is steadily declining, in 2006 the number of people sentenced to death in Alabama increased 16.6%.
Alabama is the only state that permits judges to override jury verdicts of life without parole without limitation. Approximately 22% of Alabama’s death row are there because life sentences were overridden by elected trial judges. Last year, an election year overrides increased to 28%.
Post conviction DNA testing is denied.
Over half of Alabama’s death row prisoners were represented by appointed attorneys at trial who, under state law, could only spend $1,000 for the time spent preparing for trial.
Alabama is the only state that refuses to provide legal assistance to death row prisoners for post conviction appeals. There are nearly a dozen prisoners on death row who currently have no legal representation.
Despite the fact that each year 65% of all homicide victims in Alabama are black, nearly 80% of those on death row for crimes involving victims who are white.
In two dozen death penalty cases, courts have found that Alabama prosecutors illegally excluded African Americans from jury service through racially discriminatory jury selection procedures.
Alabama refuses to reveal its lethal injection protocol.”
Ref: http://ncadp.org/affiliate.cfm?affID=6
July 13th, 2009 at 10:57 am
>>The show is just a show; a spectacle with little real meaning
I believe it presents an opportunity to highlight that the conservatives have outspokenly pushed a conservative agenda over the past 30 years with the intent of making our judiciary politically conservative and they cannot reasonable complain that there is a nominee who doesn’t match their political beliefs, especially after the electorate rejected continued conservatism in the last two elections, nor could they complain if Obama nominated a liberal.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:01 am
I believe it’s against the Senate rules to directly criticize another Senator.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Grassley and Kyl, if we are to take their statements seriously, are arguing that one’s personal experiences can never illuminate and issue and allow us to understand it better, but rather, that such experience is only “prejudice” and “bias,” which can do nothing but harm our understanding of an issue and how abstract legal principles apply to it.
As William F. Buckley said, “I’d take you at your word, but that would be an insult to your intelligence.”
July 13th, 2009 at 11:25 am
@10 Don Williams Incredible. Thanks Don.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:51 am
By the way, Jeff Sessions can slam Sotomayor because Hispanics only made up 1.7 percent of Alabama’s population in 2000.
Re Alabama’s judicial impartiality, note that blacks make up only 26 percent of Alabama’s population but account for almost 50 percent of its inmates on death row.
http://www.censusscope.org/us/s1/chart_race.html ,
http://www.doc.state.al.us/deathrow.asp
July 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Man, thanks Don. Sometimes it seems like capital punishment is the forgotten issue in American politics; it’s facts like that that point out its fundamental injustice.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Man, thanks Don. Sometimes it seems like capital punishment is the forgotten issue in American politics; it’s facts like that that point out its fundamental injustice.
July 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Note also that while blacks make up 26 percent of the population and whites make up 71 percent, the stats are almost reversed in prison: 57 percent of inmates are black, only 35 percent are white.
http://www.doc.state.al.us/docs/MonthlyRpts/2009-5.pdf
It’s a shame so many black males refuse to accept those attractive, high-paying careers that Alabama offers, isn’t it?
What’s that motto displayed on Alabama’s Department of Corrections web page –that I linked to above:
“A Proud Past, A Bright Future”
July 13th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
MattY is probably right. I mean, it’s not like former members of two far-left racial power groups haven’t served on the court before. I’m sure there was a past instance where one of those groups had also given an award to someone who’d proposed genocide. (Liberals: don’t worry, it was the good kind of genocide).
July 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Tell that to Politico. The Sotomayor hearings are the defining moment for the Republicans and their stance as a party…that is until next week when Politico says something else will define their stance as a party.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Senator Jeff Sessions can attack Sotomayor over the “Impartial Rule of Law” while representing a Shithole like Alabama — and Democratic Senators will not let out a peep:
The next time you hear a Republican complain about how Democrats hate ‘real’ America remember this Democrat’s hateful screed against his fellow Americans in Alabama.
July 13th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
What “screed about his fellow Americans?”
It’s a series of comments about their legal system.
Read much?
July 13th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Some people can’t get out of bed in the morning with the warm, gratifying sensation that they’re being victimized.
July 14th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHALL BE AN ASSET TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
SOTOMAYOR IS BRILLIANT.
_____________________
SCANDALS! SCANDALS! SCANDALS!
DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!
GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER!
“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (go to Google, type “blog of drizzten Margie Schoedinger,” and hit “Enter”).
“George [Bush is personally complicit] in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).
McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.
Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.
During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush continuously criminally stalked James Howard Hatfield to the point that he could not get away from it, and he committed suicide in desperation to escape: Bush murdered Hatfield. However, the vast majority of such scandalous information will never come out (the grisly details are typically hard to substantiate). A prosecutor really can lawfully charge a former president with murdering one or more people in the disgusting way Bush murdered Schoedinger. The American people unfortunately live in a world where evil presidents can murder any number of people—figuratively—with a wave of a magic wand and get away with it.
(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked numerous people to the point that they could not get away from it, and they committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered them” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked James Howard Hatfield to the point that he could not get away from it, and he committed suicide in desperation to escape: Bush murdered Hatfield,” hit “Enter,” and readily find hundreds of copies.)
(Please feel free to see my “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” blog.)
_____________________
- “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”