Sotomayor Recap Day 2: Supreme Perjury
Morgen on July 14, 2009 at 5:36 pm
As anyone knows who has followed my commentary over the past few days, I fully expected we’d hear some creative spin from Judge Sotomayor explaining her infamous “wise Latina” speech. Certainly I expected her to downplay the significance of those particular words, and perhaps even acknowledge as others have in her defense that they were chosen poorly. But I would have never imagined that she would have the audacity to attempt to wholly reinvent the plain meaning of her own words.
Senator Sessions, Kyl, and Graham all pressed her on this issue today. I am still going through the testimony but I was particularly impressed by Senator Kyl’s line of questioning. The clip I linked below is pretty long. But Kyl does a superb job summarizing the full context of her “wise Latina” speech, and in cross-examining her initial response. It’s worth the time if you have it – watch:
She could have stuck with her initial line of defense based around her 17 year track record as a judge, and simply said that she regretted her choice of words. In doing so she would have put the burden on her Republican questioners to demonstrate somehow that her record as a whole reflects any sort of gender or ethnic bias. (It does not.)
But whether based on pride, or perhaps a sense of empowerment due to her near certain confirmation, she chose to claim that her speech was not a statement of her beliefs regarding the positive impact of race and gender on judicial decisions. And it defies any sort of reasonable explanation – other than that she is just simply not telling the truth.
There is some great coverage of today’s hearing throughout the blogosphere. I recommend Ace on the perjury angle, Hot Air on some great questioning by Senator Graham, and Rush for a broad overview like only he can do.
There will be another round of questioning tomorrow, so I will link the live feed again in the morning.
John Adds: A couple more links. Allah puts up 30 minutes of questioning by Senator Graham. I thought he was extremely fair but made the point that it’s only because she’s a minority that she’s getting away with a statement like this. That’s exactly right. See Trent Lott for details.
Also, don’t miss the Fact Check which points out that Senator Leahy tried to dishonestly make the “wise Latina” comment go away earlier today. Nice try, Pat.
Category: Crime & the Law, Politics |
Much ado about nothing. Sessions has a racist past and has made much more offensive statements himself.
In the end, it’s all theatrics that will result in confirmation. The process precludes anyone from absolute honesty since both sides are looking for blood to pad their re-election adds.
It very entertaining to watch and to see the hand wringing among the commentators and bloggers. However, if she was replacing a conservative judge you would see a vicious food fight that would make Elito’s confirmation look like child’s play.
I cannot wait until the next nomination!
July 15, 2009 @ 6:32 amRick, would you at least agree that there is a difference between avoiding telling the truth (or revealing what you honestly think), and overtly telling a lie? I think the former has generally been what all SCOTUS candidates have mastered since Robert Bork. But I am shocked at the extent to which Sotomayor has done the latter, and yet apparently few are troubled by this.
For example, look at this discussion yesterday amongst some prominent law professors. Almost to a person they acknowledge that Sotomayor was dishonest, and yet they all say she’s done exactly what she needs to be confirmed.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071401783.html
Our society is more morally bankrupt than I thought if we are all so willing to agree that it’s commendable for our top administrators of justice to lie under oath.
July 15, 2009 @ 7:33 amDo a google search on every Supreme Court confirmation process and almost every one of them has been accused of lying. I am declaring it a complete tie.
Who really cares, she will be nominated.
There have been numerous attorney generals that have blatantly lied, including in my opinion, Roberto Gonzalez.
You are enviably naive, however moving closer to reality. Our society has always been morally bankrupt, including much of the church. This “lying” is no worse than was outlined by John and Scott concerning the lying in the administration of their former church. So you must excuse me if I am not surprised or even outraged. I expect it. :cool:
July 15, 2009 @ 11:15 amIn my opinion Clarence Thomas should have been confirmed, however, he lied as well under oath.
Now that was great theatre!!!
July 15, 2009 @ 11:33 amAll she had to do to be confirmed was show up. The lying is just gravy.
July 15, 2009 @ 1:49 pmWell, I would submit that the moral decline of society is only aided by the unwillingness of people to stand up for what is right. In fact, I think the increasing predominance of this sort of cynicism is what enables our political leaders to employ one disingenuous strategy after another to accomplish their goals. After all, it’s “only” politics.
July 15, 2009 @ 1:59 pm