Sotomayor Hearings To Start July 13

President Obama's Supreme Court Justice Nominee Will Face Senate For Confirmation

(AP)  Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy announced Tuesday that confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor will convene on July 13, considerably earlier than many Republicans wanted.

Leahy said the date presents a "fair and adequate" schedule that would give members of the committee several more weeks to prepare.

President Barack Obama has urged the Senate to vote on confirming Sotomayor to the high court before it leaves for a congressional recess in August. Republicans have pressed for more time to consider the nomination.

But Leahy, D-Vt., said there was "no reason to unduly delay consideration of this well-qualified nominee. She deserves the opportunity to go before the public and speak of her record." He said the hearings will be her first and only opportunity to publicly defend herself against criticism of her, including conservative charges that she's racist.

"This is a historic nomination, and I hope all senators will cooperate," Leahy said. "She deserves a fair hearing - not trial by attack and assaults about her character."

There was no immediate response from the GOP on Leahy's announcement, which came after several days of private haggling with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Judiciary Republican, on a hearing date.

Leahy said he had informed Mr. Obama by telephone about his plans and that the president "seemed pleased with the date I set."

The schedule should allow for a vote on confirming Sotomayor before the August break, Leahy said, "unless people put unnecessary delays" on the nomination. He noted that the timetable roughly matches the one Republicans and Democrats agreed on for confirming Chief Justice John G. Roberts after then-President George W. Bush named him in 2005.

The announcement came as Sotomayor was camped out in a Capitol office meeting with a succession of visiting senators, having scrapped plans to go see them in their offices because of a broken ankle.

Sotomayor said she felt great a day after stumbling in the airport while rushing for a flight from New York to Washington. But the judge, whose right leg is in a cast and is using crutches, opted to hold meetings in the office of the No. 2 Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, rather than hobble through hallways for the eight visits on her schedule.

Mr. Obama's team, meanwhile, continued promoting Sotomayor's confirmation; it held an event at the White House to showcase her endorsement by eight national law enforcement organizations including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of District Attorneys.

Vice President Joe Biden said their backing was proof of Sotomayor's "lifelong commitment to law enforcement." (Read more about the event here.

On hand to praise Sotomayor was her former boss, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau.

"The judge has been an able champion of the law, and has served with great distinction," said Morgenthau, for whom Sotomayor worked as an assistant prosecutor after graduating from Yale Law School.

Conservatives called the event an attempt to falsely portray Sotomayor as a "law and order" judge.

"The purpose of this sideshow is to avoid facts in Sotomayor's actual record that indicate a soft-on-crime judge who twists the law, particularly law at the intersection of race and crime issues, and who avoids binding precedent as a lower court judge in ways that unnecessarily favor criminals and hinder law enforcement," Wendy E. Long, counsel of the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said in a memo.

Among the evidence Long cited to back up her claim was a position paper that Sotomayor signed in 1981 on behalf of a task force she chaired for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The paper equated the death penalty with racism.

Long also referred to a ruling Sotomayor issued last year in which she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters. The city threw out the results of a promotion exam because too few minorities scored high enough. The case, Ricci v. DeStafano, is now before the Supreme Court. Long said that Sotomayor's decision had "undermined law enforcement."

[giaconej]

No one needs "slime squads" to smear Sotomayor. She has provided all the ammunition needed to prove that she is a racist individual who believes in outcome based politics instead of equality and justice. The Democrats want to speed the process in hopes that even more of her hateful racist bias does not comes to public attention. This is the same thing that they did to get Obama elected. Obfuscate the facts and shove it down our throats before anyone is wiser. It is the only way their ideaology can prevail.

[abbe91]

"You know Obama is out to control the internet...enjoy that freedom while it lasts.
Posted by itsjustathought
++++++++++++++
Is their NO END to the stupidity and paranoia of the far right? LOL!! Where do these idiots come from? I wonder if the sit around with tin foil on their heads and distil their water to get the fluoride out
Posted by norcalruss at 7:16 PM : Jun 9, 2009 "

Actually, it's the "ethernet". Ask Coleman ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyR0GVUwgx4&eur

[stn_sage]

Look! Republicans announced the other day that they want to delay her confirmation hearing and approval for political reasons! So, today they are offering a couple of phony reasons to the public to try to justify what they had already decided to do!

This is NOTHING but typical GOP lying, deceit, and treachery!

They're just trying to further destroy government by limiting the Supreme Court a juror and interfere with it's operations! Anything they can to damage the effectiveness of government!
There's no depth they won't stoop to, to bring the government down and turn it over to the
United Nations as part of a one-government world! Traitors!

[gravyboat3000]

It was a fair question, but you divert from answering by asking that stupid one...

Lmao
Posted by gravyboat3000 at 1:59 PM : Jun 9, 2009

Why should I care how Laura Bush feels about anything. She is the former first lady. (IE Married to the former POTUS) She may play croquet with the woman, they may visit the museums or shows together. Her opinion of someone has no bearing whatsoever on the way I think the country shoud be operated. Look who she picked for a husband.

NOW. To answer your statement. I figured I was following one stupid question with another.
Posted by whymayiask

And yet, you still ducked his question?

Funny...

[gravyboat3000]

You know Obama is out to control the internet...enjoy that freedom while it lasts.
Posted by itsjustathought

More paranoia and fear mongering from the Right.

Sad...

[DefendLiberty]

Sotomayor hearings in only 48 days? Outrageous!!!! Well, it's outrageous if you are a GOP PARROT.

Question: How much time was it between presidential nomination and hearings for the CURRENT JUSTICES?

Answer: Between 7 and 71 days. Average is 45 days. So the Sotomayor hearings are happening right around the average.

So what is going on? The GOP is trying to score political points by providing more time for their SLIME SQUADS to smear Sotomayor. Even if they do not stop her appointment, they can RAISE MONEY with the FAR RIGHT base (you know- the deep south, esp. Ozarks) by stirring up a lot of irrational fear. Works with the GOP base every time!

[cm5605]

Let's see, we have a latino judge that is soft on criminals because of their race, who is a member of a racist organization (La Raza) which promotes amnasty for criminals in our country illegally. (They might not have been criminals before they got here but they are now for entering the U. S. illegally.) The Judge is supported by Speaker of the Idiot House Pelosi who wants to stop ICE from doing their jobs and enforcing immigration laws, who is also against private ownership of firearms in the U. S., who was selected by a black (oh poor black me) President who has created the largest deficit in our economic history, who supports the ACLU pukes. What the Hell is not wrong with this picture????

[salmoc44]

credibility2,
"Her name, when spoken using American English is phonetically pronounced S-O-D-A-M-Y-E-R. Initially media pronounced it this way, but the fear probably was spread around by the WH through a press release to speak her name culturally."

Using this thinking, the press should start pronouncing John Boehner's last name as B-O-N-E-R.

[AOCGUY]

credibility2 - I hardly think that pronouncing a family correctly is pandering and clearly whether Judge Sotomayor makes it to the Supreme Court or not one cannot she hasn't been successful in her career choice. I have also met and worked with many non-hispanic people who have retained the original and proper pronunciation of their names. A more appropriate discussion on this board should be whether she will make a good and impartial Supreme Court Justice and quite frankly I don't see how she chooses to pronouce her given name is relevent to the discussion any more than how either your or I choose to pronouce our names.

[DefendLiberty]

"...the timetable roughly matches the one Republicans and Democrats agreed on for confirming Chief Justice John G. Roberts after then-President George W. Bush named him in 2005".

So it was "more than enough time" to prepare for the ROBERTS hearings, but the GOP cries for more time now . Duh!

The GOP has but one goal: Drag this out as long as they can. They claim a "higher purpose", but the reality is that they know they cannot stop the appointment. They can only create delay while their "dirty work" minions throw nasty stuff around hoping to poison the waters .

[DefendLiberty]

"If a nation expect to be ignorant and free?it expect what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

[DefendLiberty]

I could keep repeating the same facts, but the PARROTS simply have no ability to process the information. It blows their little minds when the house of fake cards comes down under the weight of reality.

81.25%.

[whymayiask]

So Sotomayor having ruled 78 out of 96 cases (81.25% of the time) AGAINST a RACE DISCRIMINATION claim is still "race discrimination" for the PARROTS? What a joke.

The fact is people, that these PARROTS are so deep into the GOP Jesus juice that they swallow anything anymore. Facts? "Not an issue!" to them. Reality? "A secular plot!" in their parrot brains.
Posted by DefendLiberty at 4:18 PM : Jun 9, 2009

Ones intellect can be told through their ability to debate without belittling the other party. You obviously have the opposite mastered.

[DefendLiberty]

So Sotomayor having ruled 78 out of 96 cases (81.25% of the time) AGAINST a RACE DISCRIMINATION claim is still "race discrimination" for the PARROTS? What a joke.

The fact is people, that these PARROTS are so deep into the GOP Jesus juice that they swallow anything anymore. Facts? "Not an issue!" to them. Reality? "A secular plot!" in their parrot brains.

[DefendLiberty]

When you are so desperate to make a point that you must look only at one narrow element of the picture, you show yourself to be a joke. So the PARROTS here now admit that Sotomayor's opinions HAVE BEEN NON-DISCRIMINATORY. However, they want to focus on comments shown on FAKE NEWS over and over again out of context. I've answered this before for Ms. (no)credibility (no matter- the PARROTS have to hear something over and over again before they will PARROT it).


-----
NOcredibility: "I'd grill about her comment about superiority of a Latina women's experiences compared to a white man's".

Since she was talking about the ability to understand discrimination from personal experience (you remember that- your daddy was probably deep south KKK after all). GOP Wet Dream JUSTICE ALITO said a similar thing at his CONFIRMATION HEARING about having a special insight into discrimination against Italians because of what hsi family went through. Yet you PARROTS love him.

[whymayiask]

Amazing. The far right extremists want to focus on ONE decision out of NINETY SIX (that's "96" for you PARROTS) Sotomayor made regarding racial discrimination.

78 TIMES she ruled there was NO discrimination. That is 81.25% of the time she ruled AGAINST someone CLAIMING race discrimination.

Yet the PARROTS and the TRUE BELIEVERS on the FAR RIGHT want you to believe Sotomayor is some kind of RACE HATING MONSTER who is so race biased that she always sides against "white people".

But the TRUE BELIEVERS in the FAR RIGHT are not satisfied with someone agreeing with them 81.25% of the time. It must be 100%! Can you say "nutjob"?

What a pile of steaming horse poo.
Posted by DefendLiberty at 3:51 PM : Jun 9, 2009

I personally do not base my decision on that one case. My opinion is based on the 3-4 times in which her speeches included the statement that she in her experiences as a Latino woman could make a better decision than any white man. Does that make sense? Look it it up.

[bluegrass101-2009]

The people of the more intelligent side Dem's and Independent's must realize that we must give the Repig's a little more time to read her data. It actually takes twice as long for a Repig to read and comprehend what is going on. It does not matter if it takes a little longer , the Repiglicn Party is Irrelevant either way.

[DefendLiberty]

Amazing. The far right extremists want to focus on ONE decision out of NINETY SIX (that's "96" for you PARROTS) Sotomayor made regarding racial discrimination.

78 TIMES she ruled there was NO discrimination. That is 81.25% of the time she ruled AGAINST someone CLAIMING race discrimination.

Yet the PARROTS and the TRUE BELIEVERS on the FAR RIGHT want you to believe Sotomayor is some kind of RACE HATING MONSTER who is so race biased that she always sides against "white people".

But the TRUE BELIEVERS in the FAR RIGHT are not satisfied with someone agreeing with them 81.25% of the time. It must be 100%! Can you say "nutjob"?

What a pile of steaming horse poo.

[whymayiask]

Doesn't take much for the Repiglican Bigot Party to come out of their caves . Just the mention of Sotomayor a Hispanic, or A Black candidate and the Troll Repig's come out in full force,
Posted by bluegrass101-2009 at 3:34 PM : Jun 9, 2009

Um... She is the racist and it sounds like you are the bigot. After all you are throwing out the ethnicicity.

[kathryn213]

Obama rushed through the stimulus bill without reading it himself and intentionally not letting anyone else read or debate it. He wants to rush through a disastrous health bill, wants to rush through an amensty bill.... that's how he works. He's an irresponsible, arrogant and dangerous fool. Why anyone supports this moron is beyond me. He's worse than Bush.