Sotomayor Still Standing After Testimony

Supreme Court Nominee Avoided Taking Clear Stands on Many Issues; New Haven Firefighter Ricci Testifies Against Her

(CBS/ AP)  Updated 6:09 p.m. ET

Sonia Sotomayor sped toward confirmation as the nation's first Hispanic justice Thursday, encouraged by Republican promises of a quick vote and cheered on by a Democratic senator's challenge to take on the Supreme Court's conservative wing when she arrives.

"Battle out the ideas that you believe in, because I have a strong hunch that they are closer to the ones that I would like to see adopted by the court," Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, a Republican turned Democrat, told Sotomayor.

Even two of her Republican critics called the 55-year-old appeals court judge's rulings "mainstream" - noteworthy concessions for President Barack Obama's first high court nominee.

"Her lower court records shows a much more practical moderate tone than did the records of (Justices) Roberts and Alito so that’s a good place to start with any prediction of how she’ll be as a Justice," writes CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen.

If confirmed, Sotomayor would become the first justice appointed by a Democratic president in 15 years, and the hearings were as much a prelude for future Supreme Court fights as a battle over the judge herself. Republicans repeatedly criticized Obama's past assertion that he wanted a justice with "the quality of empathy," and Sotomayor disavowed Obama's statement as a senator that some decisions would be determined by "what is in a judge's heart."

Republicans, expressing concern that she would bring bias to the court, gave Frank Ricci, a white New Haven, Conn., firefighter whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges, a speaking role at the hearing. He complained that the ruling showed a belief "that citizens should be reduced to racial statistics," but declined when given the chance to say Sotomayor's nomination should be rejected. (Read more.)

Her panel's ruling was overturned last month by the Supreme Court she hoped to join.

As Sotomayor concluded three grueling days of nationally televised question-and-answer rounds in the Judiciary Committee's witness chair, the panel's senior Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said, "I look forward to you getting that vote before we recess" on Aug. 7.

Sessions, who declared he still had "serious concerns" about Sotomayor, said he wouldn't support any attempt to block a final vote on confirmation and didn't foresee any other Republican doing so. A committee vote on confirming her is expected late this month.

Her elevation all but assured, Sotomayor took few risks during her testimony, repeatedly sidestepping questions on hot-button issues like guns and abortion rights and defending speeches that have been faulted as showing bias.

Sotomayor has overwhelming if not unanimous support among the Senate's 58 Democrats and two independents - and is likely to win a number of votes among the 40 Republicans as well.

Her confirmation hearings were fraught with racial politics that created a dilemma for Republicans, who stepped carefully during their tough questioning of Sotomayor - eager to please their conservative base but wary of alienating Hispanics, the fastest-growing voting demographic.

They pressed Sotomayor repeatedly on her 2001 statement that she hoped a "wise Latina" would usually rule better than a white male, drawing expressions of regret from the nominee, who said the words had been taken out of context and misunderstood.

In four days of testimony - she gave a brief opening statement on Monday - Sotomayor presented herself as a staunch and impartial defender of the law. She rarely strayed from a script replete with pledges to put her feelings and prejudices aside when she rules.

"I regret that I have offended some people," Sotomayor said Thursday, confronted by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., about comments he said "bug the hell out of me."

Sotomayor appeared to have reassured at least some Republicans. Graham described her judicial record as "generally in the mainstream" and said he thought she would keep an open mind on gun rights. Graham, who has said previously he might vote to confirm Sotomayor, said she was "not an activist."

Another Republican, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, also called Sotomayor's rulings "pretty much in the mainstream," although he said her assertions of impartiality at the hearings were strikingly at odds with her past remarks.

Nearby in the Capitol, Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky., announced he would oppose Sotomayor, saying she was "unsuitable" for the court.

The National Rifle Association announced it would oppose Sotomayor, saying she held a "hostile view" of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, although a spokesman declined to say whether the group would include her confirmation vote in its ratings of lawmakers. The NRA's closely watched "scores" weigh heavily on lawmakers in both parties, since they're a powerful motivator for politically active gun rights supporters.

Committee chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said he expected Sotomayor would win some Republican votes.

Indeed, a number of current GOP senators voted for her when she was confirmed to New York's 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998. Among them are Robert Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

On her last day of questioning, senators addressed Sotomayor as though they were giving their takeaway messages to a future justice.

Prodded by Specter to weigh in on televising Supreme Court proceedings - a cause he has long championed - Sotomayor suggested she might be an ally on the issue.

"My experience has generally been positive," she said, noting that cameras had been allowed in her courtroom as part of a pilot program.

Asked if she would encourage the other justices to allow cameras into the high court, she said, "I would certainly relay my experiences."

Justice David Souter has long opposed televising the court's sessions, but his retirement opened the way for her appointment, and possibly a change in the no-camera rule.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., pried from Sotomayor one of the only direct, one-word answers she gave all week, when he asked if she thought the court's combined rulings on abortion had ended a national controversy that has persisted since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

"No," Sotomayor said after a brief pause.

Democrats devoted some of their question time to allowing Sotomayor to make her closing arguments to the panel that will cast the first votes on her confirmation.

Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., what historians would make of her, Sotomayor said, "I can't live my life to write history's story." Then she added, "I hope it will say I'm a fair judge, I was a caring person and that I lived my life serving my country."

More coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings:

Live Video of the Hearings

Firefighter Denounces Sotomayor Ruling

GOP Unable to Pin Sotomayor Down

Sotomayor Dodges Gun Rights Questions

Sotomayor Still Standing After Two Days

Sotomayor Pressed on Gun Rights

Republicans Aren't Sold on "Wise Latina" Explanation

Sotomayor Goes to Rope-a-Dope Strategy

Analysis: Sotomayor Has Been Very Cautious

Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"

Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"

[drsam8]

Sen. Sessions and Pat Buchanann"s race-baiting is one that we all should take note of and condemn. As it seems in his case, water always returns to its level. Pat and Session will never change and thank God Sessions never succeeded in getting to the bench and Pat in becoming President. The problem with those who shout bias against others is that they are unable to see the "plank" in their own eyes. Sessions is informed by racial prejudice. How can he as "Ranking Member" of the Senate Judiacy Committee resist not allowing his ideological and cultural experiences to influence his questioning of Judge Sotomayor? When he says he wants judges who are "neutral," what he really means is that he wants judges who would agree with his world view that views women, ethnics and other minorities as less equal than others no matter their accomplishments and even not desirable. His attacks have focused on a narrow frame, ignoring empirical evidence of balance that can easily be derived from Judge Sotomayor's actual decisions in court. He chose to forget or ignore what other sitting US Supreme Court justices (Scalia, Alitio, for example) appointed by Republican Presidents said about the influence of culture and experience during their confirmation hearings. On the issue of "empathy" President George H.W. Bush said about the same thing as Obama-referencing its relevance. Wisdom tells us that it is; ideological demagogoury says otherwise. Remember the famous adage: "justice must be tempered with mercy."

[RCC_Soldaten]

Dog and pony show.

[cs4466]

Wise Latina: 1
Bitter neocons: 0

LOL! Way to go Judge Sotomayor!!!

*boogie*

[yarabie]

Just another big mistake by Mr. Nobama. She has already proven she is a racist and for gun control. She cannot fairly represent the law of the land.

[realityzone]

After bush, mcDumb and Falin... republicans Should be intimidated by an Intelligent Hispanic Woman.

[gravyboat4000]

They are.

[norcal441]

America's "Double Standard" rears its ugly head.

Despite several counts of obvious prejudice, and the fact she sidestepped several very important questions, it looks like Sotomayor is likely going to be excepted simply because she is a woman and because she represents a minority. Not to mention she's a democrat.

This could truly be a dark day for America's Justice System.

[jxknowles]

Unless you're being charged with sexual harrassment, like long-dong Thomas was, or accused of being a KKK member of the cracker caucus, like Jeff Sessions, these hearings are relatively dull. Sonia Sotomayor will be a good Supreme Court Justice. We need diversity.

The more you hear about the lunatic GOP religious cults in Congress (Sanford and Ensign and the C Street freaks), the more reason to keep their numbers in check. These self-indulgent, pompous goons and bad for the country.

[Joe_NY_15]

Still standing after her own party threw a few softballs......wow, some achievement.

[gravyboat4000]

And after Sessions et al. asked the same, stupid questions for 3 days.

And entered into the record their,"concerns".

[alfonsag]

The wise Latina holds her cool. It seems Senator Cornyn feelings were hurt. He was not impressed with her assertions of impartiality at the hearings. He is at odds with her past remarks. ?Get over it!? Senator Cornyn you are not in Texas anymore. I felt he was trying to get her to cry or loss her temper. She is a cool Latina. I hope other Latinos/Latinas learn from her. We all are known for short tempers and been heard headed. She had answer and correct answers for everything. She did her research. We need more people like her in Government. I hope she does not have any skeletons in her closet like the other appointed people.

[chaseangus]

It's interesting watching American Dems think they are so superior b/c Obama has backed someone other than a white male for the court. I don't really see any progress. She is Ivy League educated. Same education as white males. If she thought differently than white males she wouldn't have graduated. When they start naming people other than those from IL schools then we'll see a real change in the Court. But that ain't gonna happen.

[Joe_NY_15]

I also hate to break it to the Libs that Hispanics fall into the Race called "Caucasians".....certainly, they are not part of the negroid or mongoloid races. She's white...sorry....

[gravyboat4000]

My hispanic wife is laughing at you Joe.

lmao Now the chihuahua is laughing at you as well!

Now the maltipoo's laughin!!!

[Joe_NY_15]

gravyboat, sorry about messing with your name...won't happen again.

I also have a Wise Latina Wife, from the Bronx,NY.....they would disagree and do call themselves "non-white" but unfortunately, that doesn't change anthropology and the 5 major races of the world....they do not fall into Negroid or Mongoloid races, but Sotomayor and Hispanics are located in the race known as "Caucasoid".....sorry to shock you and your fellow democrats who seem to hate white males, despite your party leaders looking very bright white

[alien_view]

Talk about Liberal Compost, Franken's 'Mason Moment';

Katie Couric reports on a comedic moment during Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing, as Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) had a "Perry Mason" moment.

Strange how Sotomayor knew the answer to the question before dirty Al finished asking the question about Perry Mason. How did she know which episode and case he was refering to until he told her. This is all for show folks and your stupid enough to belive this liberal brain washing of the ignorant and uncaring in this country.

[gravyboat4000]

She knew the answer because, as she's stated previously, she was watched Perry Mason with her father, and watching that show inspired her to become a prosecutor.

Don't let your hate blind you.

(gravy, it's too late)

[Joe_NY_15]

gravybloat4grand, It was sooooo painfully obvious that Franken had informed Sotomayor of what he was going to say.....she started answering before he even finished asking....Perry Mason ?

Stuart Smalley didn't ask about the constitution, he asked about a TV show, come on already

[gravyboat4000]

Joe, he asked about why she wanted to be a prosecutor in the first place.

He also asked her why she wanted this job.

Besides, the Republicans ONLY asked her about guns and race. Oh, and abortion. Not much else, and they repeatedly asked the same questions, over and over. I'd say they wasted their time with her, and Al did a good job with his time.

And I don't F with your name, why you gotta F wit mine?

[alien_view]

Lets hope the US Military establishment will stand behind the people and not this corrupt government of idiots when the (green team) compost hits the fan over gun control. Thank God for the Second Ammendment, not that it means anything to the current administration, but our fore fathers had the sense to write it in so if the Goverment went rogue on the People, the People could take their Government back and return to the Constution and individual rights and states rights. The South had it right even if they did loose the war..they were right and it had nothing to do with BS Slavery and purely economic greed of northern manufactures and a greedy government of whigs. Give up your weapons and then become Islamic, you will have no choice or in their eyes you need to be killed by Mohamad dictate.

[gravyboat4000]

UR FUNNY

[bptdude]

Most of these comments are in reference to gun control.
OK, so here is my two cents...

One ...

She has repeatedly in the past stated that she interpreted the second ammendment to mean that the "militia" is the National Guard.

This means the next Supreme court justice believes the purpose of at least one of the Bill of Rights was to make sure the military people in each state, whose arms are owned by the federal U.S. Army, and who are paid by the U.S. Army, have weapons. NOT that the people have weapons in the unlikely case the federal government spirals out of control into a true tyranny.

Any citizen of this nation should understand the Bill of Rights was protections to keep the government in check, by directly empowering the people. NOT to make sure the government was armed against the people.


TWO ...

This candidate for the supreme court, stated that the second ammendment to the constitution was not binding upon the states. It should not matter how she feels about guns, at the level of the Supreme Court, they are not debating isues, and often not even law, but the rules of law itself.

By stating that some of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, and some do not, depending on her opinion, she has opened the door for any other of the ammendments to be also so classified. There is no legal difference between the second ammendment, the right to arms, and the first ammendment, the right of free speech.

She would say she would not personally rule against the first ammendment, because she happens to maybe like that one. That, of course, is completely meaningless. She will have made the rule of law to have the right of free speech only apply to some parts of the country, and not others, depending on local opinion.

She was Summa *** Laude from Princton? Her parents should get their money back!

She show a definite fundamental lack of concept understandng of American constitutional law.

But she will become Supreme Court justice because a female hispanic is a good political choice, and the team sponsoring her has more than enough votes, and will do so no matter what is actually said in the hearings.

The American legal system is failing all the way to the top!

[zonkzilla]

What a headline, "she's still standing!"
Was she in a cage fighting event or something?
I Guess now she will be compared to Rocky?
I could hurl.

[beaumuff]

Masses with the load shes got she won't be standing to long. Obama could atleast of put a good looking women in there and I bet she could have awnsered all the questions instead of babbling about nothing.

[endurorob]

actornaught July 16, 2009 1:57 PM EDT
You're guessing and wishful thinking-out-loud. My experience is more in line with the Buffett claim. And i could be lying, just like you could.

Try a legitimate source


Yake a look at my last two posts. My legitimate source is the 1040A form and instruction book. Looks to me like Buffet was lying about at least one facet of his story. How much else did he lie about?

[Joe_NY_15]

endurorob, this whole fake story about Buffett is another round shot-off by the Left to further class warfare and envy for those who are successful.....I would like to see the itemized deductions of Buffet vs. Secretary who had no deductions, no dependents and no write-off/losses/expenses, etc.

Years ago, when I had no deductions, I paid a higher %....it's in the tax code......why don't they get it ?? does liberalism block thought ?

[lovegetpeace]

Amigo Joe_NY_15,
Stop complaining now about the taxes you paid years ago when you had no deductions. You have the all the deductions plus credits now and your Effective Tax Rate is 9.1%:

According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office website http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10068, the Effective Federal Income Tax Rate for the last tabulated period 2006 was 9.1%.

The Effective Federal Income Tax Rate is what the Average American pays After all Deductions and Credits.

If you include Social Security, Medicare, Gasoline and many other Federal Taxes, the Effective Combine Federal Tax Rate is 20.7%. This is the lowest of all the Industrial and Developed Nations.

In fact, according to the former House Majority leader Dick Anmey, R-Texas, whose conservative group FreedomWorks setup Tea Parties around the country this past April 15, 2009, said to the Washington Post that "...the tax rate right now is at a good level."

We can pay down our $13 Trillions Federal Debt by just raising our Effective Tax Rate to Average.

SO, Americans are the most Lazy, Selfish and Irresponsible Taxpayers of the World.

[Joe_NY_15]

by lovegetpeace July 16, 2009 3:37 PM EDT
Amigo Joe_NY_15,
Stop complaining now about the taxes you paid years ago when you had no deductions. You have the all the deductions plus credits now and your Effective Tax Rate is 9.1%:
_________________________________

WHAT THE ??? my marginal rate is 30-40%.....I wish it was 9%

[endurorob]

A little math error on my last post. She would have paid $9,100 in taxes, about 15% or half of what Buffet claimed.

[chonder2]

I heard that Senator Franken is going to ask Senator Coburn to do his "Jose Jimenez" immitation.

We need to break in to the Watergate Building before they tear it down. For old time sake.Compare now and then.Repubs keep doing the same thing.

[jankebenzone]

Anyone who can't see the real reasons why the libs are pushing for Sotomayor's installation has of course libraveiw blocking their vision.

[endurorob]

actornaught July 16, 2009 1:05 PM EDT
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/8561112/Warren-Buffett-blasts-system-that-lets-him-pay-less-tax-than-secretary

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

When Buffett offered $1million to any CEO that paid at a higher rate than their secretaries, nobody came forward. Basic tax rates bedammed, what they end up paying is what matters.

When the wealthy routinely pay a lower functional rate, exacerbated by phony conservative govt "control", THAT is an Entitlement.

Gonna talk about your wife instead, now?


I just took a quick look at this years tax form and tables and if his secratary filed single and had only the standard deduction she would have paid $9,900 in taxes. That is more like 16% rather than 30%. Buffet is full of $&*@.

[lovegetpeace]

According to the Non-Partisan Congressional Budget Office website http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=10068, the Effective Federal Income Tax Rate for the last tabulated period 2006 was 9.1%.

The Effective Federal Income Tax Rate is what the Average American pays After all Deductions and Credits.

If you include Social Security, Medicare, Gasoline and many other Federal Taxes, the Effective Combine Federal Tax Rate is 20.7%. This is the lowest of all the Industrial and Developed Nations.

In fact, according to the former House Majority leader Dick Anmey, R-Texas, whose conservative group FreedomWorks setup Tea Parties around the country this past April 15, 2009, said to the Washington Post that "...the tax rate right now is at a good level."

We can pay down our $13 Trillions Federal Debt by just raising our Effective Tax Rate to Average.

SO, Americans are the most Lazy, Selfish and Irresponsible Taxpayers of the World.