Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI! BENGHAZI!

Don't expect any remorse or apology from the partisans who kept pushing the lie that there was a cover-up. The House, conveniently after elections, has found there was no cover-up nor was there an intelligence failure in the Benghazi tragedy. The only intelligence failure was the lie pushed by conservative bloggers and FAUX NOOZ.

Click on the headline below to read the story.

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sotomayor Hearings Continue


On its official witness list, the Senate Judiciary Committee lists Ricci as Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut Council on Occupational Safety and Health). And that's understandable--he boasts as much on his website.


The problem, unfortunately, is that there is no such position.
Seeking to distance themselves from Ricci, ConnectiCOSH has sent a letter to Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asking him to correct the record. "Mr. Ricci has posted on his website that he is the "Director of Fire Services for ConnectiCOSH" but there is no such position with ConnectiCOSH," writes ConnectiCOSH Co-Chair Steve Schrag.

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.

Of the roughly 75 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor dissented 2 times. In Neilson v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 199 F.3d 642 (1999), she dissented from the affirmance of the district court’s order appointing a guardian for the plaintiff, an issue unrelated to race. In Gant v. Wallingford Bd. of Educ., 195 F.3d 134 (1999), she would have allowed a black kindergartner to proceed with the claim that he was discriminated against in a school transfer. A third dissent did not relate to race discrimination: In Pappas v. Giuliani, 290 F.3d 143 (2002), she dissented from the majority’s holding that the NYPD could fire a white employee for distributing racist materials.

Judge Sotomayor was twice on panels reversing district court decisions agreeing with race-related claims - i.e., reversing a finding of impermissible race-based decisions. Both were criminal cases involving jury selection.

The numbers relating to unpublished opinions continued to hold as well. In the roughly 55 cases in which the panel affirmed district court decisions rejecting a claim of employment discrimination or retaliation, the panel published its opinion or order only 5 times.

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

h/t SCOTUSblog

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases SCOTUSblog

And on another nutty note:

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala) :

SESSIONS: "You voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit. And in fact your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case. "

Didn't the Republicans get their knickers all in a twist because they thought Judge Sotomayor was a racist who favored Latinos? Why would Sessions make a point of telling Judge Sotomayor that Judge Cabranes was "himself of Puerto Rican ancestry?" By doing so he's implying she should have voted on that basis alone, the very thing the GOP has been throwing tantrums over since she was nominated by President Obama.

They're nuts.

46 comments:

Christopher said...

Empathy: noun: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

Strange how the rightwing and its minions are so worried when an African-American, Democratic president uses the word "empathy" as it informs his choices for the High Court.

But when a white, Republican president (Poppy Bush's and his brat kid)'s nominees to the High Court (Clarence Thomas and John Roberts) use the noun "empathy" in the course of their nomination process, none of these lemmings are remotely bothered.

Very curious.

Arthurstone said...

I was happy to see a large number of New Haven firefighters were able to visit DC and attend the Sotomayor confirmation hearing yesterday.

GOP senators go weak in the knees for a uniform.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gordon said...

Ah! I see you got the memo from People for the American Way asking folks to attack the firefighters. That's the American way, isn't it?

I'm also amused by your lack of coverage of the fact that Sotermayor tossed her nominator under the bus. After all, President Obama says he wants judges to empathize. But Judge Sonia says that's a big no-no.

And what's a language maven like the Bahston Blonde doing ignoring the wise Latina's obvious inability to express herself coherently? Eminent instead of imminent, providence instead of province, “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge," vagrancies instead of vagaries.

I seem to remember a lot of comments about how Sarah Palin can't speak well, but you seem unable to comment on a woman who, in her own words, "each time I see a split infinitive, an inconsistent tense structure or the unnecessary use of the passive voice, I blister."

We're about to confirm Justice Malaprop.

Christopher said...

Nothing Sotomayor may or may not have said compares with the conservative cretin, Antonin Scalia who opined at Harvard in a speech:

"I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

Woefully inappropriate and wholly ill-advised.

James' Muse said...

Anonymous: What does that have to do with anything on this blog?

Arthurstone said...

Sorry Gordon.

I saw the photograph of some very concerned looking New Haven firefighters on the front page of the dreaded NY Times this morning.

No memo necessary!

Personally I can't wait to see how Ricci does today. The 'empathy' will run in rivers.

Thus far it's been difficult to choose the most egregious GOP moment but Coburn's creepy channeling of Ricky Ricardo is leading the dismal pack.

Anyone else interested in a moratorium on the phrase (and variations) 'throw under a bus'?

Richard L. said...

Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican Senator used the case study of Brown v. Board of Education to illuminate how the Supreme Court, through a studious interpretation of the constitution can actually affect political change. In the process, he dropped in the candid admission that if he were the Senator in 1955, he likely would not have had the courage to push for legislation calling for de-segregation in schools.

Here is the quote:

"The court has, in the opinion of many of us, gone into the business of societal change not based on the plain language of the constitution, but based on motivations that can never be checked at the ballot box. Brown versus Board of Education is instructive in the sense that the Court pushed the country to do something politicians were not brave enough to do. Certainly we're not brave enough in my state.

And if I had been elected as a Senator from South Carolina in 1955, the year I was born, I would be amazed if I would have had the courage of a Judge Johnson in the political arena. But the court went through an analysis that separate was not equal. It had a basis in the constitution after fact finding to reach a reasoned conclusion in the law and the courage to implement that decision. And society had the wisdom to accept the court's opinion even though it was contentious and literally people died."

Now there's a candid fessing up to racism if I ever heard one. Graham admits that he doubts he would have had the courage to do the right thing because as a southerner, the pressure to be antiAmerican, antiBlack would have overridden any consideration for liberty and justice for all.

And this guy is judging Sotomayor?

Arthurstone said...

I would be even more amazed than Graham himself.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon wrote:

"I'm also amused by your lack of coverage of the fact that Sotermayor tossed her nominator under the bus. After all, President Obama says he wants judges to empathize. But Judge Sonia says that's a big no-no."

Of course she had to say that--the conservatives were gnashing their teeth over the idea of a nominee being "empathetic" --y'know, like George HW Bush said of Clarence Thomas, and like Justice Alito said he would be in cases where immigrants would come before him.

It's a double standard: Empathy in GOP Supreme Court Justices, GOOD! Empathy in Democratic presidents' nominees: BAD!

Too funny. She said exactly what had to be said to calm the GOP Senators' dainty little nerves.

Gordon also wrote:

"And what's a language maven like the Bahston Blonde doing ignoring the wise Latina's obvious inability to express herself coherently? Eminent instead of imminent, providence instead of province, “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge," vagrancies instead of vagaries."

Yes. I heard Limbaugh's pontificting on those exact flubs today. I'm not sure I should thank you for repeating the gasbags' silly criticisms. He's now reduced to hunting for malapropisms spoken by Supreme Court nominess?

Too funny.

Gordon wrote:

"I seem to remember a lot of comments about how Sarah Palin can't speak well, but you seem unable to comment on a woman who, in her own words, "each time I see a split infinitive, an inconsistent tense structure or the unnecessary use of the passive voice, I blister."

Gordon, I know for a fact that you are smart enough to know the difference between someone who can't utter a syntactically coherent sentence, and someone who produces malaprops--words that come close to the sound of another word, but are inappropriate.

Those are funny, while what Sarah Palin does to the English language is criminal.

Sotomayor's first language was Spanish--English was her second language. I'd like to see anyone be perfect in a second language.

What's Sarah's excuse?

TRUTH 101 said...

Shaw: would it be okay if I had my daughter, the one who's mother and I paid $32,000 for her degree in English, stop in and correct all the improper grammer. She needs something to do while looking for a job.

Shaw Kenawe said...

TRUTH,

Congratulations on your daughter's accomplishment!

Answer to your question: Yes.


BTW Gordon, you're correct in spelling Bahstin (no "o") as the phonetical way we pronounce our city.

When I see films or teevee shows that supposedly have Bostonian characters, I cringe.

The only ones who gets it right is Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.

The guy who played Cliff Clavin on "Cheers" always pronounced Norm Peterson's name as "NAHm," and it drove me crazy.

WRONG!

A real Bostonian would pronounce it "NOHm."

Other strange Bostonian pronunciations and sayings:

"BeeAH" (beer)

"CaaH" (car)

"Con" (corn)

"Hey! Yaw seets ovah heeyah!" (Hey your seat's over here!)

"Wicked pissah"

"What AH you? RetaaaahDID?

Frank The Thinking Man, said...

Everyone knows she is lying, the American people know she is lying and everyone knows she is a radical leftist activist judge yet somehow she seems to be sailing through to confirmation.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Frank,

When you accuse a Supreme Court nominee of lying, at least have the ability to back up your accusation.

If you can't than your statement is nothing but rightwing trash talk.

Give us evidence of her lying.

It's easy to accuse someone of lying without anything to back that up.

Would you appreciate it if someone said that about you? That everyone knows you're lying, but not back it up?

BTW, Sotomayor is considered a centrist. You've been listening to righwing talking points, not facts.

dmarks said...

Are the hearings so outrageous? After all, I heard during the last 8 years that the Senate should not "rubber-stamp" any nominee. These hearings seem to be of a decent length, and it's not like she is being Borked.

Richard L: Graham is is not rewriting history. You are. In 1955, you would find very few whites who would "do the right thing" on racial controversies like this. That's the reality, and Graham is only expressing that.

Chances are, any modern white politician, Democrat or Republican, who claims that he would have been a hero for racial justice had he been elected to the Senate in 1955 is probably lying. Unfortunately, it was a different time.

dmarks said...

News alert: Radio yacker Mark Levin is right now making an argument about how Sotomayor is unsuited for nomination because she is fat.

Anonymous said...

Antonin Scalia is fat.

Should he resign?

Mark Levin sounds like he's a desperate a**hole.

Christopher said...

Pat Buchanan, MSNBC's token white, conservative male thinks Sonia Sotomayor is unqualified for the SCOTUS and here's why:

“I think white men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country basically built by white folks.”

So there you have it. The USA was founded by white people and the Supreme Court must reflect the complexion of the Founding Fathers.

The Gray Headed Brother said...

President Obama at the NAACP was wonderful.
Such a proud time in America's history! First Hispanic woman to the United States Supreme Court AND our first Black President. A proud time in America!

Shaw Kenawe said...

Pat Buchanan: “I think white men were 100% of the people who wrote the constitution, 100% of the people who signed the Declaration of Independence, 100% of the people who died at Gettysburg and Vicksburg, probably close 100% of the people who died at Normandy. This has been a country basically built by white folks.”

Following that logic, the only people qualified to be Christians should be Jewish fishermen.

Seriously, why didn't someone point out to Buchanan that possibly the reason for the all white, all male hegemony at the founding of this nation's was because WOMEN AND PEOPLE OF COLOR--NATIVE AMERICANS AND AFRICAN-AMERICANS--were prohibited from participating in American democracy.

That's why.

Pat Buchanan is a tired, defeated old bigot, and I have no idea why the cable news teevee station that employs him thinks he has anything of value to contribute to contemporary politics.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Amen, TGHB.

His speech last night to the NAACP was remarkable.

Gordon said...

Shaw, I'll go with you on the "under the bus" thing.

Do you have PSDS?

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

what are PSDs?

Gordon said...

See, I can't tell because of the mask. But most progressive gals do have PSDS. It usually happens before you turn 18. I assume you do, too.

dmarks said...

Christopher: After he wrote that Hitler was the innocent victim of World War II, nothing Buchanan says surprises me.

Buchanan is probably on edge since his beloved Nazi war criminal is on trial now.

Shaw: If the Supreme Court really must reflect the complexion of those who built civilization on this continent, they'd all look like Mexicans (Aztecs)

Christopher said...

Shaw,

From the Urban Dictionary:

PSDS, noun - an abbreviation or phonetic pronunciation of the phrase "pierced ears" by an individual with a strong Boston accent.

"That Tommy sure has a lotta nerve for a prick with PSDS."

Gordon's suffering from wiggeritis.

TRUTH 101 said...

I'm just as proud of the Tuskeegee Airmen as any any others who served our Nation in war. In a way I'm prouder because what they were fighting for was a lesser America than folks of my skin tone were fighting for.


Didn't mean to step on a subject that you're expertise is far greater than mine GHB. No offense or disrespect to you is intended.

Gordon said...

Christopher,

You don't know anything about me, so kindly refrain from attempting to characterize me.

Christopher said...

Gordon,

Say stupid things and I'll call you on your stupidity. If you don't like it, wise up and stop acting the fool.

Gordon said...

Just because you found a definition in an urban dictionary doesn't mean the item came from there. Thinking that it does, and suggesting a slur based on that, is stupid.

Now get back to your sandbox, moron.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Please.

Gordon is a friend.

And so is Christopher.

It really pains me to see two people I like very much have words with each other here in my blog.

I will always be grateful to Gordon for his kindnesses when I faced a very sad time in my life.

And Christopher as well. He is someone I admire.

What else can I say?

Gordon said...

I bow to the Bahlonde.

You still didn't answer, though.

Shaw Kenawe said...

Gordon,

What's the question?

Gordon said...

Drinking the water of the Charles River has affected your memory in more than just how to pronounce your Rs.

PSDS, Ms. K? Are you afflicted?

dmarks said...

"Ah! I see you got the memo from People for the American Way asking folks to attack the firefighters. That's the American way, isn't it?"

Yes. Because proper skin color is what we need in firefighters. Not actual competance.

Arthurstone said...

Since I mentioned the New Haven fire fighters let me jump in here for a moment.

This is interesting.

Here's the sentence I typed:

'I was happy to see a large number of New Haven firefighters were able to visit DC and attend the Sotomayor confirmation hearing yesterday.'

From that Gordon and dmarks were able to link this innocuous remark with an alleged memo from People for the American Way 'directing attacks' on the firefighters. And secondly the statement 'proper skin color is what we need in firefighters. Not actual competence.'

Projecting just a bit I'd say.

Gordon said...

Hardly "alleged memo," Arthurstein:

"On Friday, citing in an e-mail "Frank Ricci's troubled and litigious work history," the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way drew reporters' attention to Ricci's past. Other advocates for Sotomayor have discreetly urged journalists to pursue similar story lines."

Source: McClatchy's newswire.

Reporters like Slate's Dalia Lithwick dutifully responded.

dmarks said...

Allende received (and welcomed) a payments of $450,000 during the election, and received a lot more money later.

The KGB said of Allende: "[He] stated his willingness to co-operate on a confidential basis and provide any necessary assistance"

"Declarations from KGB General Nikolai Leonov, former Deputy Chief of the First Chief Directorate of the State Security Committee of the KGB, confirmed that the Soviet Union supported Allende's government economically, politically and militarily. " (From SOVIET INTELLIGENCE IN LATIN AMERICA DURING THE COLD WAR Lectures by General Nikolai Leonov, Centro de Estudios Publicos (Chile), September 22, 1999)

One fascist/socialist/totalitarian dictator down. On to the others.

dmarks said...

Arthur: Skin color instead of competance was the policy of the New Haven government. A controversial policy that is both racist and supporting of bad government.

I'm not "projecting". That was their policy. They held to the extreme version of "affirmative action" that holds that skin color trumps real qualifications.

Arthurstone said...

Allende was elected President in a a free and fair election.

As is so often the case when voters from other nations make the wrong choice (according to our regime) he had to go. That it wasn't any of our concern is beside the point. Allende was a 'Communist' and he had to go.

By god it's our hemisphere.

Arthurstein? Come on Gordon. Leave the humor to the experts. Can you not read? I said I saw a photograph of the fire fighters on the front page of the NY Times and mentioned same. Hardly an attack. But in your continual eagerness to squeeze your 'point' into whatever slot is available, no matter how unsuitable, you had to invent one for this thread.

Cheers!

dmarks said...

"Allende was a 'Communist' and he had to go."

No point in the quotes around Communist. The evidence is overwhelming that he was a communist/socialist. Both of which are a declaration of intent to abolish human rights and seize as much power as possible.

A free and fair election... that happened to have been funded by the KGB. (which also had Allende in its payroll).And Allende was working to see that there would be no more elections in Chile.

"By god it's our hemisphere."

No, the hemisphere belongs to the nations in it. These nations did not include the USSR, which had no right to colonize Chile through Allende.

dmarks said...

The more I research, the worse Allende comes out. I just found references to his land piracy: stealing 1,500 farms from others to become his personal property.

This is typical socialist "land reform" that had happened in many other places, where dictators steal land to make it their own property.

Gordon said...

My apologies, Arthurstone. I was in a hurry and didn't proofread.

Arthurstone said...

Great. And continuing your research take a look at post-Allende Chile & the subsequent US supported demolition of the economy. The disappearings, the imprisonments and killings the Pinochet regime employed were far beyond any acts by Allende.

Arthurstone said...

Cheers Gordon.

dmarks said...

The death toll under Pinochet was much lower than that of the average Soviet-style dictator. A group of which Allende was a member.

His reign of terror was cut short. He had already started to create his terrorist militia, had shut down much opposition media, ended democracy, and stolen a lot of property.

Chile's economy recovered somewhat after Allende: some repair to the damage caused by socialism. But Pinochet had a bad habit of killing instead of deporting enemy foreign agents he found. He got in legal trouble for this, and rightly so.

I already did this research. I am not trying to whitewash Pinochet, and believe he should have been held accountable for executions. Nor am I whitewashing the thug that came before him.

I did the research on both thugs.