Sotomayor hearings

As Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions lectures Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on the importance of color-blind justice, bear in mind that Mr. Sessions would now be a federal judge himself if his own nomination had not been rejected in 1986 due to his history of racist comments.

As detailed in a 2002 article in The New Republic, testimony at his confirmation hearing included a report that Mr. Sessions had once said he thought the Klan was OK until he learned that some of them were pot smokers. A black assistant U.S. attorney in his office testified that Mr. Sessions addressed him as “boy” and told him to be careful how he talked to white folks. Another Justice Department lawyer testified that Mr. Sessions has referred to a white lawyer who had litigated voters’ rights cases as a “disgrace to his race.” In his own testimony, Mr. Sessions characterized the NAACP as an un-American organization.

In the end, the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee voted against confirmation.

So, when Mr. Sessions questions Ms. Sotomayor’s commitment to the equality of all people before the law, don’t forget Mr. Sessions’ own record on the subject.

Jeff Maloney
Kansas City

Two generations have worked selflessly to realize a society that judges individuals on merit and protects the civil rights of all. Yet now we find another privileged standard applied to Sonia Sotomayor, based solely on her gender and who her parents were.

I think it fair to dissent from any antiquated government policy that promotes a new aristocratic class based on criteria so superficial.

Sam Gill
Kansas City

Thank you for publishing the picture of Judge Sonia Sotomoyor conferring with her mother (7/14, A1).

It explains the unease with which we who were born to some semblance of privilege view her nomination to the Supreme Court. It represents the obvious influence of the Wise Latina Feminist Manifesto Movement.

Susan J. Brandt 
Kansas City

Comments

[Jim]

Arminius takes "500th time" literally because he cannot refute the facts about Jeff Sessions presented in the letter. Sessions was not being "unjustifiably" called a racist, because he is demonstrably a racist. Sessions doesn't deny saying any of those things.

Another pack of lies and deflection from Arminius.

[Wild Man]

"I do not know about "most minority females" NoMO, but this one is definitely a bigot about her race given her past remarks."

BTW Jill, Senator Sessions is not seeking SCOTUS, she is. Sessions is entitled to question just as tough as Kennedy did of Alito, ain't that a b i itch? - Kee

Lets think about this as grown ups.

Your first statement. There is a long history of Latina’s usurping the rights of Caucasians, right. One Hispanic on the bench only approximately equals the proportional representation of Hispanics in the general population. Your still in luck, Caucasians are still over represented. You really need to stop living in fear.

On your second point. Alito was nominated to replace Sandra Day O'Conner. Although she was appointed by Reagan, most conservatives opposed her nomination because she was thought of as a moderate. While on the court, Justice O'Conner was a swing vote. Alito on the other hand is staunchly a conservative. He faced tough questioning and quite honestly unfair scrutiny because his nomination moved the court to the right. If you remember, Justice Roberts went through the confirmation process at approximately the same time with few problems. The difference was that he was replacing Justice Rehnquist who was already a conservative in the court. Historically, any time the balance of the court turns one way or the other the person who is changing the balance faces tough treatment. Judge Sotomayor is cut out of the same mold as Justice Souter. She therefore should face no more scrutiny than Justice Roberts unless you’re a whiney bee atch.

[Arminius]

"Yesterday, Cornyn asked the "wise Latina" question for the 500th time. The irony was lost on him, I guess."

Jim is lying yet again.

[Arminius]

The smears that Baloney writes of were never proven. Ironically, at least one of the Democrats who voted against Sessions, Howell Heflin, participated in the Democrats' filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In other words, Sessions was being unjustifiably labeled a racist by actual racists.

[Jazz-Man]

The haterz are those that call her a bigot, those that still hav eno clue of what she meant.

[Roger Lambert]

"She claimed it fell flat because people took it the wrong way but then what do you expect from haterz!!
Posted by: Jazz-Man | Jul 16, 2009 11:07:39 AM"

What a textbook example of irony. If you object to language stating that a Latina judge would reach a better result, then you're a "haterz."

Speechless. It's a perfect distillation of liberalism.

[Jim]

Funny that the same Palinbots who brand any criticism whatsoever of The One as "hateful" and "sexist" are the same people engage in racist, sexist attacks on Sotomayor on a regular basis. Oh and now she has connections to Bill Ayers and led a "terrorist group." Ooooh I'm so scared!

Even the senators couldn't hide their racist/sexist feelings. Sessions twice told her that, if only she were more like another Puerto Rican judge or another female colleague, he would approve of her. As if all Puerto Ricans or female judges vote the same way because of who they are.

Someone has a twisted view of the role race and gender play in the courtroom, but it's pretty obvious it's not Sotomayor.

[Jazz-Man]

Back and fourth back and fourth, this would be the case if Liberal was up for nomination too.

[Jazz-Man]

She claimed it fell flat because people took it the wrong way but then what do you expect from haterz!!

[Moral City USA]

Jeff, that is an interesting piece of information, but we cannot justify bad behavior by comparing it to other bad behavior. He did not make it to the bench...niether should Sotomayor.

I first supported her inspite of the "wise Latino" statment, but then I learned that she used this statement many times. She claims it "fell flat". Then why did she keep using it?

Then she specifically disagreed with Sanda O'Conner's opinion that "a wise old man and a wise old woman, given the same facts, will come to the same conclusion".

I now believe she is unsuitable for the bench. Both Roberts and Brownback have already said they will vote against her nomination. I dont know on the MO side, but likely the same. Has McCaskill indicated how she will vote?

[Jim]

"BTW Jill, Senator Sessions is not seeking SCOTUS, she is. Sessions is entitled to question just as tough as Kennedy did of Alito, ain't that a b i itch?"

Then perhaps Lindsey Graham will apologize profusely for the tough questions, like he did to Alito.

It kills me that these idiots are using all their time asking her the same question over and over and over again day in and day out. A few years ago, Cornyn asked Roberts if putting the same questions to him over and over again would yield a different answer and he said no, an answer that Cornyn liked.

Yesterday, Cornyn asked the "wise Latina" question for the 500th time. The irony was lost on him, I guess.

[Jazz-Man]

Gated community tirades.

[Jazz-Man]

Still, expected that from both of you. Does anyone else want to join in on thier

[Kee]

I do not know about "most minority females" NoMO, but this one is definitely a bigot about her race given her past remarks.

BTW Jill, Senator Sessions is not seeking SCOTUS, she is. Sessions is entitled to question just as tough as Kennedy did of Alito, ain't that a b i itch?

[Jazz-Man]

NoMo, thank for your daily tattoo on racism, its not the same with you!

[NoMoreMrNiceGuy]

Soto is a bigot and gender biased, just like most minority females.