Legal Commentary

Sotomayor Hearing, Day 4, Blog 1

By Big Tent Democrat

The nonsense continues today. I am watching intermittently. Tom Watson shot 65 at the British Open.

Jon Kyl misstating what happened in Ricci. The case he will never mention is Griggs. The law he will never mention is the 1991 Amendments to Title VII enacted by congress AFTER the Supreme Court decision in Ward's Cove.

To remember about Ricci, here was the Constitutional Accountability Center's analysis.

Though I must say Sotomayor does a terrible job of explaining this issue. [More...]

Kyl cites the extreme Right Wing commenter Stuart Taylor as if he is some authority. Might as well cite Liberty University law school.

Graham is very interested in what the PRDLEF advocated but was offended when Alito was questioned about what CAP advocated. Blatant hypocrite. And unlike Sotomayor, whose judicial record shows she did not rule based on the views of the PRDLEF, while Alito's judicial record was very much in line with what CAP advocated.

John Cornyn tried to get Sotomayor to agree with John Roberts' disinegenuous statement "the best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Sotomayor's pushback was interesting and important. She talked instead of about the Constitution's demand of "equality of opportunity." The distinction is important. It was clearly the first time something real about Sotomayor peeked through imo.

Arlen Specter really makes the best points of any of the Senators. He is right on every point he makes.

Update (TL): Transcripts for today: Part 1

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 16, 2009 (boomark / email).