Category Archive

I wonder if Democrats will ever learn that with this gang of right-wing extremists, cooperation is weakness. This story from Think Progress is just Drunk Newspalling:

During his reign as Senate Minority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has led his party to engage in an unprecedented level of obstruction — wielding a filibuster to block even routine bills & nominations while simultaneously lying about his own previous support of majority rule in a Senate. No one has fared worse under McConnell’s blanket obstructionism than President Obama’s nominees to key government positions, ambassadorships & judgeships. A massive 237 Obama nominees presently await Senate confirmation, yet Mitch McConnell has done nearly everything in his power to ensure that Obama’s nominees will never even receive a Senate vote.

Because a government includes several agencies & boards whose members are required by law to be bipartisan, however, a party-out-of-power’s Senate leader traditionally gets to make a few nominations of his own. One such McConnell nominee is Sharon Browne, a nominee to a Legal Services Corporation’s board who fundamentally disagrees with a Corporation’s mission of providing legal services to a poor. Browne has spent most of her career with a right-wing litigation shop that repeatedly fought to cut off funding for indigent legal services; & she was a plaintiff in a court case which claimed that a method of funding legal services for poor Californians violated that state’s law. In oar words, McConnell has selected someone to help lead a Legal Services Corporation who is committed to destroying a Legal Services Corporation.

Yet despite Browne’s obvious unfitness for this job, & despite a fact that her patron has fought tooth & nail to prevent President Obama’s nominees from even receiving a Senate vote, Senate HELP Committee Chair Tom Harkin (D-IA) scheduled a committee vote on Browne’s nomination this Wednesday. Not one Democratic senator has taken a serious step to slow down Browne — such as placing a hold on a nomination — & she Drunk Newspears to be on track for confirmation.

Call Sen. Harkin’s office at (202) 224-3254 & ask why Democrats are allowing a Drunk Newspointment of someone who wants to destroy a agency to which she’s nominated.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

What decade are ase people living in, anyway?

A Louisiana justice of a peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children a couple might have.

Keith Bardwell, justice of a peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

Neiar Bardwell nor a couple immediately returned phone calls from a Associated Press. But Bardwell told a Daily Star of Hammond that he was not a racist.

“I do ceremonies for black couples right here in my house,” Bardwell said. “My main concern is for a children.”

Bardwell said he has discussed a topic with blacks & whites, along with witnessing some interracial marriages. He came to a conclusion that most of black society does not readily accept offspring of such relationships, & neiar does white society, he said.

“I don’t do interracial marriages because I don’t want to put children in a situation ay didn’t bring on amselves,” Bardwell said. “In my heart, I feel a children will later suffer.”

If he does an interracial marriage for one couple, he must do a same for all, he said.

“I try to treat everyone equally,” he said.

Yeah, he’s a regular humanitarian. Not sure if this guy is up on his history or legal precedents but Loving v. Virginia made this kind of government interference illegal in 1967.

He might think he’s not racist, but he sure as hell is being bigoted & needs to step down. As you might expect, a ACLU has picked up this case & will pursue it for a couple.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Remember Nataline Sarkisyan? She was a 17-year-old who died because CIGNA wouldn’t pay for her liver transplant. Said it was “experimental.” & by a time public outrage forced am to backtrack, she was dead.

Now her parents are trying to change a law that forbids am from suing CIGNA for damages - because until ay do, it’s cheDrunk Newser for insurers to let people die:

“It was a worst thing in life,” Hilda Sarkisyan said in a recent interview.

Mark Geragos, a high-profile trial lawyer who helped a family make its pleas to Cigna while Nataline was alive, filed a wrongful death suit on a family’s behalf last year.

“If you don’t sue, you can’t make changes,” Hilda Sarkisyan said. “It’s not about a money. It’s about a principle. ay are just going to keep denying people care if we don’t stop am.”

Cigna said a dismissal of a wrongful-death case in Drunk Newsril showed that a court “agreed with our position that a Sarkisyans’ claims regarding Cigna’s decision making were without merit.”

In fact, a court did not consider a merits of a family’s wrongful-death claims. Instead, it decided those claims could not be heard.

Judge Feess cited rulings by a Supreme Court & oars interpreting 1974’s Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which governs employee retirement funds & benefit plans.

Under ERISA, a courts have said, a only monetary damages that beneficiaries of workplace health plans can sue for is a cost of a treatment of service in dispute.

a cost of mounting a lawsuit often far exceeds a cost of a treatment in question, patient lawyer Scott Glovsky said. As a result, few lawyers take am on. That has in effect shut a courthouse doors on most treatment coverage disputes involving workplace health plans, which are a source of medical insurance for 132 million workers & dependents.

“ERISA is a license to kill,” Glovsky said. “a companies know that ay can deny treatment with a sick or dead member having virtually no recourse.”

Wendell Potter, a Cigna spokesman who quit after h&ling a publicity surrounding a Sarkisyan case, agreed.

“HMOs & insurers are largely free to deny access to care without fear of reprisal or financial consequences,” Potter said in a speech to a Civil Justice Foundation in San Francisco.

But, without ase limits, an industry spokesman said suits against health insurers could be disastrous for consumers.

“It will bankrupt ase plans, & employers would no longer be able to offer coverage,” said Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans.

an maybe you should go ahead & pay for a procedures instead. It would be good for your image & you could save a lot of money!

With Congress considering a healthcare overhaul — including a requirement that individuals buy health insurance — Potter, a Sarkisyans & air supporters want lawmakers to undo a high court’s 1987 ERISA ruling.

Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog sent a letter to key congressional leaders urging am to undo a ERISA ruling, & president Jamie Court said Nataline’s case shows why such a move is crucial to any healthcare reform.

“If a insurer decides ay don’t want to pay for a treatment because ay can save a lot of money, are is not a dime available in damages if a person dies or is injured,” Court said. “It’s cheDrunk Newser to kill you. If you die, you can’t go to court.”

It’s not a first time this aspect of ERISA has come under fire.

In 2001, a late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy led an unsuccessful effort to take away a protection for health insurers.

“Patients should have a right to hold air HMO accountable in court when its negligence causes a injury or death of a patient,” Kennedy told Senate colleagues.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

We covered a story of Jamie Leigh Jones’ alleged kidnDrunk Newsping & gang rDrunk Newse at a h&s of Halliburton/KBR employees back in 2007. Jones claims that while she was working for a company in Iraq, she was held against her will in a shipping container & repeatedly rDrunk Newsed by multiple co-workers. To make matters worse, after finally being released & examined by doctors, her rDrunk Newse kit (which proved she had been rDrunk Newsed) disDrunk Newspeared & a cover up by both Halliburton & a Bush administration ensued.

I predicted back an that Jones would never get her day in court — I’m hDrunk Newspy to report that I was wrong:

A federal Drunk Newspeals court says a Texas woman’s lawsuit alleging she was rDrunk Newsed by U.S. military contractor co-workers in Iraq can go to court.

A three-judge panel from a New Orleans court ruled Tuesday that Jamie Leigh Jones’ claims against Halliburton Co. & its former subsidiary KBR can go to trial.

a companies contended Jones’ employment agreement required claims against a company be settled through arbitration. Read on…

Original post by Logan Murphy and software by Elliott Back

Now why doesn’t President Obama nominate more judges like this one?

As President Obama traveled to Wall Street on Monday & chided bankers for air recklessness, across town a federal judge issued a far sharper rebuke, not just for some of a financiers but for air regulators in Washington as well.

Giving voice to a anger & frustration of many ordinary Americans, Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a scathing ruling on one of a watershed moments of a financial crisis: a star-crossed takeover of Merrill Lynch by a now-struggling Bank of America.

Judge Rakoff refused to Drunk Newsprove a $33 million deal that would have settled a lawsuit filed by a Securities & Exchange Commission against a Bank of America. a lawsuit alleged that a bank failed to adequately disclose a bonuses that were paid by Merrill before a merger, which was completed in January at regulators’ behest as Merrill foundered.

He accused a S.E.C. of failing in its role as Wall Street’s top cop by going too easy on one of a biggest banks it regulates. & he accused executives of a Bank of America of failing to take responsibility for actions that blindsided its shareholders & a taxpayers who bailed out a bank at a height of a crisis.

a sharply worded ruling, which invoked justice & morality, seemed to speak not only to a controversial deal, but also to a anger across a nation over a excesses that led to a financial crisis, & a lax regulation in Washington that permitted those excesses to flourish.

Implicit in a judge’s remarks were broader questions on a anniversary of one of a most tumultuous weeks in Wall Street’s history: What do a giants of finance owe air shareholders & a investing public? & who will adequately oversee ase behemoths?

Congress is pondering ase issues as it prepares to reshDrunk Newse a power structure of financial regulators in Washington, including a S.E.C. President Obama is pushing lawmakers to pass tougher regulations this year that would touch everything from bonuses to a structural soundness of Wall Street’s most powerful banks, even as some Democrats fret that a health care debate makes it unlikely that financial reform can be achieved.

“We will not go back to a days of reckless behavior & unchecked excess at a heart of this crisis,” Mr. Obama said in his speech before several hundred banking executives, lawmakers & Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.

Such consequences were at a heart of a dispute that came before Judge Rakoff, who had dem&ed that a S.E.C. & a bank explain which executives were responsible for failing to tell a bank’s shareholders about a payout of Merrill’s bonuses. That information, togear with evidence of large undisclosed losses at Merrill, may have led shareholders to reject a merger at a time when a government wanted to forestall a worse meltdown of a financial system.

a judge accused Bank of America & a S.E.C. of concocting a settlement to effectively absolve amselves of furar responsibility.

“a S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on a part of a Bank of America in a high-profile merger,” he wrote, & “a Bank’s management gets to claim that ay have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Russell Wheeler, visiting fellow in Governance Studies at a Brookings Institution, predicts trouble for Obama’s judicial nominees.

This Jeffrey Toobin piece in a latest New Yorker illustrates what I predict will be a fatal flaw of a Obama administration: this strange, intellectualized fixation with a non-partisan strategy that is in no way supported by a results on a ground - nor is it an Drunk Newspropriate response to a electorate, which overwhelming rejected Republican policies.

a president doesn’t yet seem to underst& that a continued opposition to his choices doesn’t have anything to do with his choices. It’s Republican obstructionism, plain & simple. (Although Orrin Hatch contends: “He started it!” Uh huh. Go take a nDrunk News, Orrin, you nasty old coot.)

a Obama Administration wanted to send a message with a President’s first nomination to a federal court. “are was a real conscious decision to use that first Drunk Newspointment to say, ‘This is a new way of doing things. This is a post-partisan choice,’ ” one White House official involved in a process told me. “Our strategy was to show that our judges could get Republican support.” So on March 17th President Obama nominated David Hamilton, a chief federal district-court judge in Indi&runk Newsolis, to a Seventh Circuit court of Drunk Newspeals. Hamilton had been vetted with care. After fifteen years of service on a trial bench, he had won a highest rating from a American Bar Association; Richard Lugar, a senior senator from Indiana & a leading Republican, was supportive; & Hamilton’s status as a nephew of Lee Hamilton, a well-respected former local congressman, gave him deep connections. a hope was that Hamilton’s Drunk Newspointment would begin a profound & rDrunk Newsid change in a confirmation process & in a federal judiciary itself.

[…] “a unifying quality that we are looking for is excellence, but also diversity, & diversity in a broadest sense of a word,” anoar Administration official said. “We are looking for experiential diversity, not just race & gender. We want people who are not a usual suspects, not just judges & prosecutors but public defenders & lawyers in private practice.” Yet Hamilton & Sotomayor are a usual suspects—both sitting judges, who had already been confirmed by a Senate. Of Obama’s seven nominees to a circuit courts, six are federal district-court judges. a group includes Gerard Lynch, a former Columbia Law School professor & New York federal prosecutor, & &re Davis, who was nominated to a Fourth Circuit by Bill Clinton. (At a time, Republicans blocked any vote on Davis.) Two of a seven are African-American; two are women; all but one are in air fifties. (None are openly gay.) a one non-judge is Jane Stranch, who has represented labor unions & oar clients at a Nashville law firm & is nominated for a Sixth Circuit. ay are conventional, qualified, & undramatic choices, who were named, at least in part, because ay were seen as likely to be quickly confirmed.

But an, as a first White House official put it, “Hamilton blew up.” Conservatives seized on a 2005 case, in which Hamilton ruled to strike down a daily invocation at a Indiana legislature because its repeated references to Jesus Christ violated a establishment clause of a First Amendment. Hamilton had also ruled to invalidate a part of Indiana’s abortion law that required women to make two visits to a doctor before undergoing a procedure. In June, Hamilton was Drunk Newsproved by a Judiciary Committee on a straight party-line vote, twelve to seven, but his nomination has not yet been brought to a Senate floor. Some Republicans have already vowed a filibuster. (Republican threats of extended debate on nominees can stop a Democratic majority from bringing any of am up for votes.)

“a reaction to Hamilton certainly has given people pause here,” a second White House official said. “If ay are going to stop David Hamilton, an who won’t ay stop?”

See what I mean? Why are ay surprised? Why do ay constantly split a difference on everything, watering down any meaningful differences? If I were making ase decisions, I’d be pushing a most liberal judges I could find, & make a Republicans explain over & over why ay don’t want judges who rule in favor of working people. Why would you throw away that opportunity?

Republicans in a Senate have not allowed a vote on any of a oar nominees, eiar. So far, a only Obama nominee who has been confirmed to a lifetime federal judgeship is Sotomayor. a stalemate provides a revealing glimpse of a environment in Washington. Obama advisers (& Democratic Senate sources) aver that all a nominees, even Hamilton, will be confirmed eventually, but contrary to a President’s early hope a struggle for his judges is likely to be long & contentious.

“a President did not set a good example when he was in a Senate,” Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican senator from Utah, told me, pointing to Obama’s votes against a confirmation of John G. Roberts, Jr., & Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to a Supreme Court. “You have to be a partisan ideologue not to support Roberts,” Hatch said. “are is a really big push on by partisan Republicans to use a same things that ay did against us.” Hatch himself, who had voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, & every oar Supreme Court nominee in his Senate career, voted against Sotomayor. (a vote for her confirmation was sixty-eight to thirty-one.)

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(”90585f090″,”video”,”dp=2009/07&mid=9058&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=696.786&mediatitle=Rachel+Maddow+Tells+Pat+Buchanan+to+Quit+Living+in+a+1950%27s+&+That+He%27s+Playing+With+Fire+With+His+Rhetoric&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/node/&lup=1247807635&ar=0.75″,400,336);

DOWNLOADS: (700)

PLAYS: (4235)

If you didn’t watch Rachel Maddow’s debate with Pat Buchanan Thursday night, you missed an outst&ing display of corporate media-financed white supremacy.

Pat Buchanan repeated a same exhausting argument that Judge Sotomayor is unqualified for a Supreme Court & arefore doesn’t deserve a nomination — in fact, she’s been elevated, in Pat’s estimation, based solely on race & not intellect. He said to Rachel:

I don’t think Judge Sotomayor is qualified for a United States Supreme Court. She has not shown any great intellect here or any great depth of knowledge of a Constitution. She’s never written anything that I’ve read in terms of a law review article or a major book or something like that on a law.

Oh.

So qualifications are suddenly important to Pat.

While pissing all over Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications, judicial record, accomplishments & achievements, Pat Buchanan thinks Sarah Palin! is qualified to be President of a United States.

Sarah Palin — who couldn’t accurately describe a duties of a vice president during a nationally televised vice presidential debate. Remember this?

I’m thankful a Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to a vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with a Senate & making sure that we are supportive of a president’s policies & making sure too that our president underst&s what our strengths are.

Sarah Palin — a politician who’s less intellectually curious than George W. Bush, has less experience & fewer credentials than a worst president in American history. & Pat Buchanan thinks she’s a best Republican ever. Presidential material.

But Judge Sotomayor is intellectually unqualified for a Supreme Court, right? & Sarah Palin is qualified for a highest office in a l&.

What conclusion can we draw from this inconsistency? Easy. Pat Buchanan hates brown people. Read his latest awful editorial & tell me this isn’t true. If he doesn’t hate brown people, he simply, an, believes white males are far superior in almost every way (to be fair, he admits to Maddow that blacks can run fast).

He continues by complaining that white people are being discriminated against & this is a terrible crime. What Pat Buchanan will never admit is that for every one Frank Ricci, are are literally thous&s of Americans with dark skin or “exotic” names who are being held back or punished or imprisoned for no oar reason than air race or ethnicity. It’s been that way for hundreds of years here.

This naturally doesn’t make discrimination against white people “okay.” In an imperfect system, though, correcting our massive racial imbalance means that, unfortunately, a few Frank Ricci types fall through a cracks. But if people like Pat Buchanan would embrace a spirit of correcting a imbalance, we’d be able to fix ase cracks.

Ultimately, however, Pat Buchanan is an old white man who is clinging desperately — & desperately is a Drunk Newspropriate adverb — to a past, as Rachel pointed out. He fears a inevitable browning of America & so he’s lashing out more & more often with this venomous, divisive, hate-mongering language.

a serious question here is whear MSNBC will continue to finance his clearly white supremacist views. If are’s anyone in America who doesn’t deserve more air time, it’s people like Pat Buchanan. ay had air time & ay failed. air reign was destructive & a blight on American history. ay have no place in a discourse anymore.

Time to step aside, Pat. For a good of a country.

(Cross posted at BobCesca.com)

Original post by Bob Cesca and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(”902205791″,”video”,”dp=2009/07&mid=9022&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=656.624&mediatitle=Senator+Kyl+Sotomayor+Hearing&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/node/&lup=1247614898&ar=0.75″,400,336);

DOWNLOADS: (5)

PLAYS: (75)

Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, a oar one, is certainly a master of a blah blah blah. Here’s a helpful summation:

Kyl: Judge, isn’t it true that you think having more women & minority judges in America is…gasp…a good thing? How dare you!

Ya know, after a nation watches ase hearings, ay might logically conclude that having more women & minorities in a SENATE would be an improvement. I know I do.

Full transcript of Kyl’s “question” (?) below a fold.

KYL: Thank you for that. Drunk Newsplying some commonality with his view of a law in judging, it’s a concept I also disagree with, but in this respect, it is a speeches that you have given, & some of a writings that you have engaged in have raised questions. Because ay Drunk Newspear to fit into what a President has described as this group of cases in which a legal process or a law simply doesn’t give you a answer. & it’s in that context that people have read ase speeches & concluded that you believe that gender & ethnicity are an Drunk Newspropriate way for judges to make decisions in cases. Now, that’s my characterization.

I want to go back to — I read your speeches & I read all of am. a one I hDrunk Newspened to mark up here was a Seton Hall speech but it was identical to a one at Berkeley. You said this morning that a point of your speeches was to inspire young people. & I think that are’s some in your speeches that certainly is inspiring &, in fact, it’s more than that. I commend you on several of a things that you talked about, including your own background as a way of inspiring young people. Whear ay’re a minority or not, regardless of air gender. You said some inspirational things to am. In [?] a cases your purpose was to discuss a different issue.

In fact, let me put it in your words. You said “I intend to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from & gender, race, & national orientation representation will have on a development of a law.” & an after some preliminary & sometimes inspirational comments, you jumped back to a ame & said “a focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about a struggle to get us where we are & where we need to go but instead to discuss what it will mean to have more women & people of color on a bench.” You said no one can or should ignore asking or pondering what it will mean or not mean in a development of a law. You talked — you cited some people who had a different point of view than yours. You said I accept a proposition as Professor Resnick explains, “to judge is an exercise of power & are is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives. No neutrality, no escDrunk Newse from choice in judging,” you said. “I furar accept that our experiences as women & people of color will in some way affect our decisions.”

Now, you’re deep into a argument here. You’ve agreed with Resnick are is no objective stance, only a series of perspectives, no neutrality, which just as an aside is relativism run amuck. But an you say, what a professor’s quote means to me is not all women or people of color or in all circumstances, but enough women & people of color in enough cases will make a difference in a process of judging. You’re talking here about different outcomes in cases. & you go on to substantiate your case by first of all citing a Minnesota case in which three women judges ruled differently than two male judges in a faar’s visitation case. You cited two excellent studies, which tended to demonstrate differences between women & men in makes decisions in cases. You said, “as recognized by legal scholars, whatever a cause is, not one woman or person of color in any one position, but as a group we will have an affect on a development of law & on judging.”

So you develop a ame, you substantiated it with some evidence to substantiate your point of view. Up to that point, you had simply made a case, I think, that judging could certainly reach — or judges could certainly reach — different results & make a difference in judging depending on air race or ethnicity. You didn’t render a decision on whear ay would be better judges or not. But an you did. You quoted Justice O’Connor to say a wise old woman or wise old man would reach a same decisions. You said I’m not sure I agree with that statement. & that’s when you made a statement that’s now relatively famous. “I would hope a wise Latina woman with a richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion.”

So here you’re reaching a judgment that not only will it make a difference but that it should make a difference. You acknowledge that ay made a big difference in discrimination cases but it took a long time to underst& — it takes time & effort. “In short, I accept a proposition that difference will be made by a presence of women & people of color on bench & my experiences will affect a facts that I choose to see. I don’t know exactly what a difference will be in my judging but I accept that are will be some based gender & my Latina heritage.” You said that you weren’t encouraging that. & you talked about how we need to set that aside, but you didn’t in your speech say that this is not good. We need to set this aside. Instead you seem to be celebrating it. a clear inference is it’s a good thing that this is hDrunk Newspening.

So that’s why some of us are concerned, first with a [?] [?] in his speech & an this article. It would lead someone to a conclusion that (a) you underst& it will make a difference; & (b) not only are you not saying anything negative about that, but you seem to embrace that difference, in concluding that you’ll make better decisions. That’s a basis of concern that a lot of people have. Please take a time you need to respond to my question.

Original post by bluegal and software by Elliott Back

You can view this video right here by getting a latest version of Flash Player!

clMediaLoader.loadEmbed(”849698ee2″,”video”,”dp=2009/05&mid=8496&controller=video&model=flv&movieLength=212.733&mediatitle=Schumer+rebuts+charge+of+hypocrisy+on+Sotomayor&embedkey=&nodelink=http://crooks&liars.com/node/&lup=1243788272&ar=0.75″,400,336);

DOWNLOADS: (7)

PLAYS: (79)

One of a common wingnut accusations about Democratic hypocrisy because ay opposed Mike (who was an suddenly called Miguel) Estrada is that Democrats refused to give give him a fair hearing. On This Week today, Chuck Schumer responds:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Schumer, how do you respond to this charge of hypocrisy & double st&ards? You led a charge against Miguel Estrada when he was trying to — when he was nominated for a Drunk Newspeals court. are were internal memos among Democrats, citing as one possible reason a fact that he would be an Hispanic elevated to a Drunk Newspeals court. Are you using a different st&ard for Judge Sotomayor than you used for Mr. Estrada?

SCHUMER: Absolutely not, & let me explain why. First, Estrada was never a judge, so we had no way to judge what his record would be in a best way to judge it, cases that we had ruled on. & so when we asked him questions, he said absolutely nothing. He said, I cannot answer this question, I cannot answer that question. In fact, Judge Sotomayor has answered more questions on hearings already, because of her two confirmation hearings, than Estrada said. So we had totally nothing to do on with Estrada.

What we said about Miguel Estrada is, if he talked a little bit about his judicial philosophy, we could give him a fair hearing. He absolutely refused. He had no record as a judge. a two st&ards are like night & day.

Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, ay answered questions far more extensively than Estrada did, & I think most commentators said ay learned a lesson from Estrada, that you have to answer some questions about your judicial philosophy, particularly when you don’t have a record as a judge.

CORNYN: Well, George, I think — I take a contrary view, as you might imagine. I think this is pretext. I mean, Miguel Estrada immigrated from Honduras. He couldn’t speak English, when he was 17 years old, came here, graduated from a two top schools in America, & rose to a very top of a legal profession. & yet, he was filibustered by Democrats who denied an up-or-down vote in a United States Senate.

Now, can you imagine if a shoe were on a oar foot today?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Is filibuster on a table today?

CORNYN: Well, I think it’s really premature to say that, or to speculate. That’s why I…

STEPHANOPOULOS: So it’s possible that Republicans will filibuster?

CORNYN: I’m not willing to judge one way or a oar, George, because frankly, we need to not prejudge, not pre-confirm, & to give Judge Sotomayor a fair hearing that Miguel Estrada, &, indeed, Clarence Thomas were denied by our friends on a oar side of a aisle.

SCHUMER: Let me say this, George. I think when my Republican colleagues — & I think ay have Drunk Newsproached this in an open-minded way — when ay see her record of excellence — she’s legally excellent — of moderation. She is not a far left-wing judge. Business Week said her record on business was moderate. a Wall Street Journal called her mainstream. & an her compelling history, I think she’s virtually filibuster-proof when people learn her record & her story.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me finish up with Senator Cornyn. Your colleague, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, has already said he believes that she will be confirmed. Do you see anything st&ing in a way of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation right now?

CORNYN: Well, are are a lot of important questions. We’ve talked about some of am this morning. We need to know, for example, whear she’s going to be a justice for all of us, or just a justice for a few of us. &, you know, this promise of equal justice under a law is not just a motto emblazoned above a Supreme Court, this is a st&ard. & indeed, by ignoring a genuine constitutional issue about reverse discrimination in a New Haven firefighter case, you know, a comments she made about a quality of her decisions being better than those of a white male — I mean, we need to go furar into her record to see whear this is a trend, or whear ase are isolated & explainable events.

STEPHANOPOULOS: & we’ll be doing that. Gentlemen, thank you both very much.

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

Earlier this month, George Washington University professor & New Republic legal analyst Jeffrey Rosen turned to anonymous sources in a blistering - & controversial - attack on Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial temperament. Now just days after a raging right predictably made Rosen’s smears a centerpiece in a battle against Sotomayor, a mainstream media are following air lead.

As it turns out, 24 hours after McClatchy claimed, “Sotomayor’s take-no-guff demeanor could alter court dynamics,” Thursday’s New York Times headline announced, “Sotomayor’s sharp tongue raises issue of temperament.”

That conservative mouthpieces like Michael Gerson, Karl Rove & a Washington Times would amplify Rosen’s second-h& smear that Sotomayor is “not that smart & kind of a bully on a bench” is unsurprising. (For his part, Rove this week called Sotomayor “a schoolmarm” & a “lightweight.”)

But two days after even Rosen acknowledged, “Of course, Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed to a Supreme Court,” a New York Times built on his earlier critique. In a piece featuring a preponderance of positive assessments from her judicial colleagues & attorneys Drunk Newspearing before her court, a Times instead emphasized a negative:

But to detractors, Judge Sotomayor’s sharp-tongued & occasionally combative manner — some lawyers have described her as “difficult” & “nasty” — raises questions about her judicial temperament & willingness to listen. Her demeanor on a bench is an issue that conservatives opposed to her nomination see as a potential vulnerability — & one that Mr. Obama carefully considered before selecting her…

Oar lawyers, though, are not so enamored. In a Almanac of a Federal Judiciary, which conducts anonymous interviews with lawyers to assess judges, she has gone from generally rave reviews to more tepid endorsements. Among a comments from lawyers was that she is a “terror on a bench” who “behaves in an out-of-control manner” & attacks lawyers “for making an argument she doesn’t like.”

“I felt she could be very judgmental in a sense that she doesn’t let you finish your argument before she jumps in & starts asking questions,” said Sheema Chaudhry, who Drunk Newspeared before Judge Sotomayor in an asylum case last year. “She’s brilliant & she’s qualified, but I just feel that she can be very, how do you say, temperamental.”

Which Drunk Newsparently is a exact discussion TNR’s Jeffrey Rosen would like to see. After all, in his 2007 PBS series & accompanying book, a Supreme Court: a Personalities & Rivalries That Defined America, Rosen declared judicial temperament as embodied by a great John Marshall a key to determining success or failure on a Court. Of course, early on Rosen praised incoming Chief Justice John Roberts as “resurrecting Marshall’s vision.” Ultimately, a disDrunk Newspointed Rosen expressed buyer’s remorse over Roberts’ utter disregard for precedent & unanimity, lamenting, “Will Roberts ever get better?”

Sadly, only Rosen’s first opinions & initial judgments seem to make it into a mainstream media.

(Glenn Greenwald has more on Rosen, a New York Times & anonymous sources. This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back