The Gaggle : Sotomayor

Gaffe by Tweet: Top 10 Social-Media Slip-Ups

Newsweek — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:32:15 GMT

By David A. Graham

Sooner or later, anything trendy makes its way to the world of politics. This year, it's been the advent of the microblog. Hundreds of politicians have flocked to the microblogging services like Facebook and Twitter over the past few months, heralding it's ability to help them keep in touch with folks back home. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger even dropped by Twitter's headquarters last month to praise it for the services the site offers politicians to communicate with constituents. But for every pol that's mastered the art of the status update, others (including Schwarzenegger) have watched it backfire, earning them far more unflattering press than they bargained for. We bring you the 10 biggest social-media gaffes we’ve seen from politicos this year—at least so far.

1. Palin's death panels: The former Alaska governor posted a short note in late July opposing President Obama's plan for health-care reform. "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel,' " she wrote. "Such a system is downright evil." She'd be right, except for the fact that the charge was completely made up and quickly debunked. Palin quickly shifted tone, and in a follow-up post left out the fictional catch phrase.

2. Making some serious cuts: California Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger puzzled many with a July 22 video he posted on Twitter thanking followers for suggestions for state budget cuts that they had sent in. It was innocent enough, but what raised eyebrows was an enormous knife the gov held to emphasize─and literalize─the cutting theme. Called out at a press conference for questionable judgment, he defended himself. "You sent someone a little bit more interesting, and who has a little bit more fun with the whole thing─not have fun making the cuts, they sadden me, but fun with the job itself."

3. Grassley ain't no nail: When Sen. Charles Grassley took issue with President Barack Obama traveling this summer, he took his beef to Twitter. "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us "time to deliver" on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND," he tweeted. Several minutes later, he elaborated: "When you are a "hammer" u think evrything is NAIL I'm no NAIL." It's unclear what was more surprising: the senator's unfiltered anger, or the fact that he could go head to head in textspeak with any middle-schooler.

4. Poor Pete: Post-election protests and chaos in Iran helped Twitter to prove itself an effective tool for making political points. Rep. Pete Hoekstra saw an opening for comparison and wrote about it on Twitter. "Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House," he wrote. Rather than garner sympathy, Hoekstra's tweet brought him ridicule─from Jon Stewart to dozens of fellow Twitterers, who poked fun at the congressman for being out of touch and self important.

5. Gingrich v. Sotomayor: A day after Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, former House speaker Newt Gingrich didn't hold back what he thought of her, calling her via tweet a racist and suggesting she withdraw. The line was met with predicable outrage, after which Gingrich apologized for using the R word, saying that his initial reaction was "too strong and direct."

6. Premature enunciation: Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff wanted maximum exposure to announce he'd be running for the Senate on May 12. But he underestimated the reach of Twitter several hours before. In the wee hours of the morning, he posted a tweet proclaiming that he'd be "announcing I'm running at 12 ... all of the legislative conservative caucus and other senators representatives there endorsing me ... time to rock and roll!" After realizing his mistake, he removed the tweet, and to build back anticipation, held his announcement for another three weeks.

7. Caught lunching on record: Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, one of Congress's most prolific Twitter users, inadvertently got her colleague Michael Bennet of Colorado in some trouble with liberal Denver blogger David Sirota. Sirota had been trying to snag an interview with the senator for a talk show he was guest-hosting, but was told Bennet was too busy. As a result, he wasn't too happy when he saw tweets from McCaskill (“Lunch w/ Lily in the Senate dining room. Sen. Bennet at large table surrounded by journalists. Don’t know whether to say congrats or try and save him.”) showing that Bennet was with other Washington reporters in the Senate dining room.

8. Torpedoed defection: Jeff Frederick, chair of the Virginia Republican Party and a member of the House of Delegates, was close to convincing a Democratic state senator to caucus with the Republicans, which would have upset the chamber's balance of power. But he celebrated prematurely via Twitter. "Big news coming out of Senate: Apparently one dem is either switching or leaving the dem caucus. Negotiations for power sharing underway." Democrat legislators reportedly saw the tweet and convinced the wavering senator to stay, essentially undercutting the coup. In a message to The National Review, House Majority Leader Morgan Griffith denied that Twitter had been responsible, but Frederick took the post down.

9. A staffer loses his wings: Several legislators live-tweeted President Barack Obama’s Feb. 24 speech to a joint session of Congress. One was Rep. Joe Barton, but the Texas Republican apparently had a staffer posting for him. Midspeech, Barton's feed lit up with a programming alternative. "Aggie basketball game is about to start on espn2 for those of you that aren’t going to bother watching pelosi smirk for the next hour." A few minutes later, another post from either the congressman or a berated staffer back pedaled. “Disregard that last Tweet from a staffer.” Both tweets have since been deleted.

10. Pulling a Geraldo: Pete Hoekstra (yes, the same Pete Hoekstra from No. 4), also got in trouble for tweets delivered while traveling in Iraq in February, except this time, it was his own security he put in jeopardy. Military personnel had advised not revealing geographic details because of security concerns, but Hoekstra offered several updates giving specific locations and travel plans. "Moved into green zone by helicopter Iraqi flag now over palace. Headed to new US embassy." In response to a minor backlash [UPDATE: a previous version of this story stated an inaccurate response], a spokesman for Hoekstra countered that the congressman was "fully aware of security issues when traveling abroad,“ but just wanted to keep his constituents in the loop.

Other political social media gaffes we missed? Let us know in the comments below.

Sotomayor Hearings: Winners and Losers? Our Experts Weigh In.

Katie Connolly — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:22:22 GMT

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings this week will be remembered as a civilized affair. The fiery exchanges and dramatic grandstanding that have characterized past confirmations were all but absent. Yet, tame as these were, Supreme Court confirmation hearings are always a critical barometer of power in the nation's capital: who's got it, who wants it, and who's losing it. We asked two of our experts—Howard Fineman and Stuart Taylor Jr.—to weigh in on the biggest winners and losers of the hearings.

Barack Obama: The president's first Supreme Court pick came early in his tenure, and, true to his trademark calm, he made a no-mess, no-fuss selection. "It has been inevitable since the day she was nominated that she will be confirmed by a fairly wide margin. In that sense, she and President Obama are winners," says Taylor. But Obama did take a few knocks in the hearings. Sotomayor rejected his purported judicial philosophy—the notion that judges should have empathy. She told the panel of senators that she doesn't approach judging the way the president does, and that judges can't rely on what is in their heart; they must apply the law. "This will make it harder for Obama to give the next nomination to an overt, full-throated liberal," Taylor says. Still, her hearings were smooth and her approval ratings high. Overall it was an easy win for the president. Verdict: Winner.

Lindsey Graham: The charismatic South Carolina senator's legal background was on full display as he took turns grilling and charming the nominee. Taylor thinks his comments were among the most perceptive. Unfortunately for Graham, it was his sillier moments that made the nightly news (and Jon Stewart's show), as on the first day, when he brazenly told Sotomayor she'd get confirmed unless she had "a complete meltdown." Fineman calls Graham "brilliant but erratic, seemingly kind but also duplicitous. Having said that only a meltdown could derail her, he tried to create one." Verdict: Loser.

The White House Briefing Team: That Sotomayor looked poised, calm, and prepared throughout long days of scrutiny is in part attributable to her excellent coaching. The White House team, including Biden adviser Ron Klain, White House counsel Greg Craig and newcomer Karen Dunn did an outstanding job schooling her. Fineman declares their preparations "airtight." He also praises the White House's spin team, which aggressively fed the press updates that rebutted every GOP attack within minutes. "They treated it like a presidential debate," Fineman says. The Republicans, on the other hand, were invisible. Verdict: Winners.

Liberal Legal Minds: Taylor says that liberal court watchers hoping to hear the nominee defend their philosophy of judging will be feeling sorely disappointed. "She sounded like Alito," he says of Sotomayor's comments about her approach to judging. "Instead of taking refuge in ambiguity and fuzzy generalities, she really sounded like a conservative in what she thinks judges should do. That is fairly consistent with her judicial record." Verdict: Losers.

Al Franken: Fineman and Taylor agree that the rookie senator acquitted himself admirably throughout the hearings. While fans and comics were hoping for an uproarious performance, Franken was serious, carefully prepared, yet still entertaining. "Earnest and deadpan funny," says Fineman. Taylor notes that Franken managed to score some points against Republican declarations that the word "abortion" is not in the Constitution. Franken held up a copy of the Constitution and, with Sotomayor's help, pointed out that the words "birth control" and "privacy" aren't in it either. Verdict: Winner.

Perry Mason: Sotomayor cited the fictional defense attorney as an early inspiration for her legal career. In one of the more lighthearted moments of the week, Franken observed, “It amazes me that you wanted to become a prosecutor based on the show, because in Perry Mason the prosecutor on that show lost every week.” There were a couple of cases Mason lost, but neither Franken nor Sotomayor could recall one (1963's “The Case of the Deadly Verdict” is the most famous). Why did Mason make our list? “Now everyone knows he actually lost a case,” says Fineman. Verdict: Loser.

Honorable Mentions: Fineman is pleasantly surprised by Rhode Island Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse: "Almost no one had ever heard him speak. Turns out he is an elegant and well-informed speaker and thinker." Taylor thinks chairman Patrick Leahy ran a "generally dignifed proceeding" in his first Supreme Court confirmation hearings as chair. On the Republican side, Taylor thinks "the once combative Orrin Hatch is getting so mellow that he may ripen and then rot," and that Jeff Sessions may have been a little too aggressive in questioning Sotomayor's truthfulness. "Remarkably, at least three committee Democrats—Charles Schumer, Amy Klobuchar, and Richard Durbin—complimented their Republican counterparts for questioning the nominee in a tough but fair way," Taylor says. "No senator came across as a fool or a bully, as best I could tell." And finally, props to Klobuchar, who's been representing Minnesota alone until recently. She won fans earlier this year with her hilarious speech at the Washington Press Club Foundation. She impressed again this week. According to Taylor, she "came across very well—smart, decent, nice."

Daniel Stone contributed reporting.

Top 5 Moments from Sotomayor's Third Day

Daniel Stone — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 18:52:26 GMT

Sonia Sotomayor knows exactly what she must do to be confirmed, and that's very little. If she doesn't say too much, she can't muddy the wide respect across party lines that all but guarantee her a spot on the high court. But even if legal experts aren't learning much about what kind of justice Sotormayor may be, members of the judiciary committee (as well as Sotomayor herself) are doing their best to keep the mood light. Here are the top five moments so far from the judge's third day under the lights.

1. Well then I'll do it myself: You can’t rely on anyone else to make a point better than you can do it yourself. So when Sen. Tom Coburn, a practicing doctor, wanted to press Sotomayor on abortion, he did his own dirty work. “Let's say I'm 38 weeks pregnant and we discover a small spina bifida sack on…the lower part of the back on my baby. And I feel like I just can't handle a child with that. Would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life?” Over some snickers from the press table, Sotomayor declined to answer, saying the issue might come before the court. Really? Because we’d be very surprised.

2. Wake-up call: Just as Sotomayor was in the middle of a long and rather rambly answer, the lights in the room went off but were quickly picked up by a back-up power generator. Sotomayor stuttered slightly as everyone in the room looked around confused. “I hope I can go on…” she said. Leahy shot back to the room “I just want every to know that that was not a comment from above. I have certain powers as chairman but not that much."

3. The guards would stop you: A line of Coburn’s questioning gave the security officers in the hearing room a brief moment of alarm. Asked just how far handgun rights extend, Sotomayor argued it depended on the extent of the threat posed by a particular person. “If there was a threat in this room and I say ‘I’m going to get you,” Sotomayor started out, “and I go home and get—.” Realizing how her response could easily be taken out of context, she stopped, then almost yelled over laughs. “Please! I'm not. I don't want anybody to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. Keen to the joke, Coburn came back “You'd have a lot of 'splainin' to do.”

4. What if the issue comes before the court? Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar’s first question wasn’t about abortion or guns or state’s right. Nope, it was about baseball. Klobuchar asked the SCOTUS nominee if she got a chance to watch the MLB all-star game last night. Sotomayor admitted that she hasn’t watched TV lately but did catch a few minutes of it. Klobuchar went on, telling the judge that her beloved Derek Jeter tied up the score late in the game. “You must know that he scored only because there was a hit by the Minessota Twins’ Joe Mauer,” she said. The nominee, somewhat caught off guard, grinned. “Teamwork,” she said.

5. Culture reference falls flat, then rebounds. Who said Al Franken didn’t bring his humor to Washington? The newly-minted senator waited patiently for his turn – he went last – to question Sotomayor. But when his turn came, he launched into a bizarre speech about how both he and the judge watched the dramatic TV legal series Perry Mason while growing up in New York, which apparently made Sotomayor want to be a prosecutor. Nervous eyes shot around the press table, unsure if anyone was missing something. Franken brought it up again at the end of the end of his questioning, which strengthened the reference, but it was still just as random. “I just think that’s pretty cool,” Franken said. Well doggonit Al, so do we.

Leahy's Other Role: Batman Aficionado

Holly Bailey — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 21:28:24 GMT

For the past two days, we’ve been watching Patrick Leahy run the show at Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearing. He’s the gruff-talking Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, the guy who keeps close watch on the clock to make sure senators aren’t going over their allotted time for questioning and so on. Perhaps you know him best as the man former VP Dick Cheney told to go “F--- Himself” a few years ago. But your Gaggler can’t stop thinking about another big Leahy role: His bit part in one of her favorite films of 2008, The Dark Knight.

As you’ll see in the clip above, Leahy shows up in the scene where the Joker, played by the late great Heath Ledger, storms a party at Bruce Wayne’s penthouse. Leahy is more than just your average extra. He actually trades a few lines with Ledger, who eventually won a posthumous Oscar for the role. In the film, Leahy tries to stand up to the Joker who promptly puts a switchblade to the senator’s mouth and threatens to carve a ghastly smile on his face. Leahy, we must say, looks convincingly frightened. Perhaps it’s all the Batman-related acting gigs he’s had before. Leahy, who brags that he’s the biggest Batman fan in Washington, voiced the role of a governor in Batman: The Animated Series. And he had a non-speaking role in the absolutely worst Batman movie ever: Batman & Robin. (Senator, how could you? George Clooney isn’t that cool.) But Leahy’s obsession has extended well beyond film. A few years ago, he wrote the forward for a Batman anthology and he once contributed to a Batman comic about land mines. So when you’re watching Leahy chair the Sotomayor hearings, just think: That guy almost got knifed by the Joker. No wonder he's not scared of Jeff Sessions.

Sotomayor's Hearing Was Not Exactly Must-See TV

Holly Bailey — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:10:42 GMT

Photo by Gerald Herbert/AP

How exciting was the first day of Sonia Sotomayor's SCOTUS confirmation hearing? This picture says it all: Here's Sotomayor's nephews, Conner and Corey Sotomayor, snoozing away at her hearing today. We're not throwing stones here. Truth be told, after nearly five hours of opening statements, your Gaggler felt like this, too--and it wasn't the jet lag from President Obama's trip last week, either.

Is this a SCOTUS Hearing or 'Sportscenter'?

Holly Bailey — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:35:50 GMT

If there’s anything we really learned from the first day of Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearings, it’s this: senators LOVE their sports analogies. Just ask John Cornyn, who invoked football when talking about Sotomayor’s time as an appellate court judge. “A lower-court judge is like the quarterback who executes the plays—not the coach who calls the plays,” Cornyn said. “That means many of your cases don’t tell us much about your judicial philosophy. But a few of your opinions do raise questions—because they suggest the kinds of plays you’d call if you were promoted to the coaching staff.” Hmm. OK, yeah, we get it. (For the record, in Cornyn’s honor, your Gaggler is totally coining a new catchphrase—“activist quarterbacks”—for the rogue players who don’t listen to the coach. You heard it here first, ESPN!)

Everybody else went with baseball—and for this we hold Chief Justice John Roberts responsible. “Judges are like umpires,” Roberts said in his 2005 confirmation hearings. “Umpires don’t make the rules, they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules.” Well, Democrats have apparently been aching to push back on that premise for the last four years, as nearly every single one of them brought up the “umpire” argument in some way or another during their opening statements today. “Many can debate whether during his four years on the Supreme Court he actually has called pitches as they come or has tried to change the rules,” Schumer said, speaking of Roberts. Sotomayor’s record, he insisted, shows that she’s “simply called balls and strikes for 17 years.” Sen. Dick Durbin, meanwhile, got in a little dig at Roberts’s umpire analogy, noting, “It’s hard to see home plate from right field.” Ooh, face!

No doubt this isn't the last we've heard of these analogies. It's a given that someone will bring up the "umpire" when senators begin questioning Sotomayor tomorrow. Or maybe Sotomayor will bring up a whole other sports analogy on her own. Judges are like ... NBA refs?

How Do Sotomayor's Hearings Compare to the Other Supreme Court Justices?

Katie Connolly — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:18:29 GMT

After a relatively uneventful first day of hearings, most court-watchers anticipate that Sonia Sotomayor will cruise smoothly to the Senate Floor and on to the bench. If that happens, how will her confirmation compare with her soon-to-be peers? Certainly, it will be a marked contrast to Clarence Thomas's hearings, which were arguably the most tawdry in recent Supreme Court history. When President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas in 1991, he was under pressure from the right to appoint a reliably conservative justice. His first appointment, the recently retired Justice Souter, had turned out to be much more moderate than expected. Thomas' nomination was met with immediate suspicion on the left: He was opposed to affirmative action but Bush had selected him because he was black, a dynamic that disquieted liberals. Thomas was attacked as inexperienced, having authored no books or opinions of note.

Early in his confirmation hearings Thomas won some empathy with his stories of growing up the impoverished South. But his short, non-committal answers frustrated senators. Thomas had learned from Robert Bork, Reagan's failed nominee whose expansive soliloquys on his legal philosophy ended up causing him problems. But Thomas went too far in the opposite direction and compounded perceptions that he hadn't thought deeply enough about the law. Then came the now infamous seven-hour testimony of Anita Hill, a young lawyer who had worked for Thomas and alleged he had sexually harassed her. Hill's testimony was replete with strange and unflattering anecdotes about Thomas's tasteless jokes and appetite for pornography. (It's unlikely that "Long Dong Silver" has appeared in a Senate transcript since.) Thomas returned to testify after Hill, who had been aggressively questioned by several senators, and lashed out, vehemently denying Hill's claims. He called the proceedings a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks." From there, the debate around Thomas's nomination became increasingly nasty and lewd. Ultimately the committee was split, and his nomination was sent to the Senate without a recommendation. Thomas shares with Samuel Alito the distinction of being confirmed by the narrowest margin. Both men scraped in with a 52-48 vote.

Where Thomas was brusque, Alito was timid. Democrats were expecting a brash, fierce "Scalito", a nickname that tied Alito to conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. But Alito appeared nervous and studious. The New York Times reported that Alito's "hands shook as he complusively tied and untied the lace of one shoe" during an early meeting with a Republican Senator. His hearings were combative nonetheless. Alito was nominated by President George W. Bush to replace moderate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, so liberals were deeply concerned that Alito would shift the court to the right. Democrats focused on his stance on abortion and his membership of a Princeton University alumni organization that discouraged the admission of women and minorities. But they failed to muster enough votes for a filibuster, and Alito was confirmed with the support of four Democrats.

Interestingly the two justices often considered the most polarizing - John Paul Stevens and Antonin Scalia - had relatively non-controversial confirmations. Stevens is the longest serving member of the Supreme Court. A liberal known for filing dissents and separate opinions, it's easy to forget that Republican President Gerald Ford appointed Stevens. At the time of his confirmation, Stevens was seen as a moderate, an indication of how the court has changed in the past three decades. Appointed in the wake of Watergate, Ford overlooked political concerns in favor of merit. During his confirmation, Stevens wasn't even asked about Roe vs. Wade, the controversial abortion ruling that was handed down just two years earlier.

Antonin Scalia was nominated by President Reagan to replace William Rehnquist, who Reagan hoped to elevate to Chief Justice. The timing worked in Scalia's favor, as Democrats were too busy marshalling their resources against the Rehnquist nomination to provide significant opposition to Scalia. (Renquist was set to replace the more moderate Warren Burger, which left liberals worrying about the direction of the court.) Some in the left did bitterly oppose Scalia, mainly on civil rights grounds. Liberals were concerned about his positions on sexual harassment and affirmative action, but the only Senators to vote against him in the committee were Sen. Biden and Sen. Kennedy. Scalia was ultimately confirmed by a vote of 98-0. So sure was he of approval, Scalia was seen sipping champagne at party at DC's swanky Willard Hotel on the night the Senate was scheduled to vote on his confirmation.

Like Scalia, Anthony Kennedy's confirmation was overshadowed by another nomination: the disastrous Robert Bork. President Reagan had been so burned by the spectacular failure of Bork that he opted for a nominee who appeared to be a non-tedentious moderate conservative. The only real controversy around his nomination - his membership of two elite men's only clubs - was eliminated when he resigned from both. In his confirmation hearings, Kennedy gave such opaque answers that his views on polarizing issues remained unclear. As a result, politicians on both sides of the aisle projected their agenda on him. Infamously conservative Republican Senator Strom Thurmond praised Kennedy as an advocate of judicial restraint, while Senator Kennedy, bastion of the left, said he was pleased that the nominee considered the constitution a living document. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Kennedy has been the one remaining swing vote on the Supreme Court since the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor.

Since O'Connor's retirement, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been the sole woman on the Supreme Court. President Clinton took a marathon 87 days to settle on Ginsburg as his nominee. In hearings, she declined to answer questions about how she would act in hypothetical situations. Eloquent and confident, Ginsburg told the committee, "Judges must be mindful of their place in society." Ginsburg had argued before the Supreme Court on women's rights issues six times, and some conservatives worried that her commitment to women's issues compromised her impartiality. But ultimately Ginsburg sailed through, with the Senate voting 96-3 in favor of her nomination. Ginsburg is only the second woman to have served on the Supreme Court. On the day she was sworn in, she was asked if she was liberal, conservative or moderate. "I don't believe that every child that's born alive is either a little liberal or else a little conservative, except in Gilbert and Sullivan," Ginsburg replied, referencing the operetta "Iolanthe" (and confounding the press corps.)

Clinton's second pick was Stephen Breyer, who he had initially considered for the first opening. But Breyer and Clinton had a rocky first meeting. Breyer, widely considered a pleasant optimist, was recovering from a serious bike accident at the time of the meeting. In his book The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, Jeffrey Toobin writes that Clinton found Breyer "heartless." "I don't see enough humanity," Clinton reportedly told staffers. "I want a judge with a soul." But Breyer had a key advocate: Ted Kennedy, who had appointed Breyer as Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1979, when Kennedy was Chair. Breyer won Clinton over the second time, and Clinton didn't even wait for him to arrive in DC before announcing his nomination. Having worked on the Judiciary Committee, Breyer was well known to many of the Senators overseeing his confirmation. It was a largely uneventful affair, and Breyer was confirmed 87-9.

President George W. Bush originally nominated John Roberts to fill the seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor. But Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away before Roberts's nomination came before the Senate, so Bush withdrew Roberts' nomination for O'Connor's seat and offered him as nominee for Chief Justice. Conservatives were thrilled by the notion of a young chief justice who could preside over the court for perhaps as long as four decades. Democrats may have put up a more aggressive fight had they not been so concerned over who would replace swing voter O'Connor. Roberts's impressive testimony raised the bar for confirmation hearings. His engaging performance was characterized by practiced erudition and deep knowledge - he quoted case law and the Federalist Papers with ease. He told the committee he was not an ideologue. But it wasn't enough to win over some on the left, who harbored lingering concerns about opinions he drafted as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration, including a legal defense of that administration's policy on abortion. Among the doubters: Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, both of whom voted against his nomination, along with 20 other Democrats.

Little Drama on Sotomayor's First Day

Howard Fineman — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:56:42 GMT

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Sonia Sotomayor was a few sentences into her remarks when she turned from the witness table and faced the first row of guests behind her. There sat her mother and her family. "Thank you mom," the judge whispered. I was sitting a few rows away and can tell you not only that it was as genuine a private moment as you see on the Hill, but also one that encapsulates the difficulties the GOP will have in trying to derail the judge's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

These nominations, and the hearings that accompany them, have long since ceased to be dry exercises in jurisprudential oversight. They are, and for decades have been, political theater. And that means they have become character dramas, in which the life narratives and the on-air personalities of the nominees mean as much as decisions rendered or speeches made.

All morning long, Republicans on the committee had portrayed Sotomayor as an out-of-the-mainstream judicial wild person, untethered to the Constitution, respect for precedent or a respect for the primacy of logic over emotion in the law. But unless they are able to prove their charges–and that will be very hard to do, based on her liberal but really rather cautious record as a judge—they will only make it easier for her to reassure the public by invoking personal symbols of her life.

It's clear what she and the White House are up to. They are selling Sotomayor with what can be called the mom-and-baseball defense: her love of family, her love of baseball, her love of her godchildren and solidarity with her ethnic community (who were represented here in Spanish-speaking force). All of that, she said, shows that "the progression of my life has been uniquely American." She spoke slowly, carefully, and ploddingly, schooled by White House prep sessions in how not to seem like a pushy New Yorker. Her supporters laid it on thick, with scripts that could have been written (or filmed) by Frank Capra or Jerry Seinfeld.

The Republicans know what is happening. They don't like it, but there is not much they can do about it. As Sen. Lindsay Graham said, "Unless you have a complete meltdown you're going to get confirmed"—and he added that he didn't think she would melt down. As things look right now, Sotomayor has a chance to get Graham's vote, and perhaps Sen. Orrin Hatch's as well. She won't get any another's. Beneath the surface of personal pageantry, the partisan bitterness and rancor on the committee was palpable. Democrats feel they were had by Judge John Roberts—now Chief Justice Roberts—who has turned out to be far less of a hale fellow well met and far more of a right-wing ideologue than they expected.

Part of the emerging Democratic strategy seemed to be to attack Roberts as much as to defend Sotomayor. Their argument seemed to be: don't accuse her of being an "activist." She's nothing compared with Roberts! No one out in the country will pay much attention to that line of argument in any case. The GOP will no doubt force Sotomayor to publicly recant—again—her "wise Latina" comment. I predict that she will do so with humility and grace, while at the same time defending the notion that diversity itself is a good thing.

It could be the only moment of real drama.

List of 11: Who Didn't Sotomayor Meet With?

Daniel Stone — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:25:45 GMT

Since President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor six weeks ago, the judge has met with a whopping 89 senators, more than any other previous SCOTUS nominee. Yet as high as that number is, that still leaves 11 members of the senate who Sotomayor didn't talk with before her hearings. Who are they? Meetings were deemed futile with Sens. Pat Roberts of Kansas and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, both of whom have adamantly opposed Soyomayor's nomination, promising to vote against it. She was also unable to meet or talk with senate elders Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, who have both taken time off to deal with health ailments. That leaves Wyoming Senators John Barrasso and Michael Enzi, Kit Bond of Missouri, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Ensign of Nevada and Arizona's John McCain. Bob Corker of Tennessee initially called off his meeting with the justice-in-waiting after she called to say she'd be 10 minutes late, but after word got out of the missed connection, his office asked to reschedule. All of them, you might note, are Republicans, which reasonably makes them slow to warm to the nominee of a Democratic president. But we're also told it was a function of time. Obama nominated Sotomayor at the end of May, giving her a month and a half to trek the long and confusing halls of Capitol Hill for the meet-and-greets. And, don't forget, she had to do with her ankle in a cast after she injured it in early June. Still, 89 is a big number, but it's not high enough. A spokesperson for Sotomayor says the meetings and courtesy calls will continue after the hearings.

Obama on Putin, Pies and GITMO

Holly Bailey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:45:32 GMT

Here's more from President Obama's interview this morning with the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven:

On Russia, Obama was asked why he plans to meet with former Russian President Vladimir Putin in addition to talks with current leader Dmitry Medvedev. “(Putin) still has a lot of sway…and I think that it's important that even as we move forward with President Medvedev that Putin understand that the old Cold War approaches to U.S.-Russian relations is outdated — that's it's time to move forward in a different direction,” Obama told the AP. “"I think Medvedev understands that. I think Putin has one foot in the old ways of doing business and one foot in the new, and to the extent that we can provide him and the Russian people a clear sense that the U.S. is not seeking an antagonistic relationship but wants cooperation on nuclear nonproliferation, fighting terrorism, energy issues, that we'll end up having a stronger partner overall in this process.”

Also on foreign policy, Obama said he was “not reconciled” with the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. The president also expressed some reservations about his recently announced policy of putting some high risk Guantanamo Bay detainees in “indefinite detention” as the administration moves to close the prison next year. “It gives me huge pause,” Obama said, suggesting he may not follow through on the policy.

In perhaps his most interesting comments, Obama weighed in on the Supreme Court’s ruling on affirmative action this week, in which it decided in favor of a group of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who sued the city for reverse discrimination. The ruling overturned a verdict laid down by an Appeals Court judge named Sonia Sotomayor. (Maybe you’ve heard of her.) SCOTUS, Obama said, was “moving the ball” on affirmative action, but he noted that the court had ruled out the use of racial preferences in hiring. Still, he spoke sympathetically toward the white firefighters, telling Loven, “I’ve always believed that affirmative action was less of an issue or should be less of an issue that it has made out to be in news reports.”

In addition to the Michael Jackson comments, Obama also weighed in on life at the White House. His biggest pet peeve: having to wear make-up all the time. "The shine police," he groused. On the plus side, he raved about the White House pastry chef, who “makes the best pie I’ve ever tasted."

Is Sotomayor Really a Bully or Are People Just Sexist?

Holly Bailey — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 16:53:45 GMT

NPR’s Nina Totenberg had an interesting piece on Morning Edition this morning looking at the main rap against Sonia Sotomayor. Long story short, people have said she’s pushy, going so far as to describe her as “bully” on the bench. The labels have been circulating for months, long before Sotomayor was actually named as Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee. Since then, the White House has gone to great lengths to push back against the claims, producing clerks and lawyers who have worked with Sotomayor who insist she’s just fine. But the rumors just won’t go away. More recently, Sen. Lindsay Graham has cited reviews mentioned in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which included anonymous comments describing her as a “terror on the bench” and “overly aggressive.” But is the criticism legitimate or is it, as some Sotomayor allies suggest, a case of her being picked on for being a strong woman? For the piece, Totenberg listened to audio recordings of two oral arguments made before Sotomayor—portions of which aired in the story this morning and are well worth a listen. One of the oral arguments is from the much-debated New Haven firefighters case, which is still pending before the Supreme Court. Here's Totenberg:

In another case, currently on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor was one of three judges considering whether the city of New Haven, Conn., could discard the results of a fire department promotion exam because no African-American ranked high enough to be promoted. Under federal law, an employer can be held liable even for unintentional discrimination if the employer uses a test that disproportionately excludes minorities. At oral argument, Judge Sotomayor was the dominant questioner, and she gave both sides a hard time.

She pressed the lawyer representing the white firefighters this way: "We're not asking that unqualified people be hired — the city's not suggesting that. But if your test is going to always put a certain group at the bottom of the pass rate so they're never, ever going to be promoted, and there is a fair test that can be devised, then why shouldn't the city have an opportunity to try to look and see if it can develop that?" Conversely, in questioning the city's lawyer, Sotomayor repeatedly asked what was wrong with the test that was given and whether any valid alternatives exist. "What they're saying is … you shouldn't permit race to be the driving force," Sotomayor said. "You have to look at the test and determine if the test was fair or not. And if you're going to say it's unfair, point to specifics of ways it wasn't and make sure there really are alternatives."

In the audio, Sotomayor is no doubt aggressive in her questioning but does not appear to be any more so than most judges--though, of course, these are just two cases. But Totenberg, who is much smarter than your Gaggler when it comes to history on the court, says Sotomayor's tone seems "routine" compared to what happens at the Supreme Court--and includes audio of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia to prove it.

Gingrich Apologizes for Calling Sotomayor a Racist

Holly Bailey — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:39:11 GMT

In a lengthy message posted on his Web site today, Newt Gingrich apologizes for calling Judge Sonia Sotomayor a “racist" over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" could reach a better decision than "a white male who hasn't lived that life." Here’s Gingrich:

My initial reaction was strong and direct -- perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice. With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

That's not to say the former House Speaker is suddenly on the Sotomayor bandwagon. In the message, Gingrich cites the Sotomayor's ruling against the New Haven firefighters as a case where "equal justice for Americans" did not prevail. In other words, Gingrich is not callling her a "racist" but he's suggesting race played a role in her decision-making. He defends his believe that Sotomayor is a "radical" based on her various speeches and writings that she's delivered off the bench in recent years. However, Gingrich concedes, “many of her rulings as a court of appeals judge do not match the radicalism of her speeches and statements. She has shown more caution and moderation in her rulings than in her words.”

All of this comes days after many Republicans were critical of Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh for using incendiary language about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Here's what your Gaggler is wondering: Did someone lean on Gingrich to dial back his words?

Obama Feels Comfortable, REALLY Comfortable, with Sotomayor

Holly Bailey — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:31:41 GMT

Twenty-two. That’s how many times White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs used the word “comfortable” during today’s press briefing when asked by reporters about President Obama and his conversations—or lack thereof—with Sonia Sotomayor specifically on her views on abortion and privacy rights. As Gibbs said yesterday, Obama didn’t bring up those topics with his Supreme Court nominee, and, as we learned today from Gibbs, neither did his staff. But grilled on the subject for the second day in a row, Gibbs said the president did talk to Sotomayor about her views on the Constitution. And guess what, Obama feels comfortable. “They talked about the theory of constitutional interpretation, generally, including her views on unremunerated rights in the Constitution and the theory of settled law,” Gibbs said. “He left very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.” In response to follow-ups, Gibbs added that Obama “feels comfortable that she shares his philosophy generally on the Constitution.” Later, he added that Obama “feels comfortable” with her judicial philosophy and that he “feels comfortable in being able to talk to her about her judicial philosophy.” In fact, according to Gibbs, Obama “feels comfortable with where she is.” Oh really? After more follow-ups, Gibbs even seemed to mock himself and his talking points. “As the president feels comfortable with her philosophy, I feel comfortable with my answer and having answered your question,” Gibbs said at one point, a hint of sarcasm in his voice. “I feel comfortable relaying to you that he feels comfortable.”

Are We Really Having This Debate? Part Deux

Holly Bailey — Thu, 28 May 2009 17:31:11 GMT

Your Gaggler thought she wouldn’t read anything more bizarre than that fight yesterday over how to pronounce Sonia Sotomayor’s last name, but not surprisingly, she was wrong. Via Talking Points Memo, we find this story from yesterday's edition of The Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper, which takes a closer look at how Senate Republicans are gearing up to fight Sotomayer’s nomination. It seems the Repubs have taken great interest in a lecture Sotomayor gave in 2001 at the University of California at Berkeley law school, where she talked about how personal experiences shape judges—ie, a big no no in their book. But here’s the story gets weird:

Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.” This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.

Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn’t certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law. “It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality. But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”

Really?? Now we must note The Hill omitted Sotomayer's full description of the foods she loves—pig intestines, pigs’ feet with beans, pigs’ tongue and ears. “Adventurous taste buds,” she said in the speech. No kidding. (Your Gaggler, for the record, is apparently not that adventurous of an eater.) But someone is seriously going to ding Sotomayor on food and how it might influence her on the Supreme Court? Wow.

On Abortion, Sotomayor Seems to Make Everyone Nervous

Holly Bailey — Thu, 28 May 2009 14:10:41 GMT

While the White House is growing more confident by the day that there will be no knock down, drag out fight over Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, there is some unease on both sides about the judge’s position on abortion. Abortion foes are angry because they believe Sotomayor would vote to sustain Roe v. Wade, but, as the New York Times notes this morning, abortion rights advocates aren’t so sure how she would rule. Part of this has to do with the fact that Sotomayor has never had to directly rule on a law regarding abortion. But yesterday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters at the daily briefing that President Obama had, in fact, not asked Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights because the president, as he said, has no “litmus test.” That has caused some women’s rights groups to temper their support for Sotomayor, including NARAL Pro-Choice America, which has a banner on its home page at the moment calling for Sotomayor to get a “fair hearing that includes questions on Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy.”

The back story on this is that pro-choice groups were already a little concerned about Obama’s commitment to abortion rights, which is partly why the tension is there. During the campaign, the president spoke out repeatedly in favor of a women’s right to choose. In 2007, he promised that one of his first acts as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which essentially backs up Roe v. Wade. But at his last primetime news conference in April, Obama bluntly admitted the issue was not at the top of his agenda at the moment. “The freedom of choice act is not my highest legislative priority,” Obama said. “I believe women should have the right to choose, but I think the most important thing we can do is tamp down some of the anger surrounding this issue is to focus on those areas that we can agree on. And that’s where I am going to focus.” (Your Gaggler is still surprised by that answer.)

Sotomayor did have one case that involved abortion rights. In a 2002 civil case, she wrote an opinion against an abortion rights group trying to challenge the so-called Mexico City policy, a Bush administration rule that prohibited foreign groups who performed or supported abortions from receiving U.S. aid. She rejected their equal protection claims. SCOTUSblog has a good summary of that opinion here.