Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) said Thursday he hasn’t made up his mind on whether he will vote to confirm Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Baucus this summer has infuriated liberals on and off Capitol Hill by working to strike a deal with Republicans on healthcare reform. A “no” vote on Sotomayor would be adding fuel to the left’s fire at the Finance Committee chairman.

Baucus on Thursday twice told The Hill he is undecided on next week’s floor vote on Sotomayor.

“I have no idea,” Baucus said. “I haven’t paid any attention and I haven’t announced … I’ve been so busy with healthcare. It’s under consideration. I’ll certainly know when I vote, but right now I can’t tell you.”

In his effort to circuitously accuse Judge Sotomayor of being racist and potentially discriminatory as a Justice, Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions asked the following question:

You say you’re bound by the superior authority. But the fact is when the re — the question of rehearing that 2nd Circuit authority that you say covered the case, some say it didn’t cover so clearly — but that was up for debate. And the circuit voted, and you voted not to reconsider the prior case. You voted to stay with the decision of the circuit.

And, in fact, your vote was the key vote. Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of — of — of Puerto Rican ancestry — had you voted with him, you — you — you could have changed that case.

Perhaps someone can explain to me what Judge Cabranes’ ancestry has to do with the context of Sessions’ question?  Do all Puerto Rican judges vote as a block?  Perhaps Judge Sotomayor did not get the memo that says if you are a Puerto Rican appellate court judge you vote in favor of the Plaintiffs in all reverse discrimination cases regardless of precedent.  Sessions ended up unwittingly demonstrating exactly who he is and exactly why he was blocked in Committee from becoming a District Court judge in 1986.  Projection is a BIATCH!

Lets also not forget the patronizing tone of Senator Lindsey Graham.  Graham took every opportunity to take a condescending tone with Judge Sotomayor and this writer found it quite offensive.  Below is just a couple of examples:

GRAHAM: I think, for a long time, a lot of talented women were asked, can you type? And were trying to get beyond that and improve as a nation. So when it comes to the idea that we should consciously try to include more people in the legal process and the judicial process, from different backgrounds, count me in.
But your speeches don’t really say that to me.

They — along the lines of what Senator Kyl was saying — they kind of represent the idea, there’s a day coming when there’ll be more of us — women and minorities — and we’re going to change the law. [translation:  And I'm scared shiteless of my peeps not controlling the rules]

And what I hope we’ll take away from this hearing is there need to be more women and minorities in the law to make a better America. And the law needs to be there for all of us, if and when we need it.
And the one thing that I’ve tried to impress upon you through jokes and being serious, is the consequences of these words in the world in which we live in. [YUCK! The condescension makes me want to puke!]

You know, we’re talking about putting you on the Supreme Court and judging your fellow citizens. [Thank you so much Sen. Graham for explaining to me why I'm here. I didn't judge a single citizen throughout my last 17 years on the bench.....I could have sworn this was an audition for "Whose Got Talent?"  Anyway, now that you have so patiently explained to me the reason for my presence here I just want to say that my entire fate is in your hands.  Please oh please grant me this great wish that only you have the power to give oh kind sir....Give me a freakin break!] 

And one of the things that I need to be assured of is that you understand the world as it pretty much really is.

[ Oh thank you again for bringing to my attention "the world as it really is."  I never had to think about it.  You see, I have spent my entire adult life either in the military (admirable but not the real world) or in politics so I have no concept of  "the world as it really is."  It is incredulous that Graham thought it necessary to question whether a former prosecutor from the Bronx knows how the world really is. SERIOUSLY!!]

Then there was this doosey of an exchange:

GRAHAM: …..When you look at the evaluation of the judges on the 2nd Circuit, you stand out like a sore thumb in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?

SOTOMAYOR: I do ask tough questions at oral arguments.

GRAHAM: Are you the only one that asks tough questions in oral arguments?  [Dripping condescension]

SOTOMAYOR: No, no, not at all. I can only explain what I’m doing, which is, when I ask lawyers tough questions, it’s to give them an opportunity to explain their positions, on both sides, and to persuade me that they’re right.

I do know that in the 2nd Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral arguments each, that the processes in the 2nd Circuit are different than in most other circuits across the country, and that some lawyers do find that our court, which is not just me, but our court generally, is described as a “hot bench.” It’s a term of art lawyers use. It means that they’re peppered with questions. Lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the 2nd Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.

GRAHAM: If I may interject, Judge, they find you difficult and challenging, more than your colleagues. And the only reason I mention this is that it stands out when you — you know, there are many positive things about you. And these hearings are designed to talk about the good and the bad. And I never liked appearing before a judge that I thought was a bully. [ Grow up! You're a lawyer deal with it!  the court room isn't Show & Tell in kindergarten class] It’s hard enough being a lawyer, having your client there to begin with, without the judge just beating you up for no good reason. Do you think you have a temperament problem? [ I don't know perhaps the former presidential nominee of your party of whom you were the senior advisor to can explain to me the definition of a "temperment problem"]

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. I can only talk about what I know about my relationship with the judges of my court and with the lawyers who appear regularly from our circuit. And I believe that my reputation is such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.

GRAHAM: In fairness to you, there are plenty of statements in the record in support of you as a person, that do not go down this line. But I would just suggest to you, for what it’s worth, Judge, as you go forward here, that these statements about you are striking. They’re not about your colleagues. You know, the 10-minute rule applies to everybody. And that, you know, obviously, you’ve accomplished a lot in your life, [thank you for your validation] but maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection. [Thanks for the advice.  I'll be sure to take it under advisement as soon as you pick up your knuckles that are dragging in the dirt ] This is pretty tough stuff that you don’t see from — about other judges on the 2nd Circuit.

During his questioning Graham went so far as to test Sotomayor on her knowlege of such 1L legal terms as “legal relativisim,” “strict construction” and “originalism” in the context of the Constitution.  In his first statement above, Sen. Graham shows his true anxiety regarding Sotomayor’s nomination.  His fear that some day men that look like him will not be in charge and thus will be subjected to playing by the rules and laws enacted as a result of a diverse populace that makes up Congress, the Judiciary, and the Executive branch.  Sí, SE PUEDE!

One more offender, Sen. Jon Kyle of Arizona.  Sen. Kyle attempted to badger Judge Sotomayor into agreeing that as an Associate Justice she will recuse herself from cases granted review by SCOTUS concerning any ISSUE (Any issue! NOT one of her prior cases but any ISSUE) that she presided over and decided as a lower court judge????? SERIOUSLY???  Is he short of a full deck or does he think she is??  If Judge Sotomayor were to grant such a request, having presided over and decided thousands of cases involving as many issues throughout her 17-year career as a District and Appellate court judge, she would never leave her chambers let alone preside over any cases brought before the Court.  Well that’s one way of diminishing her impact on the Court.  Wow Sen. Kyle……think much.

One final point regarding the GOP Senators and Judge Sotomayor.  Isn’t it baffling that the Republican senators continue to interrogate Sotomayor about an alleged inclination to use “empathy” to judge cases yet when it comes to issues such as abortion, the Second Amendment, a right of privacy, etc. they continually ask her to answer according to what her gut tells her she would do in such a case?  So you tell me.  In the context of the Republican senators primary “empathy has no place in judging” argument, what is the relevance of Sotomayor’s “gut feeling” regarding the aforementioned hot button issues when in it comes to the law?  Same ol hypocracy.

Message to Judge Sotomayor:  PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, stop answering “no sir” and “yes sir” when you’re responding to questions.  These folks are your peers and should be treated as such.  Please refer to them as Senator and not “sir” or “ma’am.”  You being a New Yorker, not a Southerner, use of such pleasantries make you appear meek and subservient especially when being spoken to in such a condescending way by the likes of Sens. Graham and Sessions.

Senator Jeff Sessions was a United States Attorney who was nominated to become a District Court Judge in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan.  However, the nomination failed in the REPUBLICAN controlled Senate Judiciary Committee due to Sessions’ “gross insensitivity”  on racial issues.  For those who follow the logic of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk who have surmised that if a white man ever said what Judge Sonia Sotomayor said about a “wise Latina woman” he would be banned from public life or his career would be over.   Well one white man from Alabama named Jeff Sessions said much worst and he is now the ranking Republican member in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee.  As a matter of fact, that same ranking member is questioning a SCOTUS nominee about her ability to apply the law without racial or gender bias.   Go figure.

Sen. Jeff Sessions opening remarks during the United States Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law. In truth it’s more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.

… That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Some of Sessions more inspiring comments and positions regarding racial equality:

• J. Gerald Hebert, a career Justice Department lawyer, testified that Sessions had once called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” He also said they “forced civil rights down the throats of people.”
• A former career Justice Department official who worked with Sessions recalled an instance when he referred to a white attorney as a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases on behalf of African Americans. Sessions later acknowledged having made many of the controversial remarks attributed to him, but claimed to have been joking.
• A black former assistant U.S. Attorney in Alabama named Thomas Figures testified that Sessions had called him “boy” and, after overhearing him chastise a secretary, warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.”
• Sessions also said that the only problem with the Klu Klux Klan is that the members smoke marijuana
• Sessions initially opposed the Voting Rights Act calling it “a piece of intrusive legislation.”

In defense of his racist comments Sessions said that he is not racist because he sent his children to an integrated school and shared a hotel room with a (singular) black attorney several times.  He didn’t even claim to have shared a room with several black attorneys (no several does not absolve him either).  I guess he figured sharing it with one was bad enough. 

Our comments regarding Senator Sessions are hypocrite, hypocrite, blatant hypocrite.  Shall we use the same standard to Sessions that he is using against Sotomayor and conclude that Sessions’ past comments demonstrate an inability by him to represent all of the people of Alabama making him only capable of representing those whose skin color matches his own?

Most people know that today begins the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court.  Most also know that the GOP plans to respectfully put Sotomayor through the ringer knowing full well that she will be confirmed overwhelmingly in the end.  I was very curious as to why given the current economic state of the country the Republican Party would needlessly draw out the Sotomayor hearings and waste tax dollars knowing that it is all for naught.  Well I asked one GOP insider who runs a high profile conservative think tank in DC.   This conservative GOPer first agreed with me that Sotomayor is very qualified and would absolutely be confirmed but added that Democrats must pay a price for their nominees to the Supreme Court.  Meaning that there must be political capital paid to nominate and confirm Sotomayor.   So all this talk about “empathy” and the Ricci case and activist judge allegations are about trying to find something that will in some way justify the GOP’s ramblings regarding everything except Judge Sotomayor’s actual judicial record and tarnish the Democrats as much as possible in the process.  Yes folks even though the judiciary branch is suppose to be separate and distinct from the executive and legislative branches surprise it is still all about politics and the never ending campaign.  Instead of looking at Sotomayor’s actual cases to determine what type of Justice she will be the GOP has relied entirely on snippets of speeches taken out of context and made outside the court room to make their case against Sotomayor.  The main point being to try and smear Sotomayor and paint Democrats and the President as bleeding heart liberals incapable of restraint.  What we think that the GOP will be successful at demonstrating is their continued lack of fiscal responsibility when it comes to tax payer dollars.