Solicitor General Elena Kagan was confirmed as the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States yesterday and is expected to be sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts tomorrow.  Kagan will be the fourth woman to serve on the nation’s highest court since its inception.   President Obama said the vote “wasn’t just an affirmation of Elena’s intellect and accomplishments. It was also an affirmation of her character and her temperament, her open-mindedness and even-handedness, her determination to hear all sides of every story and consider all possible arguments.’’

The 63-to-37 vote to confirm Kagan fell largely along party lines. Five Republicans, including Olympia J. Snowe and Susan M. Collins of Maine and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, [Lindsey Graham and Richard Lugar] supported Kagan’s nomination. By comparison, nine Republicans crossed party lines last year for Justice Sonia Sotomayor. One Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, opposed Kagan.

Congratulations General Elena Kagan.

NOTE:Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

During Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings a phrase that was continually used to malign Republican/Democrat judicial nominees is ”judicial activist.”  Hearing many politicans dismiss the idea of “judicial activism” as something the other side of the ideological divide or loser of a case says when they dislike the outcome of a case is pathetic.  The unimaginative dismissal of this very serious issue by politicians and pundits alike demonstrate how easy it is to support the narrative rather than doing real journalism.  There are objective definitions of “judicial activism.” Judicial activism is result-oriented judging designed to reinforce a specific political ideological lean (Democrat/Republican) irrespective of precedent, legislative intent/history, and judicial restraint, three sacred tenents of the Judiciary.  Or perhaps you prefer the Blacks Law Dictionary definition, “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.”  

The Founders drafted the Constititution specifically separating the powers of the Executive, the Legislature, and the Judiciary.   The Congress makes the laws, the Executive faithfully executes the laws, and the Judiciary interprets the laws.  INTERPRETS not MAKE.  The Constitution was designed in such a way so that the powers of each branch are separate and serves as a check on the powers of the other branches. Congress and the Judiciary serve as checks on the Executive.  The Executive and Congress serve as checks on the Judiciary (ex. Executive appoints, Senate confirms). The Judiciary, through its independence and responsibility to interpret the laws, serves as a check on Congress and the Executive. 

Judicial activists who legislate from the bench by disregarding legislative intent, deciding cases broadly, deciding questions not before the court, or disregarding established precedent (stare decises) to achieve a desired result, threatens the balance of our democracy.  This is why the hackneyed dismissal of such a serious issue by those with microphones is troubling to say the least.  The above objective measures should be used to determine whether judicial activism exists and each measure have nothing to do with political ideology or what political ideology is reinforced by the judicial opinion in question. 

The next time someone says that a Judge is engaging in judicial activism ask them what he/she means?

NOTE:Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissenting opinion in the court case Graham v Florida that makes us question his mental state.  In Graham, the question before the Court was whether a 7-year-old can be given life in prison without the possibility of parole for a non-homicide case.  The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 majority opinion that included John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy,  limited life terms for youths for non-capital crimes. In Clarence Thomas’ dissent, which included Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia, he insisted that a 7-year-old can be sentenced to death for a stealing $50 worth of goods or currency because the Founding Fathers said so in the 1700s.

Thomas’ dissenting opinion released yesterday:

The Court ignores entirely the threshold inquiry of whether subjecting juvenile offenders to adult penalties was one of the “modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted.” Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399, 405 (1986). As the Court has noted in the past, however, the evidence is clear that, at the time of the Founding, “the common law set a rebuttable presumption of incapacity to commit any felony at the age of 14, and theoretically permitted [even] capital punishment to be imposed on a person as young as age 7.” Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361, 368 (1989) (citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries 23–24; 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 24–29 (1800)). It thus seems exceedingly unlikely that the imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a person of Graham’s age would run afoul of those standards.

The concurring opinion of the Court written by Ginsburg, Stephens, Breyer, and Sotomayor cited the Eight Amendment preventing cruel and unusual punishment as the basis for their concurring opinion:

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE GINSBURG and JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, concurring.

In his dissenting opinion, JUSTICE THOMAS argues that today’s holding is not entirely consistent with the controlling opinions in (citations omitted). Given that “evolving standards of decency” have played a central role in our Eighth Amendment jurisprudence for at least a century, (Citation omitted), this argument suggests the dissenting opinions in those cases more accurately describe the law today than does JUSTICE THOMAS’ rigid interpretation of the Amendment. Society changes. Knowledge accumulates. We learn, sometimes, from our mistakes. Punishments that did not seem cruel and unusual at one time may, in the light of reason and experience, be found cruel and unusual at a later time; unless we are to abandon the moral commitment embodied in the Eighth Amendment, proportionality review must never become effectively obsolete, . . . .

While JUSTICE THOMAS would apparently not rule out a death sentence for a $50 theft by a 7-year-old . . ., the Court wisely rejects his static approach to the law. Standards of decency have evolved since 1980. They will never stop doing so.

In case you didn’t notice, the concurring opinion by Ginsburg et al is a slam of Thomas and his simplistic view of the Constitution and case law.  Any legal practitioner who insists on applying a centuries old standard blindly without taking into consideration specific case circumstances or a changed and evolving nation than existed at the time such standards were put in place, especially as applied to a child, makes me question that jurist’s intellectual ability as a person worthy of a position on the highest court of the land. 

That, or he just needs psychological counseling to get over his anger issues.  My money is on the latter.  How is it possible that, as an African-American, he is the MOST right-wing conservative Justice to serve on the Supreme Court of the Unites States since the 1930s?  Thomas is so right-wing that it appears to cloud and hinder his judgment as an Associate Justice.

Take a look at the the top ten “most” conservative Justices to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States since 1937.  Four of of the five most conservative Justices are sitting on the SCOTUS today.  Notice Clarence Thomas at the top.  Zero of the most liberal Justices now sit on the Court.  Therefore, putting a centrist on the Court, as Elena Kagan is rumored to be, moves the Court further to the right.  This is also why you have conservatives like Lynn Cheney and Bill Kristol jumping up and down at the Kagan choice. 

NUMBER OF CONSERVATIVE VOTES ON U.S. SUPREME COURT, 1937-2006

10 “Most Conservative” Justices

One wonders whether the President’s desire for an speedy confirmation (cited as one of the reasons for the Kagan safe pick) will have very long term negative consequences to progressives and the country?  Apparently he is banking on Kagan’s rhetorical skills or her ability to rephrase arguments in a way that may bring Justice Anthony Kennedy over to the left side thereby building a consensus on the left of the Court….hmmm.  Did we mention that Kennedy is listed as one of the top ten MOST conservative Justices?  Another problem with the President’s theory is that if Kagan is a centrist she can also be persuaded.  Persuaded to move to the right on important issues to progressives (1st amendment issues for example).  Therefore, if you have a new Justice who may sometimes vote with the right instead of reliably voting with the left then the Court moves a little further to the right.

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

As admitted by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, the GOP did have a southern strategy that consisted of focusing on white southern voters.  It appears that such a strategy is being implemented again.  First a preview.  The GOP unintentionally announced their strategy yesterday via an audio recording by top GOP strategist Court Levy.  Levy explains the GOP’s plan for delaying (wasting taxpayer money) Elena Kagan’s confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States and winning political points needed for the midterm elections.

“Even if it’s a nominee that we can’t seriously stop, we can accomplish several things, and so a hard fight is worthwhile,” Levey implored. “Certainly it can be to the political advantage of Republicans…. There’s everything to be gained from making the Supreme Court vacancy a campaign issue in 2010.”

“There’s broader goals such as just distracting Obama from other items on his agenda,” Levey added. “The tougher the fight the less capital and time and resources and floor time in the Senate there is to spend on immigration and climate change, etc.”

It’s likely, though, that some Republicans, particularly moderates, will ultimately want to support Obama’s choice. Levey urged those senators to go along with the delay.

“For those people who do want to support the nominee, and do want to get points for bipartisanship or for supporting the first Hispanic or first gay nominee or whatever it might turn out to be you’ll get just as much credit if you support the nominee in August, as if you support them now,” Levey said “I urge everyone not to say that the confirmation of the nominee is inevitable, even if we think it is.”

Mode of operation…..southern strategy loud and clear.

In its first memo to reporters since Kagan’s nomination to the high court became public, the Republican National Committee highlighted Kagan’s tribute to Marshall in a 1993 law review article published shortly after his death.

Kagan quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.” She quoted him as saying the Supreme Court’s mission was to “show a special solicitude for the despised and the disadvantaged.”

“Does Kagan Still View Constitution ‘As Originally Drafted And Conceived’ As ‘Defective’?” the RNC asked in its research document. “And Does Kagan Still Believe That The Supreme Court’s Primary Mission Is To ‘Show A Special Solicitude For The Despised And Disadvantaged’?”

Of course, Justice Thurgood Marshall was referring to slavery and blacks being “three-fifths of a person” clause.  Therefore, the GOP attacks Kagan based on its belief that the Constitution was perfect as originally drafted, slavery and all.

President Obama will announce at 10am this morning that he has chosen Solicitor General Elena Kagan to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens for the Supreme Court of the United States. 

General Kagan was born in New York City on April 28, 1960.  She is 50 years old and will be the youngest Justice by five years to sit on the High court if confirmed.  The Solicitor General will also be the fourth woman to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Kagan graduated from Princeton in 1981, Oxford with a Masters in Philosophy in 1983, and Harvard law in 1986. 

Her professional career consists of clerking for Thurgood Marshall from 1987-88.  In addition to being an Assistant Professor at  University of Chicago School of Law from 1991-95.  Associate Counsel to President Bill Cinton from 1995-96.  Deputy Assistant to President Clinton from 1997-99.  Kagan became the first female dean of Harvard Law School and served from 2003-2009.  In 2009, Kagan was confirmed as the first ever female Solicitor General of the United States.

Word on the street is that Obama chose Kagan due to her youth and ability to make friends on the other side of the isle, e.g., consensus building ability.  Which is strengthened by the endorsement of some of her colleagues on the right such as the former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, Ted Olson, and Ronald Reagan’s Solicitor General Charles Freid.  Further, Kagan received seven Republican votes in her confirmation for Solictor General including the vote of Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT).

Kagan has been criticized for her position regarding a 2005 SCOTUS case that she helped lead that urged SCOTUS to strike down a ban that allows the federal government to deny federal funding to colleges and universities that prohibit military recruiting on campuses based on the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy against gay and lesbian individuals.  Kagan’s group of law school leaders argued that the law violated the First Amendment rights of the universities.  In 2006, SCOTUS, in a unanimous decision of 8-0, rejected the Kagan position. Kagan has also received some criticism for serving on an advisory panel for Goldman Sachs which has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to be an effective Associate Justice but may lend support to opponents who claim that she may contribute to SCOTUS becoming more the Court for corporate america.  One last criticism by opponents is the lack of diverse faculty she hired during her tenure of Harvard.  Opponents claim that during her time at Harvard the vast majority of faculty hired by Kagan were white and male.

When Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, four-out-of-every five hires to its faculty were white men. She did not hire a single African American, Latino, or Native American tenured or tenure track academic law professor. She hired 25 men, all of whom were white, and seven women, six of whom were white and one Asian American. Just 3 percent of her hires were non-white — a statistic that should raise eyebrows in the 21st Century.

The White House pushed back by providing Kagan’s hiring record as Solicitor General here.  The irony is that law student Barack Obama protested the lack of diversity of Havard law faculty as a student.

We believe that the Kagan pick may move the Court further to the right but will wait for the confirmation hearings to determine whether such opinion is justified. Not that any information on her political leaning will come out in the confirmation hearings.  However, Kagan appears to disagree with a couple of positions held by Justice John Paul Stevens.  Not to mention her right leaning positions regarding indefinite detention of terrorism suspects and limits on the rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees.  Stevens has stridently advocated against such positions.

We are happy that history will be made when, for the first time since the Court’s inception, three women will sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. HALLELUJA!!!

Attorney barred in the District of Columbia and California currently looking for opportunities in the private and government sectors.  Specializes in ediscovery/litigation efficiency project management but can do straight litigation or litigation management.  Feel free to contact me with opportunities at progress@progresspolitics.com

According to Politico, President Obama will choose Elena Kagan as his nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States on Monday.  Elena Kagan is definitely wishful thinking on the part of Politico and the GOP so we may want to take its predictions with a grain of salt.  We really hope that he chooses Diane Wood.

DRIVING NEXT WEEK — Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isn’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it’s otherwise. Kagan’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, and could lure swing Justice Kennedy into some coalitions The West Wing may leak the pick to AP’s Ben Feller on the later side Sunday, then confirm it for others for morning editions. For now, aides say POTUS hasn’t decided, to their knowledge. Kagan pic and bio

One thing that this political observer can conclude is that if ultra-conservative columnist Bill Kristol and Lynn Cheney are hyping up Elena Kagan as the best potential SCOTUS nominee then there is no way that she should be the pick to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court of the United States.  Both Kristol and Cheney were practically drooling over the possibility of Kagan being Obama’s pick.  Kagan has been labeled as a moderate or centrist Democrat leading us to conclude that her as a Justice would push the Court further to the right.  Resulting in more decisions in support of corporate America similar to Citizens United.  We need a real progressive on the Court such as Diane Wood of the 7th District.   Wood was appointed to the 7th Circuit in 1995 and attended University of Texas Law School.  We like that Wood did not do the Ivy League route but went to a state law school.  Her presence on the Court will bring a different and unique perspective that none of the other judges possess.  This can only make a superior, more informed, Court that renders better decisions. 

The president played nice with Republicans when he nominated Sonya Sotomayor who though she is supremely qualified and has been a GREAT addition to the SCOTUS bench is not a known progressive. The President has a significant majority in the Senate NOW who knows what will happen in the November midterms.  Now is the time to put a real progressive on the bench because it will only get harder after November when Democrats may have less of a majority and will have to get even more Republican votes then it needs to secure today.  Also, the nominee must be a woman.  As we said here last year, all three of the President’s picks must be women.  There is absolutely NO reason for the President to choose a man for any of the three slots that he is likely to fill.  Men have dominated the Supreme Court bench since it’s inception….why????  There are just as many OVERLY qualified women as there are men and if the President is unable to find three qualified women to be Justices then he is REALLY not looking hard enough. CORRECTION: Not looking AT ALL!   It is unseemly that there are not more women on the highest court in the land.  Absolutely shameless!  Though we are absolutely sure that the President has already realized this blatant inequity it does not hurt to send out a reminder. We need more female representation on the Supreme Court of the United States and you are the one to accomplish this Mr. President.

Justice John Roberts comment regarding President Obamas remarks about the Citizens United case which allows corporations to buy candidates:

                  ”very troubling”

White House response:

                    “What is troubling is that this decision opened the floodgates for corporations and special interests to pour money into elections – drowning out the voices of average Americans,”

Nuff said

First Bush v. Gore now Citizens United v. FEC.  The United States Supreme Court has just empowered corporations and special interest (lobbyists) to buy members of Congress and the President legally!  The Court did so by reaching way beyond the scope of the facts and law before it and deciding a case not actually before the body.   It also overturned three case precedents in the process. The Citizens United v Federal Election Commission decision turned back 100 years of campaign finance laws protecting this democracy from the corruption and control of corporate america.  It will allow unlimited spending by corporations in political campaigns.  In other words, corporations are now allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to directly influence elections thereby interfering and controlling the United States government.  If a corporation like Exxon Mobil wants to prevent alternative energy or climate change legislation it can spend a mere two percent $400 billion dollar profits to buy the entire Unites States government.   Imagine if Exxon, Chevron, and Shell pooled their funds?  If Goldman Sachs wants to prevent legislation of its risky investment and business practices, as of today, they can just buy Senate and House members who will vote against legislation.  Congress and Presidents will now be beholden to corporate america much more so than ever before.  Corporate interests will be the priority of lawmakers instead of their constituents.  In this overreaching and destructive decision the Supreme Court has officially started legislating from the bench by deciding a broad question of corporate spending just before an election cycle.

A couple of months ago Sen. John McCain begrudgingly participated in a Hispanic business round table where he was reported by those who attended to be snarly and grudge holding.  So much so that when he was asked about immigration reform McCain angrily responded “you people made your choice” referring to the 2008 presidential election.  Still angry much??  It may be that McCain took a certain amount of satisfaction in not voting for Justice Sotomayor to be confirmed given that  Hispanics predominately supported Barack Obama for President.  McCain has said “elections have consequences.”  One of the consequences is that the President should be given the utmost deference with respect to his Supreme Court nominees.  McCain seemed to be following his professed “elections have consequences” policy when he voted in support of  President Clinton’s nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  As for yesterday’s vote against Sotomayor, given McCain’s history and temperament it would not be surprising to learn that this was intended as a jab to the Hispanic community.  However, and in fairness, McCain also voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. 

What is perplexing is that McCain is up for a pretty tough re-election campaign in Arizona which has a very large Hispanic population.  One would think that he would try to curry favor within the Hispanic community rather than risk its wrath.

The Senate just confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Nine Republicans joined all 59 Democrats to confirm the former New York Appellate court judge.  Sen. Kennedy did not vote due to illness.  Sotomayor is the 111th Justice and the first Hispanic to be confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.  The nine Republicans and that voted for Sotomayor are: Alexander(TN), Collins(ME), Gregg(NH), Martinez (FL), Snowe (ME), Bond(MO), Graham (SC), Lugar (IN), Voinovich (OH).  Judge Sotomayor will be sworn in on Saturday.  There will be two swearing-in ceremonies one televised and one conducted privately.

Congratulations to confirmed Associate Justice Sotomayor!

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.

Justice Clarence Thomas does not speak much from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States and his statement last week about this pesky obsession Americans have with the Bill of Rights explains why.  See Thomas; statement below.

The evening was devoted to the Bill of Rights, but Justice Thomas did not embrace the document, and he proposed a couple of alternatives.

‘Today there is much focus on our rights,” Justice Thomas said. “Indeed, I think there is a proliferation of rights.”

“I am often surprised by the virtual nobility that seems to be accorded those with grievances,” he said. “Shouldn’t there at least be equal time for our Bill of Obligations and our Bill of Responsibilities?”

Can someone please explain to where in the Constitution is there a Bill of Obligations or a Bill of Responsibilities?  Did he really ask such a question?  Is this an attempt to display a depth of cognative ability that comes across as

Here’s another doosey

“I have to admit,” he said, “that I’m one of those people that still thinks the dishwasher is a miracle. What a device! And I have to admit that because I think that way, I like to load it. I like to look in and see how that dishes were magically cleaned.”

It is scary to think that this man is charged with interpreting laws involving patents, technology, national defense, privacy, all of which have advanced markedly since the ‘magical’ invention of the dishwasher.