Souter to retire - Page 4 - Big Big Forums

Jolie Rouge · 07-15-2009, 12:29 PM

Sotomayor declines to talk about abortion views
David Espo And Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writers
7 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor declined repeatedly at Senate confirmation hearings Wednesday to talk about her views on abortion rights, and said President Barack Obama never asked her about the issue before he chose her for the bench.

"I can't answer ... because I can't look at it in the abstract," she told Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., as he sought to draw her out with questions about hypothetical cases.

Even if she knew more about the specifics of a case, she added, "I probably couldn't opine because I'm sure that situation might well arise before the court."

The Oklahoma Republican had posed a case in which a woman wanted to abort a 38-week fetus because it was found to have spina bifida, which can cause paralysis and is often associated with brain damage.

Coburn also asked whether technological improvements that help premature babies survive might "have any bearing on how we look at Roe v. Wade," the 1973 court ruling that first established abortion rights.

"I can't answer that in the abstract," Sotomayor said. "The question as it would it come before me wouldn't be in the way that you form it as a citizen, it would come to me as a judge."

Earlier, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked about a published report that administration officials had sought to elicit her views on abortion.

"I was asked no question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue," she said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/...tomayor_senate

Quote:

"I was asked no question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue," she said.

See http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...RjNzU3NzU4YTY=

Quote:

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

She has made the same "Wise Latina" remark in several documented forums including her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001; as early as in 1994 and as late as 2007... hardly "off the cuff"

Quote:

Sotomayor is a graduate from Princeton University, where her legal theses included Race in the American Classroom, and Undying Injustice: American "Exceptionalism" and Permanent Bigotry, and Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture. In this text, the student Sotomayor explained that the Second Amendment to the Constitution did not actually afford individual citizens the right to bear arms, but only duly conferred organizations, like the military. Instead of making guns illegal, she argues that they have been illegal for individuals to own since the passing of the Bill of Rights.

Jolie Rouge · 07-15-2009, 05:28 PM

Sotomayor retreats more under queries
Josh Gerstein
1 hr 56 mins ago

Republicans pressed Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor into further retreat Wednesday morning on some of her past public statements, but the low-key exchanges generally lacked the sparks of Tuesday’s session.

Sotomayor gave ground on comments about the role of physical differences in judging and seemed to pull back from a speech defending the use of foreign law by American judges. She also said she had never discussed the issue of abortion or Roe v. Wade with the White House and had no idea why a former colleague said she could be counted on to uphold abortion rights.

Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) led off the questioning by focusing in on a line from a 2001 speech in which Sotomayor said, “Whether borne from experience or inherent physiological or culture differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague … our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

“In the law, there have been upheld in certain situations that certain jobs positions have a requirement for certain amount of strength or other characteristics …You need, to be a pilot … good eyesight, ” Sotomayor said.

“We’re not talking about pilots. We’re talking about judging, right?” Cornyn replied.

“The process of judging for me is what life experiences bring to the process. It helps you listen and understand. It doesn’t change what the law is or what the law commands,” Sotomayor replied. “It improves both the public’s confidence that there are judges from a variety of different backgrounds on the bench because they feel that all issues will be more, better — at least addressed. Not that it’s better addressed, but that it helps that process of feeling confident that all arguments are going to be listened to and understood.”

When Cornyn pushed for a direct answer on whether physical criteria affect judging, Sotomayor demurred.

“I’m not sure exactly where that would play out, but I was asking a hypothetical question. ... I was saying, look, we just don’t know,” the nominee said. “What I was saying is: let’s ask the question. ... . Ignoring things and saying, you know, it doesn’t happen isn’t an answer to a situation. … . Consider it as a possibility and think about it. But I certainly wasn’t intending to suggest that there would be a difference that affected the outcome.”

As he moved on, Cornyn said he was “struggling a little bit” to reconcile her answers with her claim that “fidelity to the law” is her guiding principle.

Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) elicited an extremely broad statement from Sotomayor that foreign law should not have any impact on the result of American legal disputes.

“Foreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn’t direct you to that law,” Sotomayor said. Her comment seemed to go further than she did on Tuesday, where she said, “American law does not permit the use of foreign law or international law to interpret the Constitution. That's a given.”

Back in April, during a speech to the American Civil Liberties Union, Sotomayor said U.S. judges shouldn’t flinch about turning to foreign law when considering cases.

‘[i]nternational law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system. It is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do so because . . . within the American legal system we’re commanded to interpret our law in the best way we can, and that means looking to what other, anyone , has said to see if it has persuasive value,” she said. However, she also cautioned, “American analytical principles do not permit us to use that law to decide our cases. But nothing in the American legal system stops us from considering the ideas that that law can give us.”

Sotomayor also told Cornyn she’d given no assurances to the White House on Roe v. Wade or abortion rights. “It’s absolutely correct. I was asked no questions by anyone, including the president, about my views on any specific legal issue,” she said.

Asked why her former law partner, George Pavia, said he could “guarantee” her support for abortion rights,” Sotomayor said, “I have no idea, since I know for a fact I never spoke to him about my views on abortion.”

Coburn also presented Sotomayor with some graphic abortion-related hypotheticals, which she declined to address. “I can’t answer that question in the abstract,” she said.

Eventually Coburn seemed to acknowledge that he was simply trying to educate Sotomayor as she proceeds to an ll-but-certain confirmation: “I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues,” before making a point on differences in how the courts define life and death.

Still, Coburn expressed some frustration at Sotomayor’s answers. “What the American people want to see is inside and what your gut says,” he declared.

Democrats suggested that Republicans' umbrage at Sotomayor’s “wise Latina’ statements was exaggerated, since no objection was raised when variants of those statements were shared with the Senate during Sotomayor’s confirmation for the appeals court in 1998.

If Sotomayor wasn’t telling Republicans what they wanted to hear, she also didn’t give much ground to Democrats. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a former prosecutor, made clear her disagreement with a recent Supreme Court decision requiring lab technicians to testify when defendants demand it. “I think it's unreasonable for what we should expect of the criminal justice system,” the senator said.

“It's always difficult to deal with people’s disappointments about cases, particularly when they have personal experiences and have their own sense of the impact of a case,” Sotomayor said. “I do recognize that there can be problems — as a former prosecutor — but that also can't compel a result.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/200...politico/24971

Jolie Rouge · 07-16-2009, 12:52 AM

Sotomayorisms
http://patterico.com/2009/07/15/soto...our-imminence/

We are in eminent danger of confirming a Supreme Court justice who no speak so good da language: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-3-part-2.html

Quote:

But, under New York law, if you’re being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury, you can use force to repel that, and that would be legal. The question that would come up, and does come up before juries and judges, is how eminent is the threat. If the threat was in this room, “I’m going to come get you,” and you go home and get — or I go home. I don’t want to suggest I am, by the way. Please, I’m not — I don’t want anybody to misunderstand what I’m trying to say. (LAUGHTER)

In case you thought it was a transcription error, think again:

Yikes. She very much bad talker.

If I must suffer death, may it be an eminent death.

Oh — Ed Whelan adds that Sotomayor says “providence” instead of “province” — and “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge.

Here’s the transcript on “providence”: http://bench.nationalreview.com/post...QxN2NhMmVlMjI=

Quote:

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress first.

And here’s the transcript on “story of knowledge”: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...nscript-4.html

Quote:

Judges — and I — I’m not using my words. I’m using Justice Ginsberg’s words. You build up your story of knowledge as a person, as a judge, as a human being with everything you read.

Yeesh.

(Thanks to Allahpundit at Hot Air, who is already denouncing himself as racist for having noticed this. http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/1...mminent-twice/
Hey, Allahpundit? You’re sexist too. Deal with it.)

UPDATE: I guess she was just caught up in the vagrancies of the moment. http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblog..._said_it_2.asp

Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor Threw O'Connor Under The Bus

At Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, Sotomayor was asked by Patrick Leahy (D-VT) to explain her comment that "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life".

As pointed out by John Hinderaker and others, Sotomayor disingenuously contended that she merely was agreeing with a statement by former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor about "wise men" and "wise women" reaching the same conclusion in a case. In fact, as I posted prior to the hearings, in her "wise Latina" comment Sotomayor actually expressed disagreement with O'Connor, and used the "wise Latina" construct to set herself apart from O'Connor.

Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post reached this same conclusion at the time:

Quote:

Sotomayor was deliberately and directly disputing remarks by then-Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that a wise old woman and a wise old man would eventually reach the same conclusion in a case.

Why Sotomayor chose to give an explanation which clearly was not true is baffling. She had plenty of time to come up with an explanation to a question she knew would be asked.

But the explanation actually was worse than that, because Sotomayor's explanation distorted O'Connor's statement to make it seem as if O'Connor shared Sotomayor's views about the impact of gender on judicial decision-making, when in fact the opposite was true.

Few people, it appears, actually have read O'Connor's statement at issue, which is reproduced in more complete form in my prior post, What Sandra Day O'Connor Said. In pertinent part, O'Connor rejected what she called the "new feminism" which sought to assign distinct approaches to male and female judicial decision-making:

Quote:

Just when the Court and Congress have adopted a less sanguine view of gender-based classifications, however, the new presence of women in the law has prompted many feminist commentators to ask whether women have made a difference to the profession, whether women have different styles, aptitudes, or liabilities.

Ironically, the move to ask again the question whether women are different merely by virtue of being women recalls the old myths we have struggled to put behind us. Undaunted by the historical resonances, however, more and more writers have suggested that women practice law differently than men. One author has even concluded that my opinions differ in a peculiarly feminine way from those of my colleagues....

This “New Feminism” is interesting, but troubling, precisely because it so nearly echoes the Victorian myth of the “True Woman” that kept women out of law for so long. It is a little chilling to compare these suggestions to Clarence Darrow's assertion that women are too kind and warm-hearted to be shining lights at the bar....

If we are to continue to find ways to repair the existing difference between professional women and men with regard to family responsibilities, however, we must not allow the “New Feminism” complete sway....

Do women judges decide cases differently by virtue of being women? I would echo the answer of my colleague, Justice Jeanne Coyne of the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, who responded that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion.”

This should be our aspiration: that, whatever our gender or background, we all may become wise-wise through our different struggles and different victories, wise through work and play, profession and family."

Clearly, O'Connor rejected any notion that men and women reach different results as a function of their gender, or that one or the other is better, which is the opposite of what Sotomayor said in her "wise Latina" statement.

In response to Leahy's question, Sotomayor had a chance to give her pre-determined explanation of the "wise Latina" statement. Yet Sotomayor's explanation made no sense, unless one had not read O'Connor's full statement. Sotomayor portrayed O'Connor as holding a view consistent with the "wise Latina" comment as to gender differences :

[quote]Clearly, O'Connor rejected any notion that men and women reach different results as a function of their gender, or that one or the other is better, which is the opposite of what Sotomayor said in her "wise Latina" statement.

In response to Leahy's question, Sotomayor had a chance to give her pre-determined explanation of the "wise Latina" statement. Yet Sotomayor's explanation made no sense, unless one had not read O'Connor's full statement. Sotomayor portrayed O'Connor as holding a view consistent with the "wise Latina" ....

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.co...under-bus.html

Jolie Rouge · 07-16-2009, 11:51 AM

Keep your eyes peeled
56 mins ago

Five things to watch for during the fourth day of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court:

5. DAVID CONE: The former major-league pitcher is scheduled to testify about Sotomayor's role in ending a nearly eight-month baseball strike that wiped out the World Series for the first time in 90 years. The U.S. District Court judge issued an injunction against owners on March 31, 1995.

4. FRANK RICCI: The New Haven, Conn., firefighter was on the winning side of a Supreme Court race-discrimination ruling that overturned an appellate court decision in which Sotomayor participated. The hearing has brought Ricci some unwanted attention: As soon as the anti-Sotomayor side listed him as a witness, liberal groups did some digging and are now pointing out that he got his job by filing a discrimination case.

3. SEN. AL FRANKEN: The comic-turned-senator injected some levity into the hearings Wednesday and, with any luck, will do so today. But he's good for more than a laugh: Franken, virtually alone among Democrats, chastised Sotomayor for being so elusive during a frustrating question-and-nonanswer session over voter rights. "So that means you're not going to tell us?" he asked.

2. AUGUST: That's when the Democratic Senate leadership plans to put Sotomayor's nomination up for a vote and almost certainly send her to the high court.

1. OBAMA'S NEXT PICK: Sotomayor's hearing is less about her than it is about Democratic and Republican efforts to lay the groundwork for the possibility that Obama will some day replace a conservative justice. That could dramatically change the ideological makeup of the divided court. Sotomayor would replace Justice David Souter, who is part of the court's liberal bloc.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_pl756

Frustrating even Democrats
Sonia Sotomayor faces one last day of questioning, but even some supporters are criticizing her answers.
Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 16, 6:15 am ET

WASHINGTON – Barring a monumental mistake, Sonia Sotomayor has to endure only a few more hours in the witness chair before she can look ahead to her eventual confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.

Sotomayor returns for a third and final day of questioning Thursday, having avoided saying much on a range of hot-button issues, including guns and abortion.

Her unwillingness to be pinned down on almost any topic frustrated even some friendly Democrats.

"I think your record is exemplary, Judge Sotomayor, exemplary," said Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa., who quit the Republican Party earlier this year. "I'm not commenting about your answers, but your record is exemplary."

Sotomayor, 55, has been a federal judge for 17 years, the last 11 on the appeals court in New York. President Barack Obama nominated her to take the seat of Justice David Souter, who retired last month.

A vote by the full Senate to confirm her is expected in early August, time enough to allow her to take the judicial oath and participate in a scheduled hearing Sept. 9 on a case involving federal campaign finance law.

Despite her years of service, Republicans continued to focus more on Sotomayor's writings and speeches. They said they were still worried Sotomayor would bring bias and a political agenda to the bench.

"It's muddled, confusing, backtracking on issue after issue," complained Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel. "I frankly am a bit disappointed in the lack of clarity and consistency in her answers."

But Republicans conceded that Sotomayor had not committed a major mistake that would be necessary to derail her nomination to be the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the high court.

Once she finishes testifying, Republicans plan to call New Haven, Conn., firefighter Frank Ricci, who passed a promotion exam only to see the city toss out the results because too few minorities qualified for promotion.

His ensuing discrimination complaint gives the GOP another chance to portray Sotomayor as a judge who allows her bias to dictate the outcome of a case.

Ricci, in attendance Wednesday, had his reverse discrimination claim rejected by Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling late last month.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Ricci "deserves his chance to tell the American people about how he felt about being denied his promotion, and why he filed suit and what he did to make himself a better candidate for the test."

Sotomayor has said repeatedly that her panel was bound by precedent, an assertion that was challenged in an opinion by fellow Judge Jose Cabranes, her one-time mentor.

In 10 hours of questioning over two days, Sotomayor has warded off frequent attempts to get her to weigh in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice.

In one lengthy exchange with Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a prominent abortion opponent, Sotomayor firmly declined to give her opinion in a hypothetical case involving a woman who learns her 38-week-old fetus has spina bifida, a potentially serious birth defect.

All she would do is relate the state of abortion law as defined by the Supreme Court.

In 1992, the court "reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade that a woman has a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy in certain cases," she said, adding that the ruling said the court should consider whether any state regulation "has an undue burden on the woman's constitutional right."

Echoing comments she made on other topics throughout the day, Sotomayor said, "All I can say to you is what the court's done and the standard that the court has applied. We don't make policy choices on the court; we look at the case before us."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_sotomayor_senate

SHELBYDOG · 07-16-2009, 12:33 PM

Sotomayor draws praise from GOP critics

Quote:

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writers Julie Hirschfeld Davis And Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writers – 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor drew praise from GOP skeptics as well as Democratic supporters Thursday on the final day of Senate questioning that's expected to lead to her confirmation.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described Sotomayor's judicial record as "generally in the mainstream" and said he thought she would keep an open mind on gun rights. He proclaimed her "not an activist."

Graham, who earlier predicted Sotomayor would be confirmed barring a "meltdown," said the 55-year-old appeals court judge had "said some things that just bug the hell out of me," but he added that he thought she could separate those views from her job as a justice.

"You have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you're going to try to understand the difference between judging and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender," Graham said.

Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's choice to become the first Hispanic woman on the court, was on her third and final day of questioning, having avoided taking clear stands under repeated prodding on a range of hot-button issues, from campaign finance law to guns and abortion.

Graham was not in the Senate when Sotomayor was confirmed for the appeals court in 1998, but several other Republican senators were.

Among them, Sens. Robert Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Richard Lugar of Indiana and Olympia Snowe of Maine all voted in favor of her confirmation.

Hatch is a member of the Judiciary Committee that is conducting this week's hearings.

On Thursday, another Republican member of the panel, Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, also called Sotomayor's rulings "pretty much in the mainstream," although he said her assertions of impartiality at the hearings were strikingly at odds with her past remarks.

"You appear to be a different person almost in your speeches and in some of the comments that you've made" before the Judiciary panel, Cornyn said.

Democrats devoted some of their question time to allowing Sotomayor to make her closing argument on her last day of face-to-face exchanges with the panel that will cast the first votes on her confirmation. A vote by the full Senate to confirm her is expected in early August, time enough to allow her to take the judicial oath and participate in a scheduled hearing Sept. 9 on a case involving federal campaign finance law.

Asked by Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., what historians would make of her, Sotomayor said, "I can't live my life to write history's story." Then she added, "I hope it will say I'm a fair judge, I was a caring person and that I lived my life serving my country."

Obama named Sotomayor, a federal judge for 17 years, to take the seat of Justice David Souter, who retired last month.

Despite her years of judging, Republicans continued to focus more on Sotomayor's writings and speeches. Some said they were still worried she would bring bias and a political agenda to the bench.

"It's muddled, confusing, backtracking on issue after issue," complained Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary panel. "I frankly am a bit disappointed in the lack of clarity and consistency in her answers."

But Republicans conceded that Sotomayor had not committed any major mistake that might derail her nomination.

Once she finishes testifying, Republicans plan to call New Haven, Conn., firefighter Frank Ricci, who passed a promotion exam only to see the city toss out the results because too few minorities qualified for promotion. His ensuing discrimination complaint gives the GOP another chance to portray Sotomayor as a judge who allows bias to dictate the outcome of a case.

Ricci's reverse discrimination claim was rejected and that decision was upheld by Sotomayor and two other appeals court judges. The Supreme Court overturned their ruling late last month.

Sotomayor has said repeatedly that her panel was bound by precedent, an assertion that was challenged in an opinion by fellow appeals Judge Jose Cabranes, her one-time mentor. On Thursday, she sidestepped pointed questions from Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who demanded to know what precedents she relied on for the decision.

In nearly a dozen hours of questioning so far, Sotomayor has warded off frequent attempts to get her to weigh in on any major issue that could come before her as a justice. That's typical of Supreme Court nominees.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/...de8imcC4kDW7oF

SHELBYDOG · 07-16-2009, 12:38 PM

Specter to Sotomayor: Confirmation seems certain

Quote:

6 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Sen. Arlen Specter has told Judge Sonia Sotomayor he thinks it's pretty certain she'll be confirmed for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Just before a late-morning break in the fourth day of hearings, the Pennsylvania Democrat told Sotomayor: "Conventional wisdom is very strong for your confirmation."

Specter, who switched parties earlier this year, once was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. His observation at the end of a period of questioning Thursday seemed to be in keeping with statements that South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham made earlier this week, when he told the 55-year-old judge he thought she was sure to be approved, barring a meltdown at the hearings.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/...xsbmJzcHN0b3I-

Jolie Rouge · 07-16-2009, 01:06 PM

It was stated prior to the hearing even starting that "barring a meltdown, Sotomayor would be confirmed"

Jolie Rouge · 10-19-2009, 04:45 PM

Sotomayor Says White House Even Picked Out Her Clothes
Officials took over her fashion decisions, she says
By BRAD DRAZEN and LEANNE GENDREAU
Updated 1:48 PM EDT, Mon, Oct 19, 2009

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination process was so controlled that the White House even approved her clothes, she told Yalies when she appeared at her 30th Yale Law School reunion on Saturday.

Sotomayor described her grueling nomination process privately when she spoke to 1,800 alumni, students and faculty , the New Haven Register reports.

State Sen. Ed Meyer attended the event and said Sotomayor became teary at times, but kept the crowd laughing.

The Yale Law School grad talked about shopping for clothes to wear to her acceptance ceremony, but government officials took over the fashion decisions. They told her to bring five suits and then recommended which one she should wear, Meyer said.

The whole vetting process was intrusive, she said, according to the Yale Daily News. The FBI even investigated a parking ticket she had received two years earlier.

New Haven is not only home to Sotomayor's alma mater, it is also home to one of the most controversial issues to come up during the justice's nomination process.

Sotomayor was on a three-judge appellate panel that took the city's side in a now-famous reverse discrimination suit that several New Haven firefighters filed. Sotomayor's panel took the city's side that too few minorities scored high and it would therefore be open to discrimination lawsuits.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the appellate court's ruling over the summer.

In addition to the Law School event, Sotomayor, the first Latina on the Supreme Court, also attended a luncheon, reception and the reunion dinner with about 50 guests. She was escorted by the United States Supreme Court Police and requested that no members of the media attend the conversation with alumni, students and faculty, the Register reports.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/p...-64724512.html

Poll at same site: Locals are :
72% furious : 605
11% laughing : 90
7% sad : 61
7% bored : 55
2% intrigued : 15
1% thrilled : 9

Why would anyone be happy that our tax dollars went towards White House staff consulting on confirmation fashion. Seems like a wasted effort, if a Supreme Court nominee can't dress appropriately I doubt they will be able to make their own decisions on the bench!

Yet more duplicity. They have the nerve to do this after bashing Sarah Palin's and the same situation.

WHERE IS THE TRANSPARENCY WE WERE PROMISED? Where is the c-span of all meetings? This administration is just as corrupt as any other. It is in fact more dangerous because there are so many lemmings following them. All of us must see that they have lied again, and again, and again. We have more of the same, again.

Jolie Rouge · 11-10-2009, 06:09 PM

Sotomayor poses in court for Latina magazine cover
By Jesse Washington, Ap National Writer
9 mins ago

Sonia Sotomayor heeded White House advice to paint her fingernails a neutral shade during her Supreme Court confirmation process — up to a point.

At a White House reception after her confirmation, Sotomayor showed her freshly painted red nails to President Barack Obama, along with her red-and-black semi-hoop earrings, according to an article in the new issue of Latina magazine to be released Nov. 17. Obama joked that Sotomayor had been briefed on proper nail color and earring size.

"Mr. President, you have no idea what you've unleashed," Sotomayor replied, according to the article by her close friend Sandra Guzman, who was at the event.

While Obama was still deciding whom to nominate, Sotomayor wondered if the job was right for her. Just three weeks before the president announced his choice, Sotomayor confided to a friend that she was leery of losing privacy and time with her mother and wanted to withdraw her name from consideration.

"This is not about you," attorney Lee Llambelis said he told Sotomayor. "It's about the little girls and boys, brown and black, who live in the projects and poor communities around our nation, who can dream bigger if you are in the Supreme Court."

Sotomayor has granted few, if any, sit-down interviews since becoming the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court. She did not give a formal interview to Guzman, the former editor-in-chief of Latina, but agreed to be photographed inside the Supreme Court building.

The article details Sotomayor's personal life, including a 1983 divorce from her high school sweetheart, Kevin Noonan; a broken engagement to a Bronx contractor, Peter White, in 2000; and her most recent relationship, "a friend with no strings attached."

Guzman said she once sought advice on her own marital problems from Sotomayor, who told her, "To find happiness in love ... we have to make up our own rules."

___

Latina magazine: http://www.latina.com

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091110/...atina_magazine