Tuesday, 14 July 2009

PREVIOUS POST
The Passion of the Sotomayor, Part II JOHN CORNYN (R): Do you believe that judges ever change the law? [Let me clarify: I don't think they should when people like you are on the bench.] JOHN CORNYN (R): You wrote that the law judges declare is not, quote, “a definitive capital-L Law that would many would like to think exists,” and, quote, “that the public fails to appreciate the importance of indefiniteness in the law.” Can you explain those statements? [The Law is like the Bible: it has always said what I say it said the moment I say it said it.] JOHN CORNYN (R): In a 2001 speech at Berkeley, you wrote that “whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences . . . our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” The difference is physiological if it relates to the mechanical, physical, or biochemical functions of the body, as I understand the word. What do you mean by that? [I'm a convenient egalitarian and I'm going to pretend your statement applies to judges on the bench instead of whether we ought to let blind people be fighter pilots .] JOHN CORNYN (R): We’re not talking about pilots. [Enough with the pilots already. If you don't stop addressing the substance of your argument, I won't be able to trick you into saying you believe ridiculous things.] JOHN CORNYN (R): So you stand by the comment or the statement that inherent physiological differences will make a difference in judging? [Why won't you walk into my trap? It says it right there: THIS IS A TRAP. Are you fucking illiterate?] JOHN CORNYN (R): I’m struggling a little bit to understand how your statement about physiological differences could affect the outcome or affect judging and your stated commitment to fidelity to the law as being your sole standard and how any litigant can know where that will end. But let me ask you on another topic. [Fine. If you don't like that trap, I have others.] JOHN CORNYN (R): There was a Washington Post story that said, “The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s scant record on abortion rights.” It goes on to say, “the White House press secretary said the president did not ask Sotomayor specifically about abortion rights during their interview.” If that’s the case, on what basis would White House officials subsequently send a message that abortion rights groups do not need to worry about how you might rule in a challenge to Roe v. Wade? [How exactly would the mainstream liberals in the White House know what a mainstream liberal like yourself believes?] JEFFERSON BEAUREGARD SESSIONS, III (R): I would offer a letter for the record from the National Rifle Association in which they express serious concern about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I would also offer for the record a letter from Mr. Richard Land, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, also...

Become a Fan

Recent Comments