John Hinderaker, who once actually wrote
" It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile."
…on the internets for all to read and re-quote for eternity times infinity plus 3, was reserving his obviously awesome judgment on that Mexirican judge lady but, oh-ho! she slipped up today and John must now withdraw his tentative imaginary non-binding endorsement:
Sotomayor employs a rhetorical dodge by focusing on how she interpreted Justice O’Connor’s famous statement that "a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases." She says that O’Connor couldn’t have meant that the the wise man and the wise woman will reach the same decision in every case, since judges often disagree. Rather, she interpreted O’Connor’s statement to mean that men and women have an equal capacity to reach wise judgments.
Of course that’s correct: O’Connor was saying that men and women shouldn’t reach different decisions because of their genders. But here is where Sotomayor hides the ball. Having created a diversion by talking about what O’Connor meant, she slipped in this key statement: "the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey."
That statement is a falsehood. Sotomayor’s whole point in quoting Justice O’Connor was to disagree with, or at least express reservations about, O’Connor’s view that the judge’s gender shouldn’t affect the outcome of a case. Here is the passage from Sotomayor’s speech:
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her "wise Latina" remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t "agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey," as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, "that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges."
I’ve been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.
Thank goodness Justice Sotomayor gave John an out. Now he won’t have to worry about Jeff Sessions calling him a race traitor nor will he have to admit that he’s suspicious of Sotomayor because she comes from Mexico Island.
Login Here





14 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Jesus Christ, what the fucking fuck is his fucking point? Am I just so fucking tired that I can’t see the inconsistency The Prairie Darrow has hit on? BTW, what the fucking fuck does this mean, anyway?:
“We collaborate with clients to minimize legal risk and maximize business results, delivering timely and cost-effective solutions.”
It’s from his law firm’s web site, and I don’t fucking understand it, either. Not the boy I’d call in for a death penalty defense.
Unless I really fucking hated the defendant.
Fuck knuckle Bush knob slobberer.
“We collaborate with clients to minimize legal risk and maximize business results, delivering timely and cost-effective solutions.”
They forgot to mention leveraging synergies for industry-leading enterprise solutions in knowledge-based fields.
I think the fact that Judge Sotomayor’s lacks the requisite equipment to effectively teabag poor John has colored his judgement of the good lady.
You mean to say Hinderaker actually is a lawyer?
I know, 30 years after law school I should be thoroughly disabused of the notion that lawyers are necessarily smart…
Amazing how these jokers aren’t even bothering with critiques of her decisions….guess that’s a loser tactic. So, lets find one statement she made sometime in her past and make that the centerpiece of our attack.
Lets face it, no candidate offered by a Democratic President will be acceptable to these clowns, no matter how moderate and uncontroversial the choice is. Next time, lets give them a real liberal nomination and watch them keel over from the shock.
I’m afraid he still doesn’t have an out:
Can’t see how this is at variance with the Judge’s sentiments. I’m sorry but Hinderaker remains ineluctably bound to his solemn covenant with the Judge.
I think the state of Tennessee may want their money back on this one. If this is and example of his level of legal reasoning, he is committing academic malpractice.
Mario Cuomo – he’d be an awesome Supreme Court justice. Guaranteed to make the wingnuts in this country do a Jonestown (Koolaid with extra cyanide anyone?)
Is that an actual picture of him? It’s strangely hypnotizing, in a grotesque kind of way.
I am so fucking tired of the smug, overprivileged white guys (mostly old) in the GOP pontificating on how everyone else is prejudiced and cannot possibly be an impartial judge. That includes all the partisan hacks.
Fuck you, Sessions, Graham, et. al. You all fucking suck.
P.S. JDM3, man, you’re extra-hot today. Keep it up!
As someone who has been managing a firm for 5 years, allow me to translate the legalese:
“We rack up as many billable hours as possible to cover our collective asses and business operating costs, while delivering a solution right before your retainer/legal defense budget runs dry, to save us the cost of filing collection writs.”
Does this clarify the issue?
U fergot the part about paying their general counsel for the “work” in the first place.
Maybe Governor Cuomo can reprise some of his hits that are guaranteed to blow the minds of the wingnuts.
On Ronald Reagan: “He made a virtue out of denying compassion to those who need it the most.”
On Rudy Giuliani: “Beware of those with a propensity to punish.”
I know he has a lot more, but this would have to suffice for the first day’s hearing. Gotta give them time to clear the bodies of the keeled-over and mind-blown.
JDM3: Advance payment is implied. The only thing that’s “free” is the intake, to insure there’s no conflict. And BigLaw makes that up when they charge you for the time it takes to bill you.
We will achieve the goal by striving to leverage the achievement of the
goal through interfacing with the goal’s achievement. Furthermore, the goal
will be achieved when we achieve the goal.