Community | July 16, 2009 | 12 comments

Most of the senate judiciary absent for important testimony in Sotomayor hearing

source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20090716/ts_ynews/ynews_ts434_476

Image
regjoeschmo
Firefighters testify, but not everyone's listening

Thur Jul 16, 3:15 pm ET

Not everyone showed up to hear the Republicans' star witness testify: the firefighter at the center of a controversial reverse-discrimination case much-discussed during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing.

Frank Ricci told his story -- but he didn't mention Sotomayor by name in his statement. He did say the case at hand was not about his dyslexia, but about fairness. "The more attention our case got, the more some people tried to distort it," Ricci said. "We sought basic fairness and even-handed enforcement of the laws, something all Americans believe in."

Ben Vargas, another firefighter, also testified the focus of the case should have been on what he did to deserve a promotion. He said: "The focus should not have been on me being Hispanic."

Only the following senators heard their statements -- Ben Cardin of Maryland, Chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania for the Democrats; Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Orrin Hatch of Utah, John Cornyn of Texas, and Lindsey Graham for the Republicans. Only Leahy appeared to be reading, the rest listened intently.

The two firefighters filed a reverse discrimination suit that Sotomayor joined in dismissing. The Supreme Court reversed that decision last month. The case has proved a leading cause for conservatives opposed to Sotomayor. The judge's critics have criticized her for dismissing the firefighters' arguments without a hearing. They were trying to win promotions they said they earned on an examination that the city administered.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Feminism
  2. tags:
    Corruption,  Racism,  Supreme Court,  Prejudice,  5 more
  3.     
    |

12 comments // Most of the senate judiciary absent for important testimony in Sotomayor hearing

  • MoonLoon
  • MoonLoon
    • 0
      MoonLoon  

    • I propose a new policy If they do not attend 95% of meetings they should be forced to stand naked before the Washington Monument, in Mid-Winter begging forgiveness from the voters!

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
  • Steward2
    • 0
      Steward2  

    • WoW what Hostile replys to a QUESTION which is Not Silly but a Question and in no means criticism,

      get a life and maybe stop being a victim

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  

    • I bet you Democrats are SOOOOO proud of Al Franken:

      "Judge, what was the case that Perry Mason lost?"

      WHAT A F*ing GENIUS.

      He must have learned his interviewing skills by watching the Media interview Obama.

      "Ok, now get ready for my hardball questions: Mr. President, how come you are the coolest and sexiest man alive?"

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • curtisreed:

      and what does this have to do with the judiciary commitee ignoring a racist ruling by Mrs Sotomayor??

      If you knew anything about Al Franken, you would have taken his actions as cynical.... It is his way of saying "this is a joke".......He does not take this seriously as it is basicaly a dog and poney show... kind of like that whole partisan crap they feed you through the media to make you ignore the real issues we face as a nation.....

    • 2 years ago
  • MoonLoon
  • Steward2
    • 0
      Steward2  

    • I do have a question ,,
      when did it happen that in English USA language that mayor,which we have many through out this country has turned into being called MAYEIR as SotoMayor says her name is pronounced

    • 2 years ago
  • curtisreed
    • 0
      curtisreed  
    • Steward2:

      It's not English, it's Spanish. Soh toh my yor. (accent on the last syllable)

      let's not get silly to criticize a name pronunciation in English. English pronunciation is senseless.

      Pronounce these words and tell me how the spelling and the pronunciation make sense: "right", "tough", "knight", "O'Reilly", "Limbaugh"

      I could go on. AT least people are trying to get her name right.

      not that it's worth the effort

    • 2 years ago
  • regjoeschmo
    • 0
      regjoeschmo  
    • Steward2:

      Id have to agree, the topic of this is how the judiciary commitee failed to even pay attention to the most important and recent ruling made by Mrs Sotomayor, not to trivialise her name pronunciation.....

    • 2 years ago
  • Steward2
    • 0
      Steward2  

    • I think she so far out there ,,,as in thinking she is a centerpiece for a holiday diner and will rule in the same manner

      --

      info:

      Confirmation hearings pointless, waste of time
      Jim Brown - OneNewsNow - 7/16/2009 4:00:00 AMBookmark and Share

      Former Republican senator and presidential candidate Fred Thompson says the Senate confirmation hearings process for Supreme Court nominees is a waste of time.

      http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=605162

      Fred ThompsonSpeaking on his radio show Tuesday, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson said the goal of a judicial nominee in the confirmation process is to "play for time and never say anything objectionable" because the process is for the purpose of giving a nominee an opportunity to make a gaffe. He made his comments in the midst of hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first nominee for a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court.
      Thompson said based on his experience with confirmation hearings, what a nominee says during his or her hearing is one of the least important considerations that should influence a senator's vote.
      Sonia Sotomayor small (from AP)"A nominee's judicial and professional record, along with their public statements and reputation for integrity, are much more reliable indicators as to the kind of judge they will be," he contends. "Our Founding Fathers recognized this early on, and it is the main reason confirmation hearings were not even held on a regular basis until the 1950s."
      Thompson noted that in 1987, Reagan Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork "refused to subject himself to the usual dog-and-pony Q & A," and was rejected by the Senate after being candid about his judicial philosophy.

      The former senator represented The Volunteer State in the U.S. Senate from December 1994 until early January 2003.

    • 2 years ago
  • justadad
    • 0
      justadad  

    • In noted speech(es) to a woman's group, she recited

      "our experiences as women will in some way affect our decisions.” . . . [That is,] “my experiences will affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.”

      Note the "I choose to see."

      The speaker did not recite of "perception," but rather of what "they choose" to see.

      Is this the real-time portrayal of a wink-wink nod for judicial activism by judicial activist?

    • 2 years ago
more from Community:
from the community

top videos