What an absurd little dog and pony show our elected officials perform every time there is a Supreme Court Justice appointed. Senator after Senator using 95% of their allotted time to blather on and on, only to either lob a softball or ask a question they know she cannot ethically answer. They go through this ridiculous Kabuki dance before ultimately voting the way we all know they are going to vote even before the nominee is announced. It's madness.

Here's something that I, as an attorney, do not get at all -- what on God's green earth could the firefighters that were the subject of that one case that is the source of all of the controversy (the so-called "reverse racism" case) add to this hearing? What, they didn't like the ruling? By the very nature of the adversarial process, 50% of litigants lose, and those people probably aren't very happy with the rulings, either. Being unhappy about a judge's ruling against you qualifies you to do absolutely nothing at all.

The absurdity is highlighted by the fact that I would be stunned to learn that these fire fighters had ever been in her presence before today, and in the unlikely event they had been, there is virtually no chance whatsoever that they actually interacted with the judge at all. Circuit judges -- which is what she was most recently -- do not try cases, they handle appeals and because courts of appeal do not hear testimony and typically focus upon arguments of a legal -- rather than factual -- nature, there would simply be no reason for them to have addressed the court personally. I have never, ever brought my client to an appellate argument, or anything that didn't require testimony, for that matter. With that being the case, what could they possibly say?

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

one things for sure... she cant photograph for shit.

every picture i have seen of her reminds me of Sloth from the Goonies. :(

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[QUOTE=toasty;769416]What an absurd little dog and pony show our elected officials perform every time there is a Supreme Court Justice appointed. Senator after Senator using 95% of their allotted time to blather on and on, only to either lob a softball or ask a question they know she cannot ethically answer. They go through this ridiculous Kabuki dance before ultimately voting the way we all know they are going to vote even before the nominee is announced. It's madness.[/QUOTE] You know, I was seriously thinking just this the other day when I reflected on how they tried to get Clarence Thomas to divulge his personal opinions on abortion years back during his hearings... I guess it's some element of job security for these folks.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

I don't like these confirmation hearings either. The senators usually speak for literally hours before the nominee even gets a chance to speak a word. I think we all know and the senators know she's going to get confirmed. No need to turn this into a weeks long political process.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[quote=toasty;769416]

Circuit judges -- typically focus upon arguments of a legal -- rather than factual -- nature, there would simply be no reason for them to have addressed the court personally. [/quote]

Could you please explain this. Upon first reading it doesn't sit well with me.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[quote=Lorn;769668]Could you please explain this. Upon first reading it doesn't sit well with me.[/quote]

Sorry if I'm telling you something you already know, but it's easiest to start at a very basic level, not trying to insult your intelligence. In the federal courts system, there are three types of courts:

1. District Courts, which are trial courts, where matters are heard initially;
2. Circuit Courts, which hear appeals from the District Courts; and,
3. The Supreme Court, which hears, at its discretion, appeals from the Circuit Courts and/or appeals from state supreme courts which address federal or constitutional law.

Note that many state court systems flip the first two -- trial courts are called circuit courts, and district courts hear appeals.

Anyway, appellate courts are not, generally speaking, finders of fact. They may be called upon to evaluate something as being against the weight of the evidence, but that is an extremely high and difficult standard to meet, and great deference is always given to the trial court, as fact-finder, because it has the opportunity to view witnesses live, assess their credibility, etc. The primary role of a circuit court is to assess whether or not the trial court's rulings are consistent with the applicable law.

The only thing that happens at an appellate (circuit level) hearing is that the attorneys make their presentations as to why a legal error has occurred, with the panel of judges peppering you with questions regarding your arguments. Clients are typically not present, and if they are, they are there strictly to observe. Live testimony is NEVER presented at the Circuit level -- that's what trial courts are for. Circuit court judges hear legal arguments, and apply those arguments to the facts that were developed at the trial level.

With that being the case, there is no chance that these firefighters ever had any sort of interaction with Sotomayor beyond possibly watching her question their attorneys. Indeed, I happened to catch a part of their testimony yesterday, and they confirmed that they had not. As such, it is ludicrous to ask them to offer any thoughts on her at all -- they are sitting there because they happened to be litigants in a case over a hot button issue, period.

Does that make sense?

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[quote=toasty;769701]

The primary role of a circuit court is to assess whether or not the trial court's rulings are consistent with the applicable law.

[/quote]

Like it put this way over the original one I questioned.

Thanks.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[quote=Lorn;769714]Like it put this way over the original one I questioned. [/quote]

Pot-A-to, pot-aaa-to, IMO, but whatever makes you happy. ;)

As an aside, I don't begrudge these firefighters for participating in this at all, and if anything, I'm irritated that the opposition has decided to use these guys as props because they are, through no fault of their own, incapable of adding anything to the hearing.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

[quote=toasty;769725]Pot-A-to, pot-aaa-to, IMO, but whatever makes you happy. ;)[/quote]

True.

[quote] As an aside, I don't begrudge these firefighters for participating in this at all, and if anything, I'm irritated that the opposition has decided to use these guys as props because they are, through no fault of their own, incapable of adding anything to the hearing.[/quote]

Agreed. Lets see some bones honest soul searching questions for the lady please. After all this is a lifetime appointment so its [I]damn[/I] important.

Sadly these idiots in congress can't see past opportunity to campaign against one another.

Re: Sotomayor Hearings

I thought there were both low and high points made personally and found it fascinating at times.