Sotomayor Slips Up

The prospective justice forgets a key ‘Perry Mason’ episode. Plus: highlights from day three of the confirmation hearings.

New York State photo.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


MoJo D.C. bureau Legal Affairs reporter Stephanie Mencimer is reporting live from inside the Sotomayor confirmation hearings this week. This is the wrap-up of Wednesday’s action. If you missed Monday or Tuesday, check out the wrap-ups: Pride and Prejudice and Where Did Sotomayor’s Empathy Go? For the latest analysis, watch our video and live blog here, or follow Stephanie’s and David Corn’s coverage on Twitter.

After three days of Senate confirmation hearings, we’ve learned a lot of things—none of them, of course, about Sonia Sotomayor. Instead, the hearings have clarified a great deal about what the two political parties really care about when it comes to the Supreme Court, which can be boiled down to this:

Republicans care about:

* Guns

* Foreigners

* The supremacy of old white guys

* The unborn

* Guns

Democrats care about:

* Presidential power

* John Roberts

* Strip searches of 13-year-old girls

* Baseball

Republicans also devoted a lot of time to grilling Sotomayor on the relationship between Court and Congress. That is, they tried to get her to promise to keep her hands off their legislation even if it’s crazy. Yesterday, Sen. Lindsay Graham informed Sotomayor that the best way to “change society” was through the polling booth, not by judicial fiat. But should people at the voting booth decide they want to, for instance, ban handguns in the District of Columbia, those same senators want to ensure Sotomayor will overturn the will of the people or get out of the way so the rest of the court can do it.

Over and over, the GOP senators tried to get Sotomayor to recuse herself from the many gun cases headed for the Supreme Court next term. Those cases will give the court the opportunity to decide whether its decision in the Heller case—that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms in the District of Columbia—should also apply to the states. So far, the lower courts have said that the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply—including Sotomayor’s Second Circuit. As with virtually every other question she’s been asked, Sotomayor refused to commit one way or another. Which means we’re going to have to listen to more of this stuff tomorrow.

None of the rehash has provided any particularly new revelations about the nominee. If she revealed any prejudices or biases under questioning, it wasn’t for Latinos or women, but for prosecutors and cops. (MoJo’s James Ridgeway has more on her prosecution-friendly record here.) No one seemed particularly concerned by her comments suggesting that it was okay for cops to violate people’s constitutional rights so long as a judge signs off on it. Democrats actually wielded a study showing that as a district court judge, Sotomayor convicted criminal defendants at a higher rate and gave them longer sentences than most of her colleagues. This is a very odd selling point coming from a party proposing a major overhaul of the criminal justice system.

Sotomayor seemed to hit her stride today, exhibiting more confidence and pushing back a little against her antagonists. She also politely endured questioning by Sen. Tom Coburn, who told her, in an apparent reference to the Hispanic character on I Love Lucy, “You have lots of ‘splainin’ to do.” (See the video clip here.) Coburn spent much of his time quizzing the nominee about the intricacies of fetal viability and whether the states had the right to define “death.” Sotomayor looked slightly perplexed, but she deflected the weirdness with a cheerful smile.

The day’s highlight came courtesy of Sen. Al Franken, who, as John Dickerson of Slate observed, finally cracked his first joke since running for office. (Watch the video below.) Franken grilled Sotomayor on how she could have been inspired to be a prosecutor by Perry Mason when the prosecutor on the show always loses. Later, Franken asked Sotomayor if she knew the one episode in which Mason loses a case. She didn’t, causing Franken to exclaim, “Didn’t the White House brief you?” And of course, everyone laughed, including the nominee, who looked like she was finally enjoying herself.

Click here for Stephanie Mencimer’s live coverage of the confirmation hearings.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate