Available at 
Tweet
What do we think? How's she doing?
Honestly, I think she's doing really well. Maybe I'll change my mind by the end, but right now, she hasn't said anything off-the-wall. Her explanation of her "wise Latina" comment was kind of lame (essentially, "I didn't quite mean it the way it sounded; I was trying to inspire"), but--other than not commenting on it at all--what is she supposed to say? And, to be honest, her comments re: the inability of anyone to reach total impartiality is probably...correct...for anyone. Even though it is not ideal.
And, she seems to believe that when she's wearing the robe, she's bound by the law, not her preferred view of the world. I know that conservatives are very concerned about her many comments off the bench that support a race-preference view on the law. But, thus far, they haven't been able--I think--to show that her written legal judgments show that she favors the interests of minorities over the correct application of the law.
I agree with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that I find many of her off-the-bench comments and some of her professional legal associations troubling. Because they suggest that she--personally--is quite left of center. But, thus far, I haven't seen any analysis that strongly suggests she'll be radical from the bench. And she's firmly stated that she does not follow the Legal Realism school of thought.
As I write, Lindsey is pimping her on whether abortion is addressed by the Constitution. He is trying to get her to say that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion (which is correct--the word is not there--just as the phrase "right to privacy" is not there). She, however, is trying--diplomatically--to add that the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution indirectly addresses abortion through the implied right to privacy. But the conversation is like watching ships pass in the night. Both are right, and neither really has an illuminating point.
I give her points totally TOASTING Grassley (R-NE). That was just funny. Seriously. Who prepped Grassley? That intern should be fired.
Schumer (D-NY) was his usual insipid, insufferable self. And what about the remark by Leahy (D-VT) yesterday, at the opening, warning that, "No one will hurt this woman." How condescending was that? And, by the way, this woman could probably kick your butt on an intellectual level. I hardly thinks she needs protection from the big scary Senators.
Honestly, I think she's doing really well. Maybe I'll change my mind by the end, but right now, she hasn't said anything off-the-wall. Her explanation of her "wise Latina" comment was kind of lame (essentially, "I didn't quite mean it the way it sounded; I was trying to inspire"), but--other than not commenting on it at all--what is she supposed to say? And, to be honest, her comments re: the inability of anyone to reach total impartiality is probably...correct...for anyone. Even though it is not ideal.
And, she seems to believe that when she's wearing the robe, she's bound by the law, not her preferred view of the world. I know that conservatives are very concerned about her many comments off the bench that support a race-preference view on the law. But, thus far, they haven't been able--I think--to show that her written legal judgments show that she favors the interests of minorities over the correct application of the law.
I agree with Lindsey Graham (R-SC) that I find many of her off-the-bench comments and some of her professional legal associations troubling. Because they suggest that she--personally--is quite left of center. But, thus far, I haven't seen any analysis that strongly suggests she'll be radical from the bench. And she's firmly stated that she does not follow the Legal Realism school of thought.
As I write, Lindsey is pimping her on whether abortion is addressed by the Constitution. He is trying to get her to say that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion (which is correct--the word is not there--just as the phrase "right to privacy" is not there). She, however, is trying--diplomatically--to add that the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution indirectly addresses abortion through the implied right to privacy. But the conversation is like watching ships pass in the night. Both are right, and neither really has an illuminating point.
I give her points totally TOASTING Grassley (R-NE). That was just funny. Seriously. Who prepped Grassley? That intern should be fired.
Schumer (D-NY) was his usual insipid, insufferable self. And what about the remark by Leahy (D-VT) yesterday, at the opening, warning that, "No one will hurt this woman." How condescending was that? And, by the way, this woman could probably kick your butt on an intellectual level. I hardly thinks she needs protection from the big scary Senators.
Comment