THE DAILY BLADE: Franken Reverts To Form
Admit it: You were surprised – if not shocked – that Al Franken (D-MN) acquitted himself with dignity and soberness yesterday, in his opening statement during Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing. He humbly acknowledged and gave props to his betters on the Judiciary Committee, in particular Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL); he was the only Senator to acknowledge that Committee member Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) was not present for a Supreme Court confirmation hearing since 1965; pledged to take his oath of office “very seriously” as he considered this nomination; and promised “to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern the people of Minnesota and the people of this nation” after having spent “a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds.”
And then he backed it up with a discussion of the separation of powers:
First, I believe that the position of Congress, with respect to the courts and the executive, is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believe that the framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.
I am wary of judicial activism, and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to the Congress and not make policy by itself.
Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years, and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.
So when it came his turn to question Judge Sotomayor today, he zeroed in on the Number One thing that is keeping his constituents up at night: What was the only case Perry Mason lost? After some polite back-and-forth on the Supreme Court’s Brand X decision, her definition of judicial activism (particularly in the context of the Voting Rights Act and separation of powers), and whether privacy (in the context of abortion and birth control) or any other fundamental right has to be specifically stated in the Constitution, Franken used part of his allotted time to grill her about this episode:
Franken: I was a big fan of "Perry Mason." I watched "Perry Mason" every week with my dad and my mom and my brother. …
And it amazes me that you wanted to become a prosecutor based on that show because, in "Perry Mason," the prosecutor, Berger, lost every week, with one exception that we'll get to later.
But I think that says something about your determination to defy the odds. And while you were watching "Perry Mason" in the South Bronx with your mom and your brother, and I was watching "Perry Mason" in suburban Minneapolis with my folks and my brother, and here we are today. And I'm asking you questions because you have been nominated to be a justice of the United States Supreme Court. I think that's pretty cool. [Emphasis, The Stiletto.] …
Franken: What was the one case in "Perry Mason" that Berger won?
Sotomayor: There - I wish I remembered the name of the episode, but I don't. I just was always struck that there was only one case where his client was actually guilty.
Franken: And you don't remember that case?
Sotomayor: I know that I should remember the name of it, but I haven't looked at the episode. I...
Franken: Didn't the White House prepare you for that?
Sotomayor: You're right, but I was spending a lot of time on reviewing cases. …
Franken: Oh. Oh, OK. Well, I - we - our whole family watched it, and - because there was no Internet at the time, you and I were watching at the same time. And I thank you, and I guess I'll talk to you in the follow-up.
At this point, Leahy asked if Franken would clue them all in – only to find that Franken was himself clueless (“That's why I was asking. If I knew, I wouldn't have asked her.”), whereupon Leahy informed Sotomayor that the Committee “will not hold your inability to answer the question against you.” Then Leahy and Sessions agreed to proceed to a closed session – no doubt the citizens of MN were wishing that Franken’s turn at the mike (which The Washington Post’s often droll but not always original [last item] Dana Milbank described as being “half Senate Judiciary, half ‘Saturday Night Live’”) had taken place behind closed doors.
Editorial Note: The only reason Franken is asking Sotomayor questions is because he manipulated the election system with the help of a sympathetic state judiciary.
Real Sexism Vs. Perceived Racism: Guess Which One Gets Libs All Riled Up?
Marcia Pappas, President of NOW-NYS – whose concern for women’s rights does not end at this country’s shores, in marked contrast to national women’s rights groups like NOW – issued a statement taking
Pappas’ statement reads, in part:
NOW-New York State denounces for his inappropriate and sexist cartoon depicting Senator Kirsten Gillibrand as a loud mouth in need of gagging. It looks like the Daily News has a new target for their [sic] misogynistic garbage. So what is the message, "Sit down and shut up girls"?
So where’s the outrage amongst the Dem and Lib politicians and pundits who went ape-sh*t over a New York Post cartoon of a chimpanzee, claiming that the beast was a stand-in for President Barack Hussein Obama? Unlike numerous depictions (last item) of George W. Bush during his tenure as president, the Post cartoonist did not draw Obama’s face on the chimpanzee; he drew a chimpanzee’s face on the chimpanzee so whether the cartoon was a racist depiction of our first biracial president is very much in the eye of the beholder. The misogyny in this Gillibrand cartoon is not nuanced, nor open to interpretation. Its message is as clear as those cartoons showing Bush 43 as being sub-human.
[Hat Tip: BettyJean Kling, who blogs at Free Us Now]
A Boy Named Sue
A study published in Social Science Quarterly suggests that boys given popular names, such as Michael and Joshua, grow up to be law-abiding citizens, whereas those given “uncommon or feminine” names, such as Kareem and Walter, have a higher propensity to end up in prison. The study’s lead author, Shippensburg (PA) University professor David Kalist explains that such boys are teased by schoolmates, live in families of limited economic means, “and face discrimination in the workforce based on a preconceived bias about their names.” The study analyzed more than 15,000 names.
Comments