Considering the current make-up of the Senate, it looks like during her coaching sessions she was told the only thing that might keep her from being confirmed is if she hangs herself during these hearings. If she doesn’t give any answers, she can’t screw herself, so she’ll go up there and say a whole lot of nothing. It’s like a C-SPAN version of Seinfeld; almost like watching someone plead the 5th. I’ve been on the fence about her, withholding judgment until I heard what she had to say. So far, all her answers are telling me is that is that political games and personal ambition are more important to her than helping us to make an informed decision on a matter of vital importance to our nation. These hearings are a complete waste of time. If she can’t tell us where she stands, then she’s unfit to sit on the bench.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

No worries mate,, she is going to be on the SC.
Just relax and watch the dog and pony show..

Americans today have less of a voice in matters like this than in years gone past.

__________________
Government Should Fear the People That Voted Them In!!

New Government=one that the President likes a GOP idea but then the Staff puts that Idea in a very DEEP HOLE.

Read HR143 get enlightment.

The Revolution Will not be Televised

Her answers are nothing new.
How Sotomayor's comments compare to Roberts, Alito - Yahoo! News
She's following a path charted by several nominees before her, including Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, on the questions they've all been asked.

A comparison of what she said on some key topics versus what Roberts and Alito said at their confirmation hearings:

She has made a career out of telling us where she stands. She should not sit on any bench, let alone the SC.

__________________
Democrats, finding new ways to destroy wealth for over 100 years.

that path was chartered by Ginsburg whom was alowed to dance around many questions, she would repond that she didn't feel comfortable responding to events she may have to judge on in the future, I agree on the whole wiht that, but roberts and alito were asked much more forthcoming questions and appeared to me to answer them with more authority as it applies to rulings etc. .

Roberts was pinned down several times ala stare decisis especially when it came to abortion.

and at the end Obama voted against them both anyway aside from saying he would take part in a filibuster if one were attempted. His reasoning was well, yea they appear qualified but I just cannot agree that they should be seated or some such non committal meanderings. So, if she only wind up with 20 reps. vtes there should be no heartburn.

She apparently has trouble with ‘vagrancies’ and ‘vagaries’ too.

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

Unlike Sotomayor, I can’t find anything from Alito or Roberts saying they were looking forward to clearing up such issues during the confirmation process;

The White House - Press Office - Remarks by the President in Nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Has anyone else developed a personal dislike for Sotomayor? When I see her and hear her on cspan, I feel like shes being political and dishonest, regardless of what shes actually saying. I dont think she has a pleasent public personality.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

Her voice does have a very odd quality to it. I think she's probably just an odd person over all, but I don't think anyone on the SCOTUS is exactly like me or you.

She doesn't seem to have a pleasant public personality, but once this hearing is over, how often will she be giving public appearances? How often do you see a member of SCOTUS on TV giving a speech? Not very often. Public personality is not a very important issue to that position, IMO.

I think she's showing a lot of stress in her face (if you look at tape of her pre-hearing compared to the hearing) and being very careful to not really answer any questions with something controversial.

To assign nefarious motives or assume that she's lying because of her appearance, while being grilled, seems a bit presumptuous and perhaps fantasy based.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

This is interesting....kind of refreshed my memory.

I had the idea that Roberts and Alito were more forthcoming....I guess it had more to do with their presentation style than the actual content of their answers.

I remember them being more direct and answering more quickly...I think it's a matter of style. Sotomayor appears to be uncomfortably careful where the other guys seemed more at ease while avoiding answering questions.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

I agree with you. I don't think she's hiding anything, she's just not a smooth talker. From hearing some of her other speeches, she was probably very heavily coached about keeping her views to herself, and it's difficult for her.

Some people just aren't comfortable in these situations and it comes across as something else. Luckily this particular job doesn't really require to her to have excellent oratory skills.

I think thats the point though. Shes coming off badly because shes forcing herself to be totally controlled. Why exactly does a SC nominee have to be coached? I would prefer to see someone being honest and natural, even if I disagree with them.

__________________
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his father has acquired too much, in order to spare to others who (or whose fathers) have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "to guarantee to everyone a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

-Thomas Jefferson

But if she is willing to go on record in front of the senate with her stance on issues that could potentially come before her and SCOTUS, doesn't that pretty much negate any chance of impartiality?

Of course everyone has personal opinions about things, it's impossible not to. But to go on record as already decided on major issues would give her zero credibility.

On the other hand, she's wrecking any credibility she may already have by looking deceitful.

Silly all around I think. Just another dog and pony show, they knew all along she'd be confirmed. She may have made some statements that people don't like, but her record shows that she is a good judge for the SCOTUS at this moment in time. She shouldn't shake up the power structure too much, and the last thing we need is something else in turmoil!!!!

I don't think it's working for her as well as it did for Roberts and Alito. Since their hearings, we've had WAY too many politicians evade and mislead to try to save their own hide. I think the American public is fed up with politicians who feel like they don't owe us an explanation, and she's looking like one.

If she has such strong personal opinions on an issue that it would show thru in the confirmation hearings, then she probably ought to recuse herself from trying those cases. Its hard to imagine her being able to maintain objectivity in those instances.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston