Sotomayor hearings: The complete transcript -- Part 5 of 5

As The Ticket often does, in addition to our own take on politics and events, we are providing a complete transcript here for those interested in reading the political participants' own words in full.

Here's the fifth and final part of the transcript of the second day of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, so Ticket readers can make their own judgments on the back-and-forth between the nominee and the interrogating senators -- some setting her up with softballs, others pursuing tougher lines of questioning.

A complete cast of characters is added to the bottom of this item.

Yesterday, we published each committee senator's opening statement. And we published Sotomayor's opening statement. Part 1 of today's transcript is available by clicking here. Part 2 of today's transcript is available here.

Part 3 is available here.

Part 4  of the July 14 Sotomayor transcript is here.

Keep checking back for new updates throughout the hearing and see the variety of items our Ticket writers are producing for you.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

(This portion picks up from Part 4 with Sen., Graham asking if Judge Sotomayor is the only Second Circuit judge to ask tough questions.)

SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. No, not at all. I can only explain what I'm doing which is when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right.

I do know that, in the Second Circuit, because we only give litigants 10 minutes of oral argument....

Black Republican Party chair Steele jokes with NAACP about his party

The headline on this item could have been: "Black Republican Party chair jokes with NAACP about his party." Oh, wait that was the headline.

Michael Steele, the first African American head of the party of Lincoln, today went before the NAACP convention in New York City, where GOP leaders have often received a cool, skeptical and generally useless reception.

Steele's message in this first year of his term and the first year of the term of the first African American president was delivered differently. He made fun of himself, of the old party pitches. And he got some laughs and applause. Some silent faces. And likely some more skepticism.

Steele made the pitch that his party and the civil rights organization should become close allies. It's a long road back for Republicans with African Americans, but Steels vows to give it another try. Here's what he told the historic group today.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Remarks by Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, to the NAACP, July 14, 2009:

Thank you for that warm welcome.  I would like to thank the NAACP board of directors and Chairman Julian Bond for having me here to speak with you today.  Also, President Jealous, Vice Chairman Roslyn M. Brock, and Assistant Treasurer Jesse Turner. Jr.

President Jealous and Vice Chairman Brock, I thank you for your willingness to seek out advocates in all circles.  We are all interested in the educational, economic, political and social wealth of our community.  I thank the board for their passion and dedication to serving the disadvantaged among us, for breaking down barriers and standing as leaders.

As a proud member of the Prince George's county chapter of the NAACP, I am honored to be here to celebrate 100 years.

The NAACP was born to fight for freedom, liberty, opportunity and fairness.  Its founders were a group of brave visionaries from varying backgrounds, including black and white Republican men and....

White House comments on Sotomayor hearing

President Obama has not watched any of the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, his press secretary said today.

No word on whether the president has been reading live blogs of the event.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One this afternoon. The president was en route to Mt. Clemons, Mich., to deliver a talk about community colleges.

Gibbs told reporters that Obama has not talked to Sotomayor since Sunday. When a reporter asked whether Sotomayor is “getting a fair shake from the Republicans,” Gibbs said yes.

“I think so,” he said. “I mean, look, everyone understands that this is the drill. I think that if Republicans listen to the answers that she gives and look at her 17-year record, they'll figure out that this is a nominee that has a distinguished record, lots of experience, and somebody that's going to follow the law. I think she's doing really well.”

The Judiciary Committee has wrapped up for the day. More senators will question Sotomayor on Wednesday.

– Kate Linthicum

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Sotomayor hearings: The complete transcript -- Part 4

As The Ticket often does, in addition to our own take on politics and events, we are providing a complete transcript here for those interested in reading the political participants' own words in full.

Here's Part 2 of the transcript of the second day of hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, so Ticket readers can make their own judgments on the back-and-forth between the nominee and the interrogating senators -- some setting her up with softballs, others pursuing tougher lines of questioning.

This particular part of the transcript involves heavily nuanced discussions of constitutional law between Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and the nominee.

A complete cast of characters is added to the bottom of this item.

Yesterday, we published each committee senator's opening statement. And we published Sotomayor's opening statement. Part 1 of today's transcript is available by clicking here. Part 2 of today's transcript is available here. Part 3 is available here.

Part 5, the last one, is now available here.

Keep returning here for more throughout the hearing and see the variety of items our Ticket writers are producing for you.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

SOTOMAYOR: No, I was just suggesting that I do recognize that the court's more recent jurisprudence in incorporation with respect to other amendments has taken -- has been more recent. And those cases as well as stare decisis and a lot of other things will inform the Court's decision how it looks at a new challenge to a state regulation.

FEINGOLD: And -- and, of course, it is true that, despite that trend that you just described, that the Supreme Court has not incorporated several constitutional amendments as against the states, but most of those are....

Sotomayor hearings: Death penalty

Democratic Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried hard to get Judge Sonia Sotomayor to agree with him that the death penalty “has not been handled well.”

He said that minorities count for “a disproportionate 43% of executions” and that while “white victims account for one-half of all murder victims, 80% of all death penalty cases involve victims who are white. Does it raise questions of fairness on your side of the table?”

“That’s a legislative problem,” Sotomayor said. “I can only look at the case that’s before me and decide that case.”

--Robin Abcarian

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Sotomayor hearings: Yankees or Mets? Time out for a little baseball

After six long hours of questioning -- occasionally in complicated legalese -- Sen. Charles Schumer decided it was time for something lighter:

Like baseball.

Earlier today, Schumer asked Sonia Sotomayor, a proud Yankees fan, to talk a bit about her affection for the sport. Schumer, like Sotomayor, is a New Yorker. The Democratic senator joked that she could speak with more freedom about this subject than on most other topics.

“I don’t think the Mets versus Yankees will come before the Supreme Court,” he cracked. “Although the Yankees could use all the help they could get right now.”

The Bronx-born Sotomayor said that she had loved the sport since childhood, when she watched games with her father, who died when she was 9.

“I grew up sitting next to my dad while he was alive watching baseball,” she said. “And it’s one of my fondest memories.”

Schumer also asked Sotomayor about her role in the 1995 players strike case between major league owners and players. Then a U.S. district judge, she helped end the strike, ruling against the owners in favor of the players.

And speaking of the strike, one of the witnesses scheduled for later this week is David Cone, a former major league pitcher who was a union representative during the strike.

-- Kate Linthicum

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Photo: Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, talks baseball with Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court nominee, during her confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Credit: Brendan Hoffman/Bloomberg News

Sotomayor hearings: Graham comes out swinging

Sen. Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina who said Monday in his opening statement that,  barring “a meltdown,” Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed, seemed bent on getting her to melt down today. He peppered Sotomayor with short questions, interrupted her frequently and sighed into his microphone in a manner reminiscent of then-Vice President Al Gore during his presidential debate with George W. Bush.

He asked for a definition of “legal realism,” he asked her for a definition of “strict constructionism,” he asked her for a definition of “originalist.”

He wondered if she considered herself an adherent to any of those schools of legal thought.

“Again I don’t use labels,” said Sotomayor.

Graham asked her whether she believed the constitution was “a living breathing, evolving document” and what she believed was “the best way for society to change legitimately.”

“Do you think Roe vs. Wade changed society?” asked Graham, who proceeded to interrupt her when it became clear she was not going to give a simple answer to the question.

“Roe vs. Wade looked at the Constitution and decided that the Constitution is applied to a claimant’s right, applied … ”

“Is there anything in the Constitution that says a state legislature or the Congress cannot regulate abortion or the definition of life in the first trimester?” asked Graham, essentially paraphrasing what the court held in Roe vs. Wade in 1973. “Is there anything written in the document about abortion?”

Sotomayor answered, “The word abortion is not used in the Constitution, but the Constitution does have a broad provision concerning a liberty provision under the due process …”

At that point, Graham interrupted her again: “And that gets us to the speeches. That broad provision of the Constitution has taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can’t voluntarily pray in the schools, and on and on and on, and that’s what drives us here quite frankly…. A lot of us feel that the best way to change society is to go the ballot box and elect someone, and if they’re not doing it right, get rid of them through the electoral process. And a lot of us are concerned that unelected judges are quick to change society in a way that is disturbing. Can you understand how people feel that way?

“Certainly,” replied Sotomayor.

And then Graham got personal.

“Let’s talk about you,” he said. “I like you….”

But lots and lots of lawyers do not like her, he said, and he read some excerpts from the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, where lawyers anonymously rate judges. Quoting, he said, “She is a terror on the bench, she is temperamental, excitable, she abuses lawyers, she lacks judicial temperament, she behaves in an inappropriate manner, she will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like, she can be a bit of a bully….You stand out like a sore thumb, in terms of your temperament. What is your answer to these criticisms?”

Sotomayor remained unruffled. No meltdown ensued.

“I do ask tough question in oral arguments,” she said. “When I ask tough questions, it’s to give them an opportunity to persuade me that they’re right. …Some lawyers do find that our court generally is described as a ‘hot bench.’ It means they are peppered with questions; lots of lawyers who are unfamiliar with the process in the 2nd Circuit find that tough bench difficult and challenging.”

But Graham was not finished testing her on her temperament.

“If I may, judge, they find you difficult more than your colleagues. The only reason I mention this is that it stands out. … I never liked appearing before a judge who was a bully. … Do you think you have a temperament problem?”

“No, sir,” said Sotomayor. “I believe that my reputation is such that I ask the hard questions, but I do it evenly for both sides.”

Then Graham offered a thought: “For what it’s worth, judge ... obviously, you have accomplished a lot in your life. Maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection.”

-- Robin Abcarian

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Sotomayor hearings: Is judge a temperamental bully?

Before Sonia Sotomayor was even nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama, an article in the New Republic appeared to damage her chances critically. The article, titled "The Case Against Sotomayor," by George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen, quoted the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, a guidebook to federal judges.

The almanac solicits comments from lawyers who practice before the judges profiled in the book -- and because of the delicate nature of the feedback, the comments are anonymous. The lawyers quoted complained that Sotomayor was a "bully" and a "terror" on the bench, suggested she wasn't "that smart" and was rude to lawyers who made arguments she didn't like.

The article sparked an Internet firestorm. And Sotomayor's defenders suggested she was being portrayed as an irrational, overly emotional Latina in a way that a man in her position would not be.

After the retirement of Justice David Souter was announced, it was thought by many observers that the piece had harmed Sotomayor's candidacy for the high court. (The White House apparently didn't agree.) And after she was announced, the issue of temperament surfaced briefly and slowly disappeared, buried beneath issues such as the "wise Latina" speech and the New Haven, Conn., firefighter case.

This afternoon, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) brought those old remarks up again, asking Sotomayor flatly whether she had a "temperament problem." Sotomayor didn't apologize for asking tough questions of lawyers in her court and said that her circuit is what's called a "hot bench," in which judges routinely question litigants aggressively.

It should be noted that being tough on advocates is de rigeur for the Supreme Court. Lawyers there often barely begin their presentations before they are interrupted by one of justices. Being able to survive that sort of intense questioning and still deliver your argument is viewed as a badge of honor. If anyone ever asked Antonin Scalia if he had a temperament problem, he'd probably readily agree -- and be proud of it.

-- James Oliphant

Photo: Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina asked Sonia Sotomayor some tough questions. Credit: Michael Reynolds / EPA

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Sotomayor hearings: Foreign laws

Should foreign laws guide American courts?

The question was posed by both a Democrat and Republican in today’s confirmation hearing. Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) suggested that Sonia Sotomayor might look to foreign laws for guidance on novel legal questions, a practice that is disdained by many conservatives. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has spoken out against the practice, while his more liberal colleague, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has called for a more “internationalist” legal philosophy.

Kyl was referring to a speech Sotomayor gave to the American Civil Liberties Union of Puerto Rico earlier this year, in which she said:

“International law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how we think about the unsettled issues in our legal system. It is my hope that judges everywhere will continue to do so because with the American legal system, we're commanded to interpret our law as best we can. And that means looking to what other, anyone has said to see if it has persuasive value."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) raised the same issue later, and Sotomayor quickly attempted to put the concern aside. Although foreign law can be informative, it cannot guide or trump U.S. law, she said.

--Kate Linthicum

Photo credit: Justice Antonin Scalia by Sang H. Park / Associated Press; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg by J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press.)

Sotomayor hearings: She didn't follow her heart

Sen. Charles Schumer, in his effort to show that Judge Sonia Sotomayor uses her head, not her heart, raised one of her previous cases, Pappas vs. Giuliani. The case involved a police officer who was fired for sending racist and anti-Jewish leaflets through the mail.

The case, said Schumer, involved “a repugnant litigant.”

And yet … although the court upheld the firing of the officer, Sotomayor dissented, saying the termination violated his right to free speech.

“You wrote that the literature was patently offensive and insulting,” said Schumer. “But you also noted the employee's right to free speech had to be respected.”

Sotomayor agreed. “That’s what I believe. …The 1st Amendment commands we respect people’s rights to engage in hateful speech.”

Added Schumer, “We could do this all day long -- where sympathy, empathy would be on one side, but you found  rule of law on the other side, and you sided with rule of law. To me, analyzing a speech and taking words maybe out of context doesn’t come close to analyzing the cases as to what kind of judge you will be.”

And, indeed, Schumer proceeded to go on, if not all day long, then for his allotted time, to describe her cases, not her speeches.

-- Robin Abcarian

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

Photo: Charles Schumer. Credit: Charles Dharapak / Associated Press