Klobuchar's Contribution: Talking Law With Sotomayor

posted by John Nichols on 07/15/2009 @ 12:49pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (84)

Subscribe Now

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar brought something rare and valuable to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor: a savvy questioning style that invited the nominee to offer extended and revealing answers regarding her views on the law.

That's what should happen at judicial confirmation hearings. But it rarely does -- and it might not have at Judge Sotomayor's session, had it not been for Klobuchar.

The senior senator from Minnesota got the judge talking, at length, about the extent to which the legal system can address broader societal ills, about the burden of sentencing guidelines that limit the options of judges, about the stark questions that arise when a prosecutor realizes a defendant is innocent and even about Perry Mason -- don't laugh, he popularized the law as a profession to which working-class kids from the Bronx and Plymouth, Minnesota, might aspire.

"I was influenced so greatly by a television show in igniting the passion that I had as being a prosecutor, and it was 'Perry Mason'," Judge Sotomayor acknowledged in response to a question from Klobuchar, adding a human note to the routine give-and-take of the past several days.

The nominee was not just throwing off a pop-culture reference.

Judge Sotomayor, a former Manhattan prosecutor, was making a serious point about the law:

For the young people behind all of you, they may not even know who Perry Mason was, but Perry Mason was one of the first lawyers portrayed on television. And his storyline is that, in all of the cases he tried -- except one -- he -- he proved his client innocent and got the actual murderer to confess.

In one of the episodes, at the end of the episode, Perry Mason and the character who played the prosecutor in the case were meeting up after the case. And Perry said to the prosecutor, "It must cause you some pain having expended all that effort in your case to have the charges dismissed." And the prosecutor looked up and, "No, my job as a prosecutor is to do justice, and justice is served when a guilty man is convicted and when an innocent man is not." And I thought to myself, that's quite amazing to be able to serve that role, to be given a job, as I was by (New York County District Attorney Robert) Morgenthau, a job I'm eternally grateful to him for, in which I could do what justice required in an individual case.

Thus began an extended rumination on the purposes of prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges by a Supreme Court nominee whose work on the bench will involve defining the roles of these key players in our legal system.

Judge Sotomayor spoke freely and extensively in her exchanges with Klobuchar, and the senator encouraged her to do so by actually listening as the nominee spoke.

For the most part, the exchanges between Judiciary Committee members and Judge Sotomayor this week have been political exercises. Democrats tossed softballs to the nominee of a Democratic president. Republicans threw hardballs. The nominee hit most of them in routine fashion -- no strikes but not many home runs.

As such, the only real news out of the first few days of the confirmation hearing was made by those Republicans -- particularly Utah's Orrin Hatch and South Carolina's Lindsey Graham -- who seemed to be preparing arguments for joining Democrats in voting to approve the nomination of a woman who now seems all but certain to join the high court.

The political positioning is important. But, as this is the last time that Judge Sotomayor is likely to be questioned by members of the Judiciary Committee -- unless she is nominated to serve as chief justice of the high court -- the questioning from Democrats and Republicans has generally been disappointing. It has tended toward the recitation of talking points regarding abortion, affirmative action and gun control rather than real efforts to get a sense of Sotomayor's legal and judicial philosophy.

That's why Klobuchar's contribution to the session was so significant.

Minnesota's senior senator may never get as much attention as her homestate colleague and fellow Judiciary Committee member, Al Franken.

But Minnesotans know that Klobuchar is an exceptionally savvy former prosecutor who, herself, could be a credible Supreme Court pick.

An associate editor of the Law Review at the University of Chicago Law School, from which she graduated in 1985, Klobuchar was a highly-regarded partner in the same law firm where former Vice President Walter Mondale worked before her election in 1998 as the Hennepin County (Minneapolis) county attorney in 1998. Before her reelection in 2002 -- with broad backing from Republicans and Democrats -- she was named Minnesota Lawyer magazine's "Attorney of the Year" and served as president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.

Not a bad résumé for a judicial nominee.

But Klobuchar used it to get elected in 2006 to the Senate, where she has proven to be a heavy lifter on Judiciary Committee.

That was evident as the senator from Minnesota prodded Judge Sotomayor to talk about "a specific example of that in your own career as a prosecutor or what goes into your thinking on charging (suspects)."

Judge Sotomayor's answer revealed the nominee as a judge who has reflected well and deeply on legal systems strengths and vulnerabilities:

(Periodically), I would look at the quality of evidence and say, "There's just not enough." I had one case with a individual who was charged with committing a larceny from a woman.

And his defense attorney came to me and said, "I never, ever do this, but this kid is innocent. Please look at his background. He's a kid with a disability. Talk to his teachers. Look at his life. Look at his record. Here it is." And he gave me the file.

And everything he said was absolutely true. This was a kid with not a blemish in his life. And he said, "Please look at this case more closely."

And I went and talked to the victim, and she -- I had not spoken to her when the case was indicted. This -- this was one of those cases that was transferred to me, and so it was my first time in talking to her. And I let her tell me the story, and it turned out she had never seen who took her pocketbook.

In that case, she saw a young man that the police had stopped in a subway station with a black jacket, and she thought she had seen a black jacket, and identified the young man as the one who had stolen her property. The young man, when he was stopped, didn't run away. He was just sitting there. Her property wasn't on him, and he had the background that he did.

And I looked at that case and took it to my supervisor and said, "I don't think we can prove this case." And my supervisor agreed, and we dismissed the charges.

And yet there are others that I prosecuted, very close cases, where I thought a jury should decide if someone was guilty, and I prosecuted those cases and more often than not got convictions. My point is that that is such a wonderful part of being a prosecutor.

That TV character (Perry Mason) said something that motivated my choices in life and something that holds true, and that's not to say, by the way -- and I firmly, firmly believe this -- defense attorneys serve a noble role, as well. All participants in this process do: judges, juries, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. We are all implementing the protections of the Constitution.

As senators finish questioning Judge Sotomayor this week, much will be made of the rough-and-tumble exchanges between the nominee and conservative Republican firebrands such as Alabama's Jeff Sessions and Oklahoma's Tom Coburn -- as well as the more congenial questioning by Democratic senators and Republicans such as Hatch and Graham.

But Amy Klobuchar was the senator who got a Supreme Court nominee talking about the law.

Comments (84)

<The senior senator from Minnesota got the judge talking, at length, about the extent to which the legal system can address broader societal ills,>

the Constution and subsequently the Supreme Court are not supposed to be social engineering labs. This is the stereotypical liberal argument about using the courts to manipulate the social engineering agendas of the left.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 1:12pm
the social engineering agendas of the left.

Projected by antilarry at 07/15/2009 @ 1:12pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 1:18pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 1:18pm

Again, FZ, keep in mind...

Larry is a guy who would see nothing wrong with 9 year olds working in an unsafe coal mine in Kentucky, etc.; in fact, would argue that any intervention by the Federal Government in such a situation is abhorant to "real Constitution believers".

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 1:44pm
hooray!

the fed says the recession is done!

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/ 07/fomc-minutes-immaculate-recovery.html

why don't i believe them?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 1:47pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 1:47pm |

A lack of full FAITH and credit? (your portfolio isn't heavy with treasuries)

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 1:57pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 1:47pm

Doesn't really matter if YOU believe it, FZ....

it's if the creditors, investors, and employers do.

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:02pm
it's if the creditors, investors, and employers do.

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:02pm

creditors? •• looking for more suckers.

investors? •• suckers.

employers? •• hahahaha!

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 2:18pm
These hearings are such a farce. We all know what kind of opinions Sotomajor is going to have, GENERALLY, just as we know how Thomas and Roberts will vote on most issues. So do the Senators, and so does she. The fact is SOMEONE has to be the final judge on issues, and that's what the Supremem Court is for. Hopefully their ability to make a good decision is much better than everyone else's, since that what they do. But they are still just people, and their decisions are at the mercy of the times they live in just like everyone else.

So what's the deal wasting all this time? The only thing that's certain is Sotomajor no doubt knows infinitely more about the law then any of the bozos questioning her.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 07/15/2009 @ 2:27pm
Doesn't really matter if YOU believe it, FZ.... it's if the creditors, investors, and employers do. Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:02pm |

Hmmm....you're channeling Phil Gramm, Mask!

Are you buying into the "nation of whiners" view of this recession?

Or are those green shoots just a bunch of Obama-Chia heads?

My take is that we're on the middle hump of our 'W' (pun!) recovery...and due for another structural adjustment before year's end.

C'mon...big money!...no whammies!

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:39pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 2:18pm

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:39pm

Fellows, unless there's been that radical change you hope for in the American economy....we NEED

People to loan money to new businesses....People to invest in new businesses....so that those new businesses (or old) can hire people and give them jobs.

Do you have some alternative...that can get implemented in 6 months?

and will actually work?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm
Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm |

You misread me...

I'm all `hopey changey', as Hap would say, vis a vis the stim-u-less (that money for the states really would've made a big difference...damn you Collins and Snowe!), just not in the short-term predicted by the fomenters of green shootology at the Fed.

I'm technically loaning money to CA in the form of the warrants I'll be receiving in lieu of paid family leave to bond with my little guy.

I just didn't get to pick the bond yield; 3.75%...feh

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:59pm
Congrats & best luck to Justice Sotomayor in convincing Justice Kennedy to decide on the side of justice instead of property privileges.

Posted by sloper at 07/15/2009 @ 3:10pm
I'm technically loaning money to CA in the form of the warrants I'll be receiving in lieu of paid family leave to bond with my little guy.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:59pm

California Currency? A taste of things to come unless Percora II helps us leave discredited economic dogma behind

http://www.newdeal20.org/?p=3091

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:20pm
Do you have some alternative...that can get implemented in 6 months?

and will actually work?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm

actually,

i wanted to scrap the bubble machine years ago.

alas....

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:22pm
People to loan money to new businesses....

•• where's all that TARP money. oh, yeah, the banks are hording it. i wonder why. the chinese FORCED their banks to lend and it has gotten them nowhere.

People to invest in new businesses....

•• in what areas? construction?

so that those new businesses (or old) can hire people and give them jobs.

•• jobs? maybe in 2017.

Do you have some alternative...that can get implemented in 6 months?

•• pump, pump, pump.

and will actually work?

•• do THEY?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 2:50pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:27pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:20pm |

I'm hoping we call our new 'greenbacks'...the 'Dude'.

The Dude abides...all (CA) debts public (not private).

All joking aside, I'm in a position to ride this silliness out until October, but I have a great deal of empathy for people who don't have cash flow that allows them to become CA creditors during this con-inspired circus.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:32pm
Time.....is my friend! As the jobs shrink, more and more people will have TIME....to thank Magic for the Hopey and Changey ways of the future......LMAO!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:33pm
HAPPY,

CUT THE CRAP!

BLAME REAGAN AND GREENSPAN, YOU MORON.

obama is just a fool trying to resuscitate a corpse.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:37pm
YOU MORON.

obama is just a fool trying to resuscitate a corpse.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:37pm

I am enjoying this Recession politically....sorry, that's life!

Magic still rates an "A" on economic management by 13% of Americans.....I'd say, they are the "MORONs"!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:44pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:22pm

Can you tell me exactly, specifically what that means...how it would work...any possible "negative side effects" (like unemployment or inflation)...etc., etc.?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:49pm
Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 3:32pm

"I work in the aircraft repair/parts industry in California and thought I'd let you onto something. Many vendors to the CDF (California division of forestry) air operations have outstanding bills going back to last year. My company just put all California agencies on cash or credit card only. Many others are refusing to sell to the CDF because of huge amount of unpaid and late bills. We don't even get Registered Warrants!

Mish, this is scary. I know of one company that is doing repairs knowing they won't get paid just because they do not want to see fire fighting aircraft grounded!

Vendors must be given payment priority if the state wants to have any police and fire protection! Meanwhile the state is still purchasing new cars! Go figure.

Don't put my name on this please. Thank you for your good work."

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/ 07/california-division-of-forestry-not.html

••

(excellent site, btw. check this out:

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/ 07/empire-strikes-back-kohn-warns-congress.html )

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:50pm
Klobuchar sounds good. I think we have some women in the Senate who could be President. I have always believed in affirmative action. I had ten years in the service, and got out after the Vietnam War officially started. I never served a day in Vietnam, but qualified for the G.I. Bill. As veteran, I received ten extra points that got me hired into the L. A. County Library System. These two programs were designed to give veterans a break to compensate for time lost in the military. It was ,in a sense, affirmative action. Minorities, in some cases for centuries, have been held back from attending good schools and getting good jobs. Affirmative Action for minorities is still needed because of past and present discrimination.

Posted by pjcasey at 07/15/2009 @ 3:51pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:02pm

Rasmussen poll?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:52pm
Can you tell me exactly, specifically what that means...how it would work...any possible "negative side effects" (like unemployment or inflation)...etc., etc.?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:49pm

unemployment?

that would never happen under the present "system".

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/15/2009 @ 3:56pm
No, form:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com

/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332459315457893

President Is Getting Poor Grades On Economy As Optimism Erodes

By RAGHAVAN MAYUR | Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Persistent job losses seem to be taking a toll on how Americans view President Obama's performance in handling of the economy and federal budget.

In a July IBD/TIPP Poll,.....indicates that 21% of respondents gave Obama a C for his handling of the economy, 16% gave him a D and 19% gave him an F. The president received an A grade from 13% of respondents; 30% gave him a B....

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:58pm
Sotomayor is intresting in the hearings as all the accussatory biased liberal activist judicial rulings she made overturned by the supreme court (80% of those reviewed) were just like her "hate speech" repeated SEVEN times over the course of her speaking ALL done by her EVIL TWIN and not her!

She is now a conservative moderate constitutional jurist according to Demoncrats and her answers at the hearings?!?!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 4:09pm
Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 3:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

Watch the "off the cliff" downward spiral really pick up with the $540,000,000,000. in new taxes on individuals and business the Demoncrats and the Obamanation that makes desolation want!

How to start a new business and as soon as profits hit $100,000. move it offshore to reduce the taxes 50% or more will be the new infomerrcial, internet, and telemarketing come on!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 4:20pm
the Constution and subsequently the Supreme Court are not supposed to be social engineering labs. This is the stereotypical liberal argument about using the courts to manipulate the social engineering agendas of the left.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 1:12pm | ignore this person | warn this person

But we essentially ARE using the powers of the Constitution to socially engineer overseas, installing new governments in countries who did not attack us, for instance. Spreading "democracy."

Why not try some "engineering" over here?

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/15/2009 @ 4:22pm
I suspect that Judge Sotomayer's forthright and candid answers are related to the fact that she is a lock and doesn't have to worry about saying the wrong thing. She has the luxury of knowing she will be confirmed in spite of being honest.

That is a refreshing departure from recent confirmation hearings.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 5:05pm
"And yet there are others that I prosecuted, very close cases, where I thought a jury should decide if someone was guilty, and I prosecuted those cases and more often than not got convictions."

That Senator Klobuchar got Judge Sotomayor to admit that she prosecuted people even when she wasn't positive that the defendants were guilty is amazing. No prosecutor should ever go forward with a prosecution if he/she has a significant doubt about the guilt of the person being prosecuted.

Posted by taikan at 07/15/2009 @ 5:21pm
James Taranto has some great commentary:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB124767724285246273.html

[Senator] Kyl: Let me ask you about what the president said... Do you agree with him that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?

Sotomayor: No, sir. That's--I don't--I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge.

[Taranto] Why did Obama say he wanted judges with empathy--a statement so embarrassing that his own nominee was forced to repudiate it? Blogress Ann Althouse ... offers this explanation:

[Ann Althouse] Obama comes from the law academia environment that I'm very familiar with [she's a law professor at the University of Wisconsin] where that talk about "empathy" is what you hear all the time. It's very normal, it's "sophisticated," and I can understand how Obama has just been soaking in that. And then when he, as a former constitutional law professor, comes to us and starts to tell us about law, I can really understand how he thought he was saying something profound and meaningful.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/15/2009 @ 5:25pm
Why was Jeffrey Deskvic, an innocent man who had to serve an additional 6 years in prison because Judge Sotomajor refused to hear his appeal on a technicality, why was he refused the opportunity to testify before the Judiciary Committee? Why was he not permitted to raise questions about this judge who is so committed, she says, to justice, yet ruled that Deskovic's attorney filed too late for her to be bothered?

Six years after Judge Sotomajor returned Deskovic to prison, he was finally exonerated on DNA evidence of the rape for which he was charged. Why have Senators Leahy and Sessions denied this man the right to give evidence before their committee?

At the least, Judge Sotomajor should have had to explain her denial of justice to this innocent man and to apologize publicly for it.

Posted by goedel at 07/15/2009 @ 5:36pm
Let take a show of hands.

Is Happy crazier than a shit house rat?

Show of hands is "Y" for affirmative or "N" for negative.

I vote "Y".

Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 7:02pm
Now according to GOP ad's being circulated in the media, Sotomayor is a terrorist. And Obama is a terrorist.

They both irritate me. But I would hardly call that that terrorism.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 7:13pm
That That? I only typed one that. But the cat cat was well within the hat. Imagine that!

Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 7:17pm
Mr. Nichols says that "........ It [the confirmation hearing] has tended toward the recitation of talking points regarding abortion, affirmative action and gun control rather than real efforts to get a sense of Sotomayor's legal and judicial philosophy......"

Mr. Nichols does not understand that the "talking points" involve matters of legal and judicial philosophy, in a big way.

But Mr. Nichols would rather those "talking points" not be discussed, in other words, the legal and judicial philosophy of the nominee regarding those issues not be questioned. He wants the nominee to have a free pass on those, he would not like to see the nominee fail confirmation because of questioning on those issues.

On a separate matter, I agree with Happy that those who buy into Obama economics act like morons.

We would most likely be starting a recovery by now, but Obama economics has scared business growth off, and socialist health care/"cap and trade" environment laws will raise costs and keep the recession going.

Frosty Zoom started the topic by calling Happy a moron.

In fact, the term "moron" or it's plural, "morons" refers to one thing only- the football team in the NFL that shares a stadium with the New York Jets and who won the Super Bowl in 2008 because the game went 30 seconds longer than it should have.

(most people refer to that team as "New York Football Giants" - I call them the Morons).

Fortunately, that circumstance has been rectified. Donovan McNabb and the Philadelphia Eagles knocked the Morons out of the playoffs this year, and now the six time winners Pittsburgh Steelers, greatest pro football team ever, are the Super Bowl champions.......

And all is right again with the football world.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/15/2009 @ 7:31pm
As usual, almost nothing about the article supposedly provoking the comments. It is a glorious day when a Senator questions the nominee about truly professional matters. Of course, as a judge, I would say that. But it's disgraceful when Senators play to the grandstand, pushing hot-button "social issues" instead of plumbing judicial philosophy. Hooray for Senator Amy and for John Nichols for calling attention to this rare and excellent exchange.

Posted by dhdunlap at 07/15/2009 @ 7:36pm
Posted by dhdunlap at 07/15/2009 @ 7:36pm

I watched a good portion of these "hearings" for the past few days. They made me feel sick. Maybe it is not such a good idea to have courtrooms in the camera. Or hearings for that matter.

Love of the Law and its minute intracacies is a specialized form of anal insanity that does not appeal to me. Law seems to belie common sense. When Sotomayor was asked if the act of self defense was a right, she went into an excruciating long dance around all sorts of legalize.

I take it that the average citizen should just ignore the law in many cases. And let the chips fall where they may. Common sense and common inate morality should rule when it comes to dealing with human events. Not the convoluted explorations of the law.

Law needs to be simple and straight forward. Otherwise it is just another way to confuse and distort life for the sake of a few.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 8:10pm
"And yet there are others that I prosecuted, very close cases, where I thought a jury should decide if someone was guilty, and I prosecuted those cases and more often than not got convictions. My point is that that is such a wonderful part of being a prosecutor."

Wonderful? To abdicate one's moral responsibility, knowing far more about the case than the jury ever will and and having serious doubts, yet presenting a prosecutor's version to persuade the jury to convict?

What's so wonderful about that?

There isn't some objective game going on in the courtroom to present the ultimate TRUTH. It's an adversary process. The very fact of being prosecuted already weighs heavily in favor of guilt. (Very few people who are prosecuted are acquitted.) If a prosecutor has serious doubts about a case, s/he should not prosecute, period, even if it means that someone who *might* be guilty goes free.

Posted by otto117 at 07/15/2009 @ 10:24pm
"...the Constution and subsequently the Supreme Court are not supposed to be social engineering labs. "

This is such a stereotypical comment. It reeks of "talking point," except the typo, "Constution."

If you read this article (or if you've been listening to the confirmation hearings), you'd understand that the discussion is about the WHOLE legal system, which includes the role of the prosecutor, the SPECIFIC concern on the Klobuchar/Sotomayor exchange. "Subsequently" glosses over the real content of the article and the exchange in order to make a hackneyed political point.

If you were innocent and arrested for a crime, I suspect that you'd be grateful for a prosecutor who saw that there wasn't enough EVIDENCE against you to make a case, and who even went the extra step to study your file. That's not "social engineering," that's wisdom.

Shameless O'Clawson

Posted by RJClawson at 07/15/2009 @ 10:49pm
"Law needs to be simple and straightforward," someone says. Once upon a time, it was. Death for all crimes. No presumption of innocence. No right to counsel. No such thing as a nuanced criminal code; no commercial code to govern transactions; no incremental common law, distilling the insights of experience over centuries. Simple and straightforward and grotesque. The society we take for granted depends on a sophisticated legal system constructed in painstaking degrees by legal scholars nobody ever heard of (Soia Mentschikoff, anyone)? Yet it's a good point that prosecutors ought never seek to convict those they don't personally believe guilty. Criminal justice isn't a sport to be played for the amusement of lawyers or to satisfy the public demand for scapegoats. But then most people don't realize the Constitution guarantees only a fair trial, not a pre-indictment search for truth. Merely having evidence that might be sold to a jury should never be enough. Perhaps, some time in the 22nd Century, that refinement will be generally accepted. If, that is, society becomes prosperous enough to pay for it. Don't hold your breath waiting for the general public to demand real criminal justice. Meanwhile, just be thankful for Barry Schenck and Innocence Project and Northwestern Law School.

Posted by dhdunlap at 07/16/2009 @ 12:15am
Can you tell me exactly, specifically what that means...how it would work...any possible "negative side effects" (like unemployment or inflation)...etc., etc.?

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 3:49pm

consumption:

consumption |kənˈsəm(p) sh ən| noun

2 a wasting disease

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 12:26am
Frosty Zoom started the topic by calling Happy a moron.

Posted by sjchermak at 07/15/2009 @ 7:31pm

oh, happy's o.k.

he's learning.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 12:28am
Mr Nichols - a very thoughtful and welcomed story. Just as you commend Senator Klobuchar's line of questioning, I thank you for writing about it all. When you're not watching ALL of the hearings, you do often only hear the mini-fireworks portion they replay.

I did hear a bit of Al Franken's "cross" on the Perry Mason case that Mason didn't win - a nice bit of sarcastic humor, which is what I was hoping for a bit of when the Judiciairy Committee starts taking itself too seriously !

I look forward to the day that confirmation hearings are not a political battleground - and should that day ever come again in my lifetime, I WILL watch the whole proceedings !

Thanks again !

Brad in San Diego

Posted by bradinca at 07/16/2009 @ 01:00am
I like Perry Mason, too, especially the opening credits part when Perry looks up and smiles this sly little smile like he's just smelled a funny smell.

Posted by Dan Lackey at 07/16/2009 @ 04:54am
I'm often asked why I come here if I don't agree with The Nation's perspective. The answer is I enjoy reading perspectives different from my own. P. J. O'Rourke is one of my favorite authors. You might enjoy reading his perspective even though you disagree with some of it. (Read on an see what I mean.)

http://www.avclub.com/articles/pj-orourke,30427/

The A.V. Club: How do you feel about Barack Obama becoming the de facto president of General Motors?

P.J. O'Rourke: I think it's a really, really bad idea. It's one of these situations where Dad burns dinner, so you say, "Oh, I know. Let's have the dog cook!" The only people that could possibly be worse at running a car company than the current crop of car executives--who have proven themselves to be plenty bad--would be a politician...

AVC: Would you agree that the planet basically has lung cancer and needs to quit smoking? Is that a fair analogy?

PJO: No, I don't think so. There are plenty of problems in the world, and doubtless climate change--or whatever the currently voguish phrase for it all is--certainly is one of them. But it's low on my list. I spent almost 25 years as a foreign correspondent, and the world's primary problem is poverty. And I don't mean, like, "our kids are gonna have to go to public school and I'm gonna have to give up my spa membership" poverty. I'm talking about "not enough to eat" poverty. In the first place, it's a moral imperative that we fix that. In the second place, we're gonna be in a world of hurt if we don't get it fixed, because there's going to be billions of people out there--they're hungry, they're mad. One thing that they can get their hands on is guns. We've seen a little bit of it so far; we could see a lot more of it. First and foremost: Feed people.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 06:58am
Posted by chaoszen at 07/15/2009 @ 7:02pm |

"N", I'd have to forgive him his trespasses in that case. He's not crazy, just brainwashed by Ruski teen angst literature.

We would most likely be starting a recovery by now, but Obama economics has scared business growth off, and socialist health care/"cap and trade" environment laws will raise costs and keep the recession going. Posted by sjchermak at 07/15/2009 @ 7:31pm |

You are seriously bereft of clues if you think that ANY action by McCain/Palin and Sec of Treasury Gramm would have made a dent in the multi-TRILLION dollar hole the housing bubble took out of the side of the US economy. If anything, they would've kept inflating the bubble.

Business growth requires DEMAND of which there is precious little because Ma and Pa Kettle are:

- Trying like heck to make a subprime mort payment that doubled within the last couple of years

- Unable to use their shiny plastic cards to bridge the gap between what they need and what they can afford

- Hoping that their increasingly useless jobs don't evaporate

- Watching their homes go up for trustee sale

- Paying through the nose for the best healthcare no one can buy

Laying this crap at the feet of Obama and a Dem minority in congress, instead of the former, debatably two-term, "Pres" who fiddled instead of firefighting and the congressional majority from '94 to '06 makes YOU the bearer of `subprime' Wechsler scores.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/16/2009 @ 07:23am
Since so many here are fans of "op-ed news", I thought I would add mine to the conversation.

"Publishers apparently believe forums help drive people to their website and provide opportunity for interactive exchanges of ideas, comments, corrections, and expansion of debate and topics.

Instead, these forums are insidiously contributing to the devaluation of journalism, blurring the truth, confusing the issues, and diminishing serious discourse beyond even talk radio's worst examples.

My problems with these forums can be boiled down to three peeves: The level of commentary demeans and devalues the very product newspapers should be promoting; sniping, misinformation, and insensitivity that would not be tolerated in the newspaper that hosts the forums are regularly posted, seemingly encouraged, and even granted an aura of legitimacy from the association with the host's brand; they create a self-perpetuating cycle in which anonymous, unverified information creeps into legitimate news coverage in ways that haven't been fully vetted.

I feel sorry for today's reporters and columnists, who work hard gathering information dutifully trying to raise the debate on issues or inform the public on a burning topic only to have some agenda-driven bonehead who doesn't have the courage - or need - to identify himself or herself and isn't bound by the same ethics or policies tear down the work product the moment it appears."

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/ articles/2009/07/15/got_a_comment_keep_it_to_yourself/

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 08:10am
I'll add this for conservative "activist judges" since it is apropos to the tread.

"That most activist Court? A: The Late Rehnquist Court, which in terms of the annual average number of federal statutes overturned by the Court ranks first. Though I only show data from the Roosevelt Court forward, Late Rehnquist has the highest score of any Court era going back to the days of John Jay. So much for modern conservatives' deference to legislatures and the disdain for "judge-made" law."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/07/ conservative-activist-judge-is-not.html

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 08:19am
Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 08:19am

An "activist judge" isn't a judge who takes action: it is a judge who takes in appropriate action.

Some laws need to be struck down as unconstitutional. Some laws need to be upheld as appropriately constitional. Taking action isn't what identifies an activist judge.

Here's the perfect example to show what I mean. The founders wrote the first Amendment did so for the purpose of protecting political speech. They didn't intend for it to protect XXX films (because they didn't have film), they did it because the King of England could have people arrested for expressing opinions the King didn't like.

Then Congress wrote a statute that outlawed certain types of political speech called "McCain/Fiengold".

Clearly, this law violates the first amendment. The proper course of action for the Court would have been to rule the law unconstitional. (According to your definition, this would be "activist" because it's overturning a law, but it is not activist to appropriately find that an unconstitional law is unconstitutional.)

In fact the court upheld the law, which I find to be an activist violation. The reason it is activist is because it substitutes the justices' opinions for the written law.

The first amendment states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech..." But the justices "felt" that what the first amendment SHOULD say is, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless that law is intended to address the preception that some people wield too much influence over the political process." By substituting their opinions of what the first amendment should say for what it actually says is an activist violation.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 08:42am
First and foremost: Feed people.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 06:58am

so why do you insist on giving all the food grown in america to cows?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 08:49am
got_a_comment_keep_it_to_yourself/

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 08:10am

but, srj, isn't this what people have been doing in coffee houses and golf clubs for centuries?

it's just more "efficient" now.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 08:57am
Sen. Sessions race-baiting is one that we all should take note of. As it seems in his case, water always returns to its level. Session will never change"and thank God he never succeeded in getting to the bench. The problem with those who shout bias against others is that they are unable to see the "plank" in their own eyes. Sessions is informed by racial prejudice. How can he as "Ranking Member" of the Senate Judiacy Committee resist not allowing his ideological and cultural experiences to influence his questioning of Judge Sotomayor? When he says he wants judges who are "neutral," what he really means is that he wants judges who would agree with his world view that views women, ethnics and other minorities as less equal than others no matter their accomplishments and even not desirable. His attacks have focused on a narrow frame, ignoring empirical evidence of balance that can easily be derived from Judge Sotomayor's actual decisions in court. He chose to forget or ignore what other sitting US Supreme Court justices (Scalia, Alitio, for example) appointed by Republican Presidents said about the influence of culture and experience during their confirmation hearings. Republicans must be reminded that on the issue of "empathy" President George H.W. Bush said about the same thing as Obama-referencing its relevance. Wisdom tells us that it is; ideological demagogoury says otherwise. On this, we must be continously reminded of the famous adage that "justice must be tempered with mercy." Dr. Sam

Posted by drsam8 at 07/16/2009 @ 09:03am
Then Congress wrote a statute that outlawed certain types of political speech called "McCain/Fiengold".

Clearly, this law violates the first amendment.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 08:42am

because in darin's world, money talks.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 09:06am
and bullshit walks.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:38am
so why do you insist on giving all the food grown in america to cows?

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 08:49am

FZ, hardly. We are the most obese people in the world because we eat so much food. And we still have enough left over to make sure our cows are not skinny.

Are you a boviphobic?

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:48am
and clichés floweth.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 09:49am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 09:48am

I think frosty's point is that it takes 5 pounds of grain to make one pound of red meat. The grain contains far more energy than the meat. And if we ate the grain instead of the meat, there would be a lot less obesity.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:53am
I think frosty's point is that it takes 5 pounds of grain to make one pound of red meat. The grain contains far more energy than the meat. And if we ate the grain instead of the meat, there would be a lot less obesity.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:53am

I know and have more in common with him than not on the subject since I live mostly vegetarian, but not completely.

My point was his hyperbole that the "cows are eating all of the food in America".

Posted by antisocialist at 07/16/2009 @ 10:52am
.... if we ate the grain instead of the meat, there would be a lot less obesity.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 09:53am

Not sure about that! I always was under the mindset that way too much carbohydrate, in the form of starch (ie, grain), is the primary reason for being fat....doughnuts, chips, potatoes/freedom fries, pasta, etc.

Not too many people can afford to get filled, volume- and calorie-wise at meals, just w/meat. In fact, as we age, speaking for myself, we eat less and less `heavy' meat......whereas I used to order 10 or 12-oz steaks or prime rib, today I usually order 8 oz, or order 12-oz and share the entree w/the wife.

Posted by Happy at 07/16/2009 @ 11:11am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/16/2009 @ 08:42am

I am not confused about what qualifies as an "activist judge" in conservative discourse. People that are "conservative" basically use the term to mean, "judicial opinions I don't like." They then obfuscate that fact by trying to argue that their "originalism" makes judicial decisions something like mathematics or truth functional logic - and ignoring inconvenient details like this group cannot even decide on whether to rely solely on the document or trying to assert an "intent" of the framers.

A child can see the contradictions and problems in this approach. If I cannot decide what "3" means, then it is difficult for me to tell you what 3+3 equals. This is the same kind of problem that you see with biblical interpretation and certain forms of naive philosophy like Leibnitz's Monads and his ideas about ultimately reducing ethical questions to equations.

Your example illustrates the point nicely. You, apparently, are of the original meaning camp. If I were a member of the original intent camp, I might point out that the framers in mind government censorship and the notion of individual liberty, and if the notion applies to Sade's Justine, why wouldn't it also apply to adult film?

It is also interesting that you do not apply the same reasoning that you used here in your next example. I would point out that corporations, particularly corporations with "personhood", were also not around during the time of the founding fathers. Why do they get "free speech"?

or interpretation every question of law - particularly at the Supreme Court level - is like arithmetic or truth functional logic where there is one, and only one, right answer.

My view is that all judges are "activist" judges.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:19am
...Why do they get "free speech"?

Anyway, the point I was trying to get to before the annoying limit kicked in was that applying the law and administering justice is a lot more difficult than people with the "originalist" position account for and their ideas about law are an abomination.

Activism is in the eye of the beholder, and it is equally applicable to "conservative" judges as it is to every other kind.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:22am
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 08:57am

When's the last time you've seen the coffee house conversation printed alongside the article? When's the last time you heard someone cut-and-paste their argument through the use of a MP3 recording of some talk they liked? If people don't like you in the coffee house, they can refuse to serve you coffee, cut you out of the conversation or throw you out on your ass. When's the last time you saw a coffee house discussion happen where everyone was wearing masks?

So, umm, I think we have a few important and relevant differences between the two.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:32am
Posted by Happy at 07/16/2009 @ 11:11am

Eating more calories than you expend is what makes people fat. It doesn't matter what form those calories take.

If you want to talk about optimal fitness, then yes, it is appropriate to talk about what might led to that - but that is a different discussion, one you have after you aren't fat.

Another problem is that the medical community is too wishy-washy on the topic. If you are a man who is more than 15% fat, then you are fat. If you are a woman and you are more than 22% fat, you are fat.

Once you are below the above thresholds, we can talk about what you are eating. But before that the question is how much, not what. Eat less and exercise more until you are no longer fat.

If you are really eager, start looking at lifestyle changes like cutting down the smoking & drinking, getting enough rest, regular check-ups, etc.

It's amazing how many people occupy their time talking about the inconsequential, "I can't believe I ate that slice of bread! My carbohydrates are all out of wack today." Meanwhile, they are shoveling down some value meal, washing it down with a soda and then after being stressed out all day in a job they hate, gonig out after work for a few drinks.

The bread ain't the problem.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:47am
Not sure about that! I always was under the mindset that way too much carbohydrate, in the form of starch (ie, grain), is the primary reason for being fat....doughnuts, chips, potatoes/freedom fries, pasta, etc.Posted by Happy at 07/16/2009 @ 11:11am

Actually Happ the main reason for Americans being fat is high fructose corn syrup. It is in many of the things we eat. Nasty stuff. The human body is mainly a flesh machine that runs on glucose, not fructose.

In the brain there is a trigger that recognizes glucose and shuts down the hunger feeling when a certain level is reached. Fructose on the other hand does not trigger this response. In fact it works in the opposite direction. It makes you hungry. So people who eat the average amount of high fructose corn syrup in their diet get fat.

We need to eliminate high fructose corn syrup from our diet. Then people will not get fat and have all sorts of health problems. But try telling that to all the farmers who poison us with sweet corn syrup. And the industry that buys it.

Talk about a conspiracy theory. This is a good one.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 12:10pm
What better way to insure that the immoral for profit healthcare system has a steady supply of patients with health problems. And big Pharma has a steady supply of customers for the overpriced drugs they sell to deal with these "Fat People".

Pollute the food supply and then rake in the profits.

Scary.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 12:18pm
Does anyone here actually read? I'm no genius. But I find these things out just by investigating. It takes only 10 or 15 minutes a day to find the research on these subjects.

Do the research. Just go to Google anf type in "high fructose corn syrup and obesity".

Easy peasy lemon squeezy..

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 12:32pm
a lot of you like to talk just to hear yourselves talk and bask in your own gloriousness since half the shit posted here has no relevance to Nichols' article.

kudos to dr sam, though. well said.

Posted by sirhcus at 07/16/2009 @ 12:41pm
The body doesn't know what to do with white sugar and corn syrup, so it stores it as fat.

Carbohydrates are also converted to sugar in the body, and it you eat too many carbs and don't burn it up with physical activity, it is also turned to fat.

The balance of a good diet should be weighed most heavily with fresh foods. Ask Perry Mason.

But srjenkins just hit it out..."eating more calories than you expend is what makes people fat".

Simple, to the point, and correct.

Going hiking for the day? You get a snickers!

Posted by ficheye at 07/16/2009 @ 12:49pm
half the shit posted here has no relevance to Nichols' article. Posted by sirhcus at 07/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

So you must be the judge, jury, and executioner of the terrible crime of criticizing those that would dare to stray from the original post.

Have you ever been in a conversation? A conversation may start out with a premise, and then evolve into something entirely different.

That is the art and purpose of a conversation.

Apparently you are not able to evolve conversationally. That is O.K. But don't post idiotic criticism at those who are.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 12:55pm
a lot of you like to talk just to hear yourselves talk and bask in your own gloriousness since half the shit posted here has no relevance to Nichols' article.

Posted by sirhcus at 07/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

Pretty much like your comment.

Near the end of a thread most of the opinions have been aired and are being repeated. Give us mere mortals a little slack.

Sotomayor should be confirmed. Maybe she'll give Clarence Thomas a reason to do something other than grunt and reminisce about 'Long Dong Silver'.

Posted by ficheye at 07/16/2009 @ 12:56pm
Going hiking for the day? You get a snickers!

Posted by ficheye at 07/16/2009 @ 12:49pm

You miss the point. We are being saturated with high fructose corn syrup. The body does not know what to do with it. It short wires our metabolism. This sweetener has only been around since the early 1980's. And when did nation wide obesity start to be a problem?

Do the math.

Even yogurt, which most people deem healthy is full of corn syrup. We are being drowned in high fructose corn syrup. And the producers and sellers of this product know the danger.

We are being systematically poisoned.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 1:06pm
I always was under the mindset that way too much carbohydrate, in the form of starch (ie, grain), is the primary reason for being fat....doughnuts, chips, potatoes/freedom fries, pasta, etc.

Posted by Happy at 07/16/2009 @ 11:11am

corn is bred to have more and more sugar. it used to have protein.

the foods you have listed are almost all fried.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 1:37pm
This is the same kind of problem that you see with biblical interpretation and certain forms of naive philosophy like Leibnitz's Monads and his ideas about ultimately reducing ethical questions to equations.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:19am

well, we can see how well the quants' equations have treated us.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 1:39pm
So, umm, I think we have a few important and relevant differences between the two.

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 11:32am

umm, (nice use of "m"s btw)

i could have posted your reply with my post -- these things are obvious.

do you read the comments at, say, the nytimes or bbc or mcclatchy or wherever.

no? i didn't think so.

do you read the comments at nakedcapitalism, juancole, or the agonist?

ah, sometimes. why? because at these sites people respond much more thoughtfully.

and a big difference at these sites is that you have to <clik> in order to read the comments.

i believe the inconveniences of having to read nonsense like i post is minor in comparison to the possibility of creating much more interest in world events from people who probably otherwise would be watching judge judy.

thanks to you, i now read mark thoma.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 1:49pm
a lot of you like to talk just to hear yourselves talk and bask in your own gloriousness since half the shit posted here has no relevance to Nichols' article.

Posted by sirhcus at 07/16/2009 @ 12:41pm

she'll be confirmed.

wow, long discussion.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 1:53pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 1:49pm

I'm torn on this issue.

I think you are absolutely right to say that some forums have formed into online communities, and sometimes they have very thoughtful commentary that expands the ideas of readers or enables exchange that would otherwise be impossible or at least much more difficult. There's a lot of truth in this view.

But, it is also true that there are disadvantages. There are days when I don't wonder if it would be better to focus less on online information and discussion, or even to cut it out all together. When I think about my reading patterns before I started using the Internet (in 1993) and now, a very significant change has happened. When I went to India, I didn't use the Internet much at all, and I thought this was an improvement.

Then again, there is the good that draws me back in. I recently found, "Don't Shoot the Dog," by Karen Pryor as a result of some weird chain of research that went from viral marketing campaigns to operant conditioning. I think this is a book I might re-read on an annual basis. It's a fantastic book that I think everyone should read.

There are good metasites too like The Browser that makes it easy to catch the really good stuff that people are writing. But, when I think of the value of these services and all the good books out there, I start questioning the whole point of comments.

Yes, there is value to comments. But compared to doing something else, is it enough?

I'm just putting it out there. It is not a comment on the people here or anyone's posting. I particularly am not commenting on yours - since you have the sharpest and often most economical wit that is more valuable than the occasional know-it-all style posting I indulge in.

http://thebrowser.com/

Posted by srjenkins at 07/16/2009 @ 3:18pm
You miss the point...We are being systematically poisoned. Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 1:06pm

No, I didn't miss the point.

I am a health food freak. I've also watched the DVD documentary 'King Corn', which is all about high fructose corn syrup and it's bad effects. It's a great wake up call for those who don't know.

I don't eat white sugar at all. I use agave syrup for a sweetener if I use anything at all. As far as the yoghurt is concerned, I can't remember the last time I ate a sweetened product like that. I buy it in bulk, low fat. I also posted here about the ills of corn syrup,

As far as the snickers, I was kind of joking since I don't eat that either. Relax. We're on the same page. Literally.

Posted by ficheye at 07/16/2009 @ 3:47pm
Talk about a conspiracy theory. This is a good one.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/16/2009 @ 12:10pm

That is very interesting. I was not aware of that differentiation in the body between glucose and fructose.

That's something to look into more, too.

Though I exercise a lot and am not obese, I can see how a lot of people are struggling with this.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/16/2009 @ 4:33pm
I buy it in bulk, low fat.

Posted by ficheye at 07/16/2009 @ 3:47pm

actually, you'd be better off eating the fat.

in india, they eat a lot of dairy, always full fat.

not much heart disease there.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 8:17pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/16/2009 @ 4:33pm

skimmed an interesting article today.

the author's premise was that industrial food was being made mushy so that people had to chew less, thus allowing them to swallow more before feeling full.

kinda makes sense.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/16/2009 @ 8:22pm
people make food choices just like people decide whether to smoke or not. is smoking addictive? of course. but you can quit after being a regular smoker.

if people want to quit eating processed foods they can. personal choice.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/16/2009 @ 9:00pm
but you can quit after being a regular smoker.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/16/2009 @ 9:00pm

ergo - if you say you can't, you're lying?

Posted by winyahn at 07/16/2009 @ 10:10pm
Unfortunately, John, you didn't check your facts about Amy Klobuchar that carefully.

She certainly wasn't "a working class kid." Her father was a newspaper columnist who wrote speeches for Democratic politicians. She used that name recognition to run for Hennepin County Attorney, one of the most visible and important political posts in the state. Since she had no significant political experience, and hadn't run for office before, it can be fairly said that she "started at the top," using her father's prominence.

Throughout the hearings, she continually asserted that she and Sotomayor were "prosecutors." Nothing could be further from the truth. Sotomayor took a huge financial hit to enter public service at the bottom, and was an assistant district attorney for five years, with broad and varied trial court experiences.

Klobuchar, in contrast, worked with prominent "white shoe" law firms which essentially represent large corporations and the occasional weathly individual. She never served as a public defender or legal aid lawyer. I very seriously doubt that, once she was elected County Attorney, she ever prosecuted even a single case in the court room.

Most telling, however, is the fact that the attorney bargaining unit in the Hennepin County Attorney's Office failed to endorse her for re-election for County Attorney or Senator. Amy's reputation among her subordinates was that she never encountered a good idea which she didn't immediately call her own.

Supreme Court material?

Hardly.

She's just another corporate/insurance company hack who knows nothing about the lives of ordinary people. Sotomayor, at least, began at the bottom, and sacrificed for her beliefs.

Klobuchar is simply another wealthy phony.

Posted by jfitzgerald at 07/20/2009 @ 11:42am