About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox's Kelly, Wallace fawn over Sessions' questioning of Sotomayor

July 14, 2009 11:53 am ET

From Fox News' July 14 coverage of the Supreme Court nomination hearings:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED
Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by blueline99 (July 14, 2009 12:00 pm ET)
      1  
      yes Fox, the questions are more important than the answers... way to bury the lead.

      "I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,"

      "both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges."

      "I was trying to play on her words," she said. "My play fell flat. It was bad."
      Report Abuse
    • Author by harley (July 14, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
      2  
      Looks like Faux is anointing Sessions as their next reich-wing teabagging darling.....of course until he gets caught up in a sex scandal where he'll become Jeff Sessions (D).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (July 14, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
          3
        That's quite a prediction, Harley. In the meantime, you'll beat up on him for something that hasn't happened!
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Leftym0m79 (July 14, 2009 1:00 pm ET)
          2  
          Okay, lets just beat up on him for stuff he's done or not done as the case may be. Sessions was rejected as a federal justice nominee by the committee that he is now the ranking Republican member of. Why was that? Survey says...Political persecution of civil rights organizers, racist comments to former staffers, and for being an all around douche in general (That last one was mine). He has opposed the Voting Rights Act, and so on and so on...
          Report Abuse
          • Author by princeofwheels (July 14, 2009 1:06 pm ET)
            2  
            Looks like the puppies got wet in a rainstorm and scurried for cover.
            In defense of Harley, I will go on the record that Sen. Jeff has had 'Sessions' with women in the past. No doubt about it.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by puppienrainbows (July 14, 2009 1:16 pm ET)
                3
              What's wrong with having sessions with women? Besides, this is about a supreme court nominee and the due course set by the constitution. If Mr. Session's ability to question a nominee is hampered by his personal life then I'm all for your criticism. If not, then he is simply doing his job.
              Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (July 14, 2009 1:11 pm ET)
              4
            I don't have a problem w/ that. I have a problem w/ Harley's strawman. I'm not familiar w/ the gauntlet he ran as a prospective nominee for federal justice but it sounds as though the system weeded him out and that's good.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by harley (July 14, 2009 2:04 pm ET)
              4  

              That's not a straw man argument. Not even close. But, facts and reality are never your strengths.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by harley (July 14, 2009 1:51 pm ET)
          3  
          you'll beat up on him for something that hasn't happened!


          Who is beating up on him for what? Quite a projection there for something hasn't happened!
          Report Abuse
    • Author by epkklk851 (July 14, 2009 12:09 pm ET)
      3  
      I thought Jeff Sessions comments to Judge Sotomayor were self-serving, patronizing, and hectoring, but that is just me. I have watched several Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and some of the Republicans have offended me with this same attitude in the past. I remember when Strom Thurmond made really patronizing welcoming remarks to Molly Yard and some of the other NOW members and she rolled her eyes. Alan Simpson lectured her for being rude. I was so mad I yelled at the screen, and it is a good thing I never met the man, because I'd have given him an even longer lecture about his rudeness and patronizing behavior. And then there was Orrin Hatch bringing up "The Exorcist" at the Thomas hearings (what was that about anyway!)
      Report Abuse
    • Author by dave (July 14, 2009 12:40 pm ET)
      1 2
      I thought Sessions brought up some good points. WITH?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by thejbomb65 (July 14, 2009 12:44 pm ET)
        2  
        you convienently forget that jeff sessions has always had an axe to grind because he got denied being a judge himself.

        jeff sessions is tainted. period.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by thejbomb65 (July 14, 2009 12:58 pm ET)
      1  
      funny after sessions sandbagged kelly on her own show they are again quickly singing his praises. hmmmm. must be desperate
      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 14, 2009 1:09 pm ET)
        1  
        Maybe they're hoping Sessions will run for President, or start to lead the GOP. They need someone, as they've got nothing, but then again, Sessions would be another horrible choice.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by dave (July 14, 2009 1:46 pm ET)
          1 2
          Sessions wouldn't be a horrible choice, as he is somewhat a Conservative, much better than a moderate like McCain. And I don't think asking questions to a nominee who has a possible lifetime appointment means he has an axe to grind.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by thejbomb65 (July 14, 2009 2:10 pm ET)
            2 2
            it wasn't him asking questions, it was the questions he asked and the statements he made that show he has an axe to grind. when you come out of the gate and make the statement that politics does not have a place in the courtroom, and being a senator who back such an attempt by bush and his attorney general to do that very thing.....well you shouldn't be saying what was said.

            he would have scored alot more credibility for himself if he had simply wished her good luck and said nothing else
            Report Abuse
            • Author by dave (July 14, 2009 2:26 pm ET)
              1 3
              You mean just like when Schumer wished Roberts good luck and said nothing else? Sessions has questions, part of the process. But Sessions has nothing to need credibility for, he's there already.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by thejbomb65 (July 14, 2009 2:50 pm ET)
                1  
                i have no problem with a good luck for the opening statement or questions being asked. as long as the statement is something that is relevent or the questions are relevent.
                Report Abuse
    • Author by blueline99 (July 14, 2009 1:14 pm ET)
      2  
      Washington Post has the transcript of Jeff Sessions questions...

      SESSIONS: But the statement was, "I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage, but continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." That's exactly opposite of what you're saying, is it not?

      SOTOMAYOR: I don't believe so, Senator, because all I was saying is, because we have feelings and different experiences, we can be led to believe that our experiences are appropriate. We have to be open- minded to accept that they may not be, and that we have to judge always that we're not letting those things determine the outcome. But there are situations in which some experiences are important in the process of judging, because the law asks us to use those experiences.

      SESSIONS: Well, I understand that, but let me just follow up that you say in your statement that you want to do what you can to increase the faith and the impartiality of our system, but isn't it true this statement suggests that you accept that there may be sympathies, prejudices and opinions that legitimately can influence a judge's decision? And how can that further faith in the impartiality of the system?

      SOTOMAYOR: I think the system is strengthened when judges don't assume they're impartial, but when judges test themselves to identify when their emotions are driving a result, or their experience are driving a result and the law is not.

      SESSIONS: I agree with that.

      Yeah.. he really owned her!!!

      Report Abuse
      • Author by magnolialover (July 14, 2009 1:20 pm ET)
        1  
        Yeah, indeed...

        Sort of sounds like the other way around for sure.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by rtdavis11200 (July 14, 2009 2:15 pm ET)
      3 1
      Sessions represents a state which was the last to intergrate African-Americans into their society.

      He has alot of nerve playing the race card.
      Report Abuse