Hannity smears Franken, falsely alleging he asked Sotomayor about Perry Mason "instead" of "her judicial philosophy"
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.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely claimed that during Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Al Franken talked about Perry Mason "instead" of questioning Sotomayor about her "judicial philosophy." In fact, Franken asked Sotomayor numerous questions about her "judicial philosophy."
On the July 16 edition of his Fox News show, Sean Hannity falsely claimed that "[r]ather than use his time to question" Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "on her judicial philosophy," Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) "instead ... decided to talk about" the television series Perry Mason. In fact, Franken asked Sotomayor numerous questions during the July 15 hearing pertaining to her "judicial philosophy," including questions regarding "the Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision"; Sotomayor's "definition of judicial activism"; the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act, Gross v. FBL Financial Services; and whether "the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy."
Additionally, after airing a clip of Franken talking about Perry Mason, Hannity commented, "Now what a proud moment for Minnesota. Now this could be why the most junior member of the entire U.S. Senate is generally not invited to be a part of the Judiciary Committee." But according to the Senate Judiciary Committee's list of the "Committee Membership In Previous Congresses," the following current members of the Judiciary Committee also joined as freshmen senators: ranking member Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Charles Grassley (R-IA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Ben Cardin (D-MD), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Edward Kaufman (D-DE), and Arlen Specter (D-PA). Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) are the only current members who did not serve on the Judiciary Committee in their first year as senators.
In addition to referencing Perry Mason, here are some of the other questions that Franken asked Sotomayor during the July 15 hearing:
- "[The] Brand X [decision] deregulated Internet access services, allowing service providers to act as gatekeepers to the Internet, even though the Internet was originally government funded and built on the notion of common carriage and openness. ... Doesn't the American public have a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring that this can't happen and that the Internet stays open and accessible? In other words, that the Internet stays the Internet?"
- "Judge, what is your definition of judicial activism?"
- "[I]t is my understanding that the 15th Amendment contains a very strong, very explicit and unambiguous grant of power to the Congress. And because of that, the courts should pay greater deference to it. And my question is is that your view?"
- "Do you believe that the Constitution contains a fundamental right to privacy?"
- "Do you believe that this right to privacy includes the right to have an abortion?"
From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: Now, many people have asked what qualifies Al Franken to be a United States senator. And during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings yesterday, that question was not answered. Rather than use his time to question the nominee on her judicial philosophy, the Saturday Night Live alum and failed radio talk show host -- instead, he decided to talk about a fictional defense attorney from a TV show.
This is brilliant. Take a look.
FRANKEN [video clip]: You mentioned Perry Mason. I was a big fan of Perry Mason. I watched Perry Mason every week with my dad and my mom and my brother. We'd watch the clock, and when we knew when it was two minutes to the half-hour that the real murderer would stand up. It was a great show.
HANNITY: Now, what a proud moment for Minnesota. Now, this could be why the most junior member of the entire U.S. Senate is generally not invited to be a part of the Judiciary Committee.
Without them the truth would be in tatters.
They defend America from the Mis-information of Fox News.
In return they are called Smear Merchants & Fascist but they never sing the blues.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Who in his life never owned two clues
He sits at his computer, covered in drool
That boys and girls, is why you stay in school
Speak truth to Mr. News, he needs our help.
So stupid he thinks he is droll
He has no brain of his own
He should come back when he's grown
At least the semblance of a soul
Its a wonder he can even spell his own name
Drinking the liberal kool aid by the glass
So sad he cant realize he's just an ignorant asz
Pointofview spouted poetry quite lame
It's his twisted world view that's to blame
Sticking up for Sean Hannity
Is the def. of insannity
Logic, reason and class he doth maim.
I think she wants to be Mrs Hannity
When she gives him a son, the cheers will be hardy
and MMFA can host the joyous party.
He has no brain so his fingers just coast
He's not clever theres no wit
Thats the totality of it
In the end he's as stupid as toast
Violets are blue,
pointofview has none.
This was the edited version..MMFA word stopper took out the good stuff.
Franken could have asked another question about her judicial philsophy, but INSTEAD he used his time to ask a silly and ridiculous question about Perry Mason.
Yuck.
^
He used his time wisely, asked her a bunch of questions about the internet, but taking a moment to make a light comment somehow is beyond the pale I guess for folks like you.
Defending the Fever Swamp of Fox is a hopeless task.
"Rather" and "instead" are pretty clear, especially since it followed commentary about Franken's supposedly questionable qualifications as a Senator. That simply does not lend itself to an interpretation that he asked any questions about her judicial philosophy.
Is there some context that's not being provided here, like Hannity saying "Just kidding, here's what really happened" or something afterwards?
Google "Roberts confirmation" and transcript. Open one of those transcripts of his confirmation hearings. Do a text search on the word "laughter." You will find multiple examples of moments of levity and light-hearted banter. Do the same with any other nominee and you will find the same.
Only an idiot thinks that the the hearings should be conducted with an air of solemnity and seriousness at all times. There have always been more casual, friendly moments. There's nothing wrong with that.
Your complaint is the height of pettiness.
There is no way you can be sure of that.
Whoever believes Hannity and did not watch his entire line of questioning will believe exactly that.
"Rather than use his time to question the nominee on her judicial philosophy, the Saturday Night Live alum and failed radio talk show host -- instead, he decided to talk about a fictional defense attorney from a TV show."
Want to bet that Hannity will never refer to Sarah Palin as the "failed Alaska Governor?"
I guess going from radio host to US Senator constitutes "failure" in Sean's eyes- because after all, what's more important than being a talk show host?
Yuck."
What Franken did is called a closer. He'd already asked his questions, and was leaving his spot with a warm laugh. It's an old Toastmasters technique, and is used by everybody who knows how to present themselves publically.
Also, it was a capper to Sotomayor's previous comments about Mason, as well as to his observation about how American it was to all be watching the same program together, no matter who we are.
The fact that this goes over these people's heads is very, very disturbing. They simply can't be dealt with-- it's like trying to bargain with crazy people.
So apparantly even though you confess to know that Hannity is lying. You thihk nobody should complain about it because you have convinced yourself of another myth (Nobody believes Hannity anyway), even though Hannity's lie further solidifies a broader mythology of many in his fans.
But you don't see any consequence in what Hannity is doing. Republicans like you should have known a long time ago that "Permanent Republican Majority" was never sustainable simply because a broad mythology was being incorporated into what once was a legitimate conservative philosophy. The fact is that many who used to recently vote Republican and now vote Democrat in the last few years because they now know how full of crap Hannity, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh are. I wonder if you think that's a bad thing.
You really have to dig. I feel another Worst Person In The World coming Sean's way.
I like the "failed talk show host" put in there just for good measure, what about "successful author".
Its going to get a lot worst for Al, but the cooler he remains the more they will hate him.
Now to SissyBoy, he felt she was a Conservative never even thinking he was a Republican..this woman was great demanding to be called a Republican. If only more Republicans would call out these Conservatives-for-pay, the Party may have a chance for redemption.
By the way, shouldn't Seannie aspire to the Halls of Congress now that a SNL comedian did it. Wouldn't Seannie have a bigger stage to change things instead of talking about them. Wouldn't SissyBoy have the floor to give his fair and balanced truths to the entire world rather than his core on Fox..Seannie, I will donate to your campaign. Right after I donate to the campaign or website of Sarah Palin(Q).
Besides their fragile egos wouldn't be able to handle the landslide election losses they would receive.
Consider it a general rule:
No fool thinks himself a fool.
And Sean, a man of little wit,
Does not perceive his own bs.
um... because the people of minnesota voted him into office. what qualifies you to have a tv show and to actually be taken seriously, sean? you didnt graduate college, and you had nothing better to do, so you decided to make a career out of ranting on radio and tv. at least al franken graduated college. and not just any college... harvard. you would be lucky to get into clown college.
I'm sure Hannity would have preferred that Franken stick to the most important issue involving Sotomayor's nomination- the "Wise Latina Speech." I'm sure Hannity is angry that Franken didn't ask her about that speech, like everybody else did, repeatedly.
Oh, and Sean? If you don't like the questions Senator Al Franken asked, maybe you should get yourself elected to the US Senate and put on the Judiciary Committee. First, find a state where you have a prayer of winning a seat. I suggest the state of Insanity.
Sean's jealousy oozes out of every "what I would have done is..." diatribe.
No one that embraces Sarah Palin's qualifications is qualified to question anyone else elected to office!!!
Who keeps electing Michele Bachman??....they sure don't care about qualifications or performance on the job!!!
Huh.