Franken & Sotomayor Share ‘Perry Mason’ Memories… Franken Loves the Sound of His Own Voice
Posted By Vicki McClure Davidson on July 17, 2009
Perry Mason, a favorite TV court-crime show of Dem. Sen. Al Franken and SCOTUS nominee Sonia Sotomayor
Gag-worthy.
Newly sworn-in Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) takes an exorbitant amount of time during the SCOTUS congressional hearings to talk about the old TV crime-court drama Perry Mason with Supreme Court judge nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
And Franken talks, and talks, and talks (almost as insufferably much as POTUS). He mentions but doesn’t explore the obvious inconsistency (at least, in this video clip) that, while Sotomayor has said she was influenced by Perry Mason, she didn’t pursue becoming a defense attorney, which is what Perry Mason was, but instead, a prosecuting attorney like Mason’s nemesis, Hamilton Burger, the guy who after about a zillion years, finally wins one case. If Sotomayor had won only one case, then she wouldn’t have had so many cases overturned by the Supreme Court, including the much-discussed Ricci v. DeStefano case. I’m just sayin’…
With hushed pathos and empathy, Franken paints a verbal picture (it’s taking forever… he’s STILL talking) of her as a young woman, watching the TV show years ago in the Bronx with her family, dreaming of Perry Mason, as fraudulent hooey (evidence/proof?) of her qualifications and commitment to being on the Supreme Court.
What, no swelling orchestra?
“I think that says something about your determination to defy the odds, and while you were watching Perry Mason in the South Bronx with your mom and your brother, and I was watching Perry Mason in suburban Minneapolis with my folks and my brother, and, uh, here we are today. And I’m asking you questions because you have been nominated to be a justice of the United States Supreme Court. And, uh, I think that’s pretty cool.”
Gee whiz, is that all it takes, Al? Dreaming as a kid while watching television makes someone the most qualified choice for the most important court in the world, the US Supreme Court? Adherence to the provisions of the US Constitution, separating your personal preferences and following the law while demonstrating non-racial bias in judgments aren’t all that important? If so, you’re right… that IS pretty cool. All hail Perry Mason…
As a former comedian on Saturday Night Live, Franken seems ill-prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee SCOTUS hearing, and is wrapped up in childish delusions. Watching and being on TV isn’t much qualification for ANYTHING, except maybe for appearing on Jeopardy! (I’ll take TV Crime Shows for $400, Alex…).
More reading:
Washington Examiner: Republicans don’t believe Sotomayor’s stories
The Washington Times: GOP: Sotomayor approval not guaranteed
Associated Press: GOP Sen. Sessions to oppose Sotomayor
Confederate Yankee: Sotomayor Either Perjured Herself, or Is Intellectually Unqualified to be on the Supreme Court
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown’s Blog: Sotomayor’s Selective Empathy
Sweet Spirits of Ammonia: Franken Follies Commence
Michelle Malkin: “The siren call of judicial activism” and Day Two: Sotomayor and ritual reassurances and Sen. Graham to Sotomayor: “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed.” and Day One: Spotlight on Sotomayor and Racism rejected: SCOTUS reverses Sotomayor in firefighters case and The Supreme Court high hurdles contest and Franken-fied: Make way for (another) clown; Update: Coleman statement added
American Elephants: Democrat Group Launches Smear Campaign Against Firefighter in Sotomayor Case
Wise Conservatism: Sotomayor vs. Sotomayor….who is she?
Debra J. Saunders, Rasmussen: The Audacity of Self-defense
Matt Apuzzo, Breitbart.com: FACT CHECK: Don’t quote Sotomayor on that, Senator… Leahy creative rewriting of history…
Michael S. Rulle, Jr., Big Hollywood: The Tragi-Comedy of Sonia Sotomayor
Jillian Bandes, Townhall: Arlen Specter a Picture of Confusion and Contradiction
Threedonia: Wise Latina woman not impressing much
Arlenearmy’s Blog: Sotomayor’s Supporters Intimidates Senate’s Witness
Talking Points Memo LiveWire: Opening Statement From Sen. John Cornyn (As Prepared For Delivery)
The Patriot’s Mind: Judge Sotomayor on Self Defense – 2nd & 14th Amendment and Fact Check: Senator attempts to avoid Sotomayor’s exact quotes!
Ed Whelan, NRO: More Sotomayor on Use of Foreign Law
Power Line: Empathetic, moi?
The Daily Beast: Sotomayor: The Drinking Game
John Romano, Big Hollywood: Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats
Ed Driscoll, Pajamas Media: Some Narratives Are Better Than Others
Sister Toldjah: The Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings
Hot Air: Surprise: Graham voting for “bold, edgy” Sotomayor and Video: Obama’s “wise Latina” moment or something and Wise Latina wise enough for three GOP yes votes so far and Aw: Graham forgives Sotomayor for the “wise Latina” crap and Video: Wise Latina sends Chris Matthews to leg-thrill heaven and SCOTUS overrules Sotomayor on Ricci
Excellence in America: The Questions Sotomayor Should Be Asked – America Deserves Answers
Rosita the Prole: Sotomayor’s White Boyfriend (named “Mr. White,” you can’t make this stuff up) Dumped Her For a Younger Woman. I Think We Have Located the Origin of the “Wise Latinas Do It Better Than Stupid White Men” Remark.
Commentary Magazine: Sotomayor Morphs Into Justice Roberts
Teh Resistance Blog: Firefighter Frank Ricci about to be picked, targeted, frozen, personalized and polarized
Grand Rants: Supreme Court To Sotomayor: You Blew It… Again
Mike Sargent: NewsBusters: Coulter’s Cajun Barbecue: Coulter vs Carville On Good Morning America
Ann Coulter, World Net Daily: So much for wise Latinas
Washington Post: Ricci Decision Provides Rallying Point for Opposition
La Shawn Barber’s Corner: Supreme Court Sides with White Firefighters – Opinion
Op-Toons: Lawyers Advise Fire Departments to Close Until Fires Destroy More Racially Proportionate Numbers of Homes
Rasmussen Reports: Public Support for Sotomayor Falls After Supreme Court Reversal
Frank DiMartini, Big Hollywood: The End of Reverse Discrimination?
Legal Insurrection: Now The Sotomayor Polls Don’t Matter
Hot Air Green Room: Sotomayor and the politics of race
The TIW Blog: Racist, bigoted Sotomayor repudiated by SCOTUS
Arlenearmy’s Blog: Update to Race Discrimination Case: U.S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Victims
Axis of Right: Sonia Sotomayor Overruled (again) by SCOTUS
CQ Politics: Sotomayor Spin Wars Have White House Working Overtime
Frugal Café Blog Zone: Democrat Attack Dogs Waiting to Leap on Frank Ricci: SCOTUS Hearings for Sonia Sotomayor Begin Today and Warning Signs about Sonia Sotomayor, from Andrew Breitbart and “Clarence Thomas & Miguel Estrada’s Backgrounds Didn’t Impress Democrats”: Ann Coulter Rejects Getting All Weepy about Ultra-Liberal Hispanic Sotomayor’s SCOTUS Nomination (video) and Repeated Bias: Sotomayor Has Made ‘Wise Latina/Better Decisions’ Remark Several Times
PA WaterCooler.com: Say No to Sonia!
Caleb Posner’s Blog: Sotomayor the Latina Extremist
About the author
First, MN elects Ventura as governor. Now it puts a clown in the Senate. Obviously, MNtans arfe playing a joke on the rest of us. Do you remember Cicciolina in Italy’s parliament? That’s what’s next. MN will send a porn star to Congress.
chsw
You’re kidding, right? Franken asked several substantive questions about judicial activism, the right to free speech as it applies to regulating internet access, and constitutional interpretation, and you’re giving him grief about showing some humanity in finding a commonality?
As for him not exploring why watching Perry Mason caused her to become a prosecutor instead of a defense attorney, he did say he was bringing up the whole thing because he found that fascinating and telling, but he didn’t need to explore it because she had already explained it earlier in the hearing when speaking to Senator Klobuchar. She said:
In one of the episodes, at the end of the episode, Perry Mason,
with 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 said: 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 Mr. Morgenthau, a job
I’m eternally grateful to him for, in which I could do what justice
required in an individual case.
So give him credit for paying attention and not playing to the people who are only going to watch his small portion of the whole hearing.
You call it “humanity,” I call it “nonsensical trivia.” If Democrats had shown 1/100th such compassion or humanity when viciously grilling Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings, and subsequent marginalizing of HIS personal story of struggle and overcoming incredible odds, I’d be more forgiving and less cynical. Bunny softball pitches to Sotomayor, much like simpering questions posed in a teen celebrity fan magazine rather than to someone aspiring to sit on the most important court in the world. She is someone with a controversial record as an activist and judge, but the Democrat panel members, as evidenced here and in many other clips I’ve screened, have whitewashed any criticism of her (the White House [i.e., Robert Gibbs] has been unusually dictatorial in admonishments/veiled threats against anyone who expresses criticism of her) or have attempted to distract from those controversies since she’s a liberal. Perry Mason serves, to me anyway, as a metaphor… an ironic metaphor. And as was pointed out in this post, it was cited that the observation applied to this one clip only. I stand by my opinion of this moronic clip. If indeed Franken addresses this in another clip from the hearings and doesn’t come across as a sycophant and explores her true character with legitimately tough questions about her past judgments and activism, yes, I will give him some credit.
Nonsensical trivia is Franken in bunny ears and a diaper.
Personally, I would love to see ALL the senators in bunny ears and a diaper.
Isn’t that what we have now ??
Wait, I just envisioned that, and it ain’t pretty.
Hard to believe you can get all “And Franken talks, and talks, and talks (almost as insufferably much as POTUS)” over a 2 minute clip of a 30 minute section of a 4 day hearing. And if you want to dredge up the past, there’s plenty to go around on both sides. You say Democrats and Clarence Thomas, but you could easily say Republicans and Anita Hill.
But go watch other clips. Watch all the Bunny Softball questions all the Republicans asked all of W’s Supreme Court Nominees. Watch the remaining 28 minutes of Franken’s first Q&A session with Sotomayor. Get some perspective.
All the nomination hearings in the TV age are nothing but political theater. The senators have all met privately with the nominee and have pretty much all made up their minds before the hearings started. So get over the fact that people who disagree with you will agree with other people you disagree with. Or at least stick to arguing what you disagree about and get off the ad hominem stuff that you are complaining is coming at Palin.
I have, and say what you will, Franken’s long-winded droning was painful for me to listen to. Your reference to Palin is strange… my opinion of Franken and his amateurish performance on the congressional panel is nothing like the vicious, foul name-calling of Palin from liberal writers, comedians, and politicians, nor the harsh questioning of liberal politicians in the Senate hearings for previous conservative SCOTUS nominees. Comparing my opinion of Franken to the vile crucification of Palin is laughable. Conservatives on the Sotomayor panel have been exceedingly polite and civil to Sonia, she herself has said that to the press… that civility was absent during Thomas’s congressional hearing, which I watched at the time. Anita Hill was opposing Thomas’s appointment and her charges of sexual improprieties were lodged pretty much at the 11th hour. She was not a SCOTUS nominee, but someone without any proof suddenly making a grave accusation about events that had occurred a decade earlier. As I recall, a man is innocent until proven guilty, and there was no proof, just Hill’s word. So, I would expect there to be strong questioning of her. I don’t remember any “kid glove treatment” at all with Thomas, but a lot of embarrassing questions and humiliation for him, both in the press and in the hearings. Obviously, you don’t share the same opinion of the unlikeable Franken and his boring droning in the clip. You’re entitled to that. As I am to my opinion, which remains the same.
To Kevin:
Al Franken is a pitiful joke, a clown, and a mean spirited man. His whole Perry Mason thing was showboating and was just plain stupid. To admire him for that is ridiculous. He loves to talk about himself and he has a quick temper with anyone who doesn’t fawn over him or agree with him. I can’t wait until he has a typical hissy fit with a senior senator. He has a foul mouth an d I know the fur will fly. I’m hearing that he is already trying to hog the media light and jump the ranks and it’s making veteran Democrat senators annoyed. His dumb story about watching Perry Mason had no place in this hearing. The man is out of his league.
To Lionhearted:
Ad hominem attacks beget ad hominem attacks and don’t further any kind of policy discussion, compromise, or civility in general. The anti-Palin vitriol is just the latest escalation in this cycle. (I think Palin is unfit for public office, but I’m opposed to the name calling all around.) Here are the ad hominem attacks in your post, in case you were wondering.
Al Franken is
1) a pitiful joke
2) a clown
3) a mean spirited man
4) loves to talk about himself
5) has a quick temper
6) has a foul mouth
7) is out of his league
To Viki:
If you think Franken is a boring windbag, well, sure, you’re totally entitled to that opinion. You’re entitled to your opinion that he “seems ill-prepared for the Senate Judiciary Committee SCOTUS hearing” too, but it seems to me completely unreasonable that you would base that opinion on watching less than 10% of the time he spent questioning Sotomayor, especially given that he is the most junior senator on the panel and thus lots of questions had already been asked and answered (including a lot of discussion about Perry Mason) before Franken even got his turn.
It just seems to me like you’re not even trying to be fair.