"she is just simply not telling the truth"

Verum Serum's Morgen summarizes the Sotomayor hearing to date:

She could have stuck with her initial line of defense based around her 17 year track record as a judge, and simply said that she regretted her choice of words. In doing so she would have put the burden on her Republican questioners to demonstrate somehow that her record as a whole reflects any sort of gender or ethnic bias. (It does not.)

But whether based on pride, or perhaps a sense of empowerment due to her near certain confirmation, she chose to claim that her speech was not a statement of her beliefs regarding the positive impact of race and gender on judicial decisions. And it defies any sort of reasonable explanation – other than that she is just simply not telling the truth.

Morgen also linked to this AP story detailing Pat Leahy's attempt to cover Sotomayor's lies with a lie of his own:

In endorsing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy did some creative rewriting of history. And he put quote marks around it.
Trying to head off criticism of a controversial comment, Leahy misquoted Sotomayor's own words in kicking off the second day of her confirmation hearings.

Sotomayor's public comments are as much a part of the hearings as her lengthy judicial record. Here's a look at some of the claims made Tuesday about those comments, and the facts.

LEAHY SAID: "You said that, quote, you 'would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would reach wise decisions.'"

THE FACTS: If that's all Sotomayor said, the quote would barely have mattered to opponents of her nomination. The actual quote, delivered in a 2001 speech to law students at the University of California at Berkeley, was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Leahy's revision dropped the controversial part of the phrase, the part that has attracted charges of reverse racism.

A liar will be confirmed as a SCOTUS judge.  Put there by liars.

Seems fitting.

Comments

[Locutisprime]

Your ending sentiments say it all IMO.

Nothing is as it seems in today's world. Nothing spoken is what was actually said. Nothing seen is what actually occurred.

All is revised and clarified and made to appear completely different from what teh obviously faulty eyes and ears have reported.

[Morgan K Freeberg]

The real issue here is a "soft doctrine" of sorts that has been ushered in some thirty or forty years ago, and become increasingly robust in spite of its inherent silliness and unfairness:

...that it isn't even possible to discriminate against, demean, derogate, castigate, excoriate an entire race/gender of people...so long as the race is white, and the gender is male. You can show just as ugly behavior as you care to show against this designated class, so long as it's that class and none other. And it's just as if it never happened.

If this school of thought was simply given a name, that would be enough to sentence it to a death barely slow enough to deliver the agony it deserves on the way out. But it isn't named. And so, like a cancerous lump that has been palpated to the point where it can no longer be detected, it just drifts around.

[tim aka The Godless Heathen]

“If this school of thought was simply given a name…But it isn't named. And so, like a cancerous lump...”

I’ll take a stab at it.

Since you reference cancer and since diseases are sometimes given the name of someone famous who died from it, I say –

sotomayor: when a person of a certain minority ethnic group believes that their life experiences makes them wiser and therefore more qualified than a someone who is white and male. (Also see: racism )

[Locutisprime]

How fortuitous. Today we had the author of "Lies (and the lying liars who tell them)" questioning the liar Sotomayor in her senate confirmation hearing.