Sen. Lindsey Graham: a patronizing, condescending sexist

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is concerned that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has a judicial "temperament" problem. Are you friggin' kidding me!

Sen. Graham is the BFF of Senator John McCain (aka McNasty) who is legendary for his lack of temperament, and with his desperate selection of the unqualified Sarah Palin as his running mate, his complete lack of judgment. This is the kind of guy that Sen. Graham pals around with and he thought would make a good president. This speaks to his complete lack of judgment.

Sen. Graham was given kudos by some of the media villagers for his opening day comment that Judge Sotomayor would be confirmed unless she had a complete meltdown. Well, to quote Keith Olbermann, "he must have had a big ol' plate of crazy for lunch" before his turn to question Judge Sotomayor on Tuesday. It was an over-the-top performance by a patronizing, condescending sexist.

Versha Sharma at Talking Points Memo has posted an excellent summary Sen. Lindsey Graham Bullies Sotomayor – While Accusing Her Of Being Bully:

In the most aggressive questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing thus far, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) read out a laundry list of complaints about the nominee this afternoon. Graham went through insult after insult from anonymous reviews about Sotomayor's temperament, including ones that called her "nasty," "a terror," "a bit of a bull," and one that said she lacks any "judicial temperament." Graham then asked her directly: "Do you think you have a temperament problem?"

In response to that last question, Sotomayor said, "No, sir, I can only talk about what I know about my relationships…when I ask lawyers tough questions, it's to give them an opportunity to explain their positions on both sides and to persuade me that they're right."

Graham later said, "I never liked appearing in court before a judge I thought was a bully."

What a pussy. Graham thinks he is being bullied when judges ask tough questions that he probably cannot answer because his case is an unjustified load of crap? (see Note below the fold) And how cowardly is he to use anonymous statements from lawyers who probably lost their case before the Second Circuit and used the review as an opportunity to vent their frustrations? So much for the right to confront one's accusers. And has Sen. Graham ever been questioned by Justice Antonin Scalia? Now there's a judge lacking in judicial temperament, let me tell you.

Sen. Graham's most offensive comment followed shortly after this line of insults when he suggested that "maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection." A little time out in the corner for you to think about your behavior, missy. This patronizing, condescending sexist remark no doubt immediately caught the attention of every woman in the room and in the television audience. "He said what? You ___ (choose your own invective)!"

Note: What I find most galling is that Sen. Lindsey Graham and our own Sen. Jon Kyl are even permitted to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee and sit in judgment on any judicial nominee. By right, they both should have been sanctioned by the U.S. Supreme Court and disciplined by the D.C. bar for their amicus brief in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. As recounted by John Dean at FindLaw's Writ:

Senators Graham and Kyl not only misled their Senate colleagues, but also shamed their high offices by trying to deliberately mislead the U.S. Supreme Court. Their effort failed. I have not seen so blatant a ploy, or abuse of power, since Nixon's reign.

To understand their ruse, a bit of background information about both the Hamdan case and the Detainee Treatment Act is necessary.

* * *

Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), and on December 30, 2005, President Bush signed it. Then, on February 13, 2006, the government filed an extraordinary motion before the Supreme Court, calling for the Court to dismiss Hamdan's case on the ground that the DTA had stripped the High Court of jurisdiction of any and all habeas corpus actions emanating from the detainees at Guantanamo.

In support of the government's motion, Senators Kyl and Graham filed an amicus brief. There, they brazenly attempted to hoodwink the Court regarding the actions of Congress in adopting the DTA.

* * *

[S]enator Graham proposed an amendment (to an Defense Department authorization bill) that would deny detainees at Guantanamo the right to file habeas actions in federal courts, and strip the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over all the cases then pending, including the Hamdan case.

* * *

[T]the Republican leadership forced a vote on Graham's Amendment, which had its blessing – and surely that of the Administration. It passed, and was made part of the Defense Authorizations Act for Fiscal Year 2006, by a vote of 49 to 42.

* * *

The revised Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment passed 84 to 14.

* * *

When the conference report came back to the Senate on December 21, 2005, the Congressional Record reported a lengthy colloquy between Senators Graham and Kyl, briefly joined by Senator Brownback. (This extended dialogue runs some 12,000 words.)

* * *

Those viewing C-Span's coverage of the Senate, and the Senators on the floor of the Senate, never heard this part, or any of the rest of, this lengthy colloquy between Graham and Kyl. That's because it never happened. No doubt aides of the Senators wrote this bogus and protracted dialogue, and either Graham or Kyl had it inserted in the record.

* * *

In February 2006, Senators Graham and Kyl filed their amicus brief in the Hamdan case, supporting the Government's motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction under the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). If they had been keeping faith with Senator Levin and the rest of their colleagues, they should have filed a brief on precisely the other side – making clear that the DTA, as amended, had had no intention to touch the Supreme Court's pending Hamdan case, and thus opposing the government's motion!

Instead, Graham and Kyl advised the Court they were sponsors of the Graham-Levin-Kyl amendment, and throughout their brief, cited their fictitious colloquy on December 21, 2005. Indeed, that colloquy is the core of their brief and its argument as to why the Court should dismiss the Hamdan case. Their hubris reaches the point of deception when they claim that the "legislative history confirms that Congress intended all pending claims to be governed by the DTA."

* * *

Hamdan's lawyers, however, spotted the hoax. In their opposition to the motion to dismiss the case, they advised the Court that the supposedly conflicting legislative history was entirely invented after the fact, and that it consisted of "a single scripted colloquy that never actually took place, but was instead inserted into the record after the legislation had passed." The brief noted, quite accurately, that this Graham-Kyl colloquy was "simply an effort to achieve after passage of the Act precisely what [they] failed to achieve in the legislative process."

* * *

In footnote 10 of the majority opinion, the Court notes:

While statements attributed to the final bill's two other sponsors, Senators Graham and Kyl, arguably contradict Senator Levin's contention that the final version of the Act preserved jurisdiction over pending habeas cases . . . those statements appear to have been inserted into the Congressional record after the Senate debate. . . . All statements made during the debate itself support Senator Levin's understanding.

Considering that all three of the dissenting Justices agreed with the Kyl/Graham interpretation of the DTA, this is not an insignificant fact. Had the Court not been told (by attorneys for Hamdan) that the floor debate was fake, the Justices in the majority would have had a more difficult time justifying their interpretation of the DTA. Unclaimed Territory – by Glenn Greenwald

* * *

Out of an apparent concern for interbranch comity, the High Court has chosen to ignore the bogus brief filed by Senators Graham and Kyl, rather than reprimanding the Senators. Nevertheless, when Graham and Kyl sought to file the very same brief, a month later, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columba, Slate's Emily Bazelon reports that court "issued an unusual order rejecting" their amicus brief alone, although they accepted five others.

And what was Sen. Kyl's response to being outed by the Supreme Court for attempting to mislead his Senate colleagues and the high court? “It is no big deal to submit material for the record. It is done every day.” Kyl defends bogus brief

This is the dishonest, unethical and corrupt lawyer/senator who represents the state of Arizona. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is no better.