{"id":32971,"date":"2009-07-16T01:01:01","date_gmt":"2011-05-19T02:10:16","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2011-05-19T02:10:16","modified_gmt":"2011-05-19T02:10:16","slug":"hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/","title":{"rendered":"Hearings Aren\u2019t Helping Sotomayor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

RUSH: Jon Kyl. I\u2019m given to understand here from my buddy Andy McCarthy at National Review, via Jennifer Rubin who\u2019s writing about this on Commentary at their Contentions blog, that Jon Kyl is just tying Sotomayor up in knots this morning. Did you watch a little bit of it, Snerdley? I didn\u2019t. As I said yesterday, the voice, the whole thing, I… (sigh) So I\u2019m relying on others to tell me what happened, and this is apparently pretty good. He was really zeroing in on Ricci. You know, she said that she was relying on precedent, and Kyl said, ‘What precedent? What\u2019s the precedent? Why not vote for an en banc review?\u2019 meaning all judges on the Second Circuit.<\/p>\n

And she supposedly muddled that answer as well as she muddled the answer about precedent. So Kyl apparently scored some pretty big points. I want to play four sound bites for you here of Sonia Sotomayor from several times in her career and show how she butchers the English language, which is fine and dandy. We all butcher the English language, but were it not for I or not for me pointing it out you wouldn\u2019t know about it. A Republican nominee doing this kind of thing, it would be laughed about all over the media. They\u2019d be talking about how this guy\u2019s not smart enough, he\u2019s gotta go, if it were George W. Bush. Here\u2019s the first example. This is from oral arguments December 10th, 2007, in the Ricci v. DeStefano case. That\u2019s the firefighter case.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: This first seven who are gonna be hired, only because of the (pause) uh, vagrancies (sic) of the vacancies at that moment.<\/p>\n

RUSH: She meant to say ‘vagaries\u2019 but she said ‘vagrancies.\u2019 In fact, that whole clip… We don\u2019t have it but there\u2019s a clip, this audio, from which we culled this is Sotomayor interrupting the lawyers for the firefighters. The lawyers for the firefighters are making a brilliant case as to why only qualified people should be hired. And she makes it very clear that she\u2019s not concerned about any of that; she\u2019s only concerned about race being accounted for by coming up with a test where minorities have a better chance to pass it. So, ‘This first seven who are going to be hired only because of the vagrancies of the vacancies…\u2019 She meant vagaries. Here\u2019s the next example.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: Under New York, law if you are being threatened with eminent (sic) death or very serious injury —<\/p>\n

RUSH: It is not \u2019eminent.\u2019 It is ‘imminent,\u2019 with an ‘I\u2019 in front of it. Here\u2019s the next one.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — is educate themselves. They build up a story (sic) of knowledge about legal thinking.<\/p>\n

RUSH: It\u2019s a ‘store\u2019 of knowledge you build up. Now, remember, we\u2019re told, ‘This woman, she worked hard. This woman is brilliant! This woman is fabulous.\u2019 These are… (sigh) (drumming fingers) You don\u2019t find too many learned people making these kinds of vocabulary mistakes. ‘Vagrancies\u2019 for vagaries, \u2019eminent\u2019 for imminent, ‘a story of knowledge\u2019 ‘for store of knowledge.\u2019 And here\u2019s the last one.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: All questions of policy are within the providence (sic) of Congress first.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Province. It is ‘province\u2019 of Congress, not providence. Providence is a city in Rhode Island. Providence is also a record. Say you\u2019re a wine collector, and you have some old classics, and you want to sell \u2019em. You\u2019ve got to be able to prove the providence. You\u2019ve got to be able to prove they\u2019re real. How you got them, where they\u2019ve been how they\u2019ve been stored that\u2019s the providence of something. The providence… Questions of policy are the province, the right of Congress. So there she is, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Oh, and you gotta hear this, too. Yesterday I made a point that it sure seems to me like she knows the answers to the Democrat questions on the committee. ‘Cause when the Democrats start asking a question, she is right in there with the onomatopoeia. She just doesn\u2019t hesitate. There\u2019s no hesitation whatsoever. She\u2019s just in there. When the Republicans ask her questions it\u2019s a bunch of hem-hawing around like Kyl this morning. It\u2019s a bunch of hem-hawing around and writing on her notepad and trying to figure out what to do. Yesterday she got a question from Senator Al Franken on Perry Mason. Al Franken asked a judicial Supreme Court nominee about Perry Mason. Here was the exchange.<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: We\u2019re going to have round two so I\u2019ll ask you some more questions there. What was the one case in Perry Mason, that, uhh — <\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: There, I — I wish —<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: — Burger won.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — I remembered the name of the episode, but I don\u2019t. <\/p>\n

RUSH: Stop the tape! She knew that was coming! Recue that. She knew this was coming. How in the world…? If I\u2019m a Supreme Court nominee and some clown senator asks me about this, the last thing I\u2019m going to do to prep for my hearing and confirmation to US Supreme Court is be prepared to a question about Perry Mason, a TV series back in the \u201950s. Don\u2019t get me wrong, I love the show. Every Saturday night my mom and dad, steak and baked potatoes out there we\u2019d watch it. My dad was a famous lawyer in his own right we watched it. I loved the show. I\u2019ve got all the DVDs they\u2019ve released. Sometimes I\u2019ll spend some nostalgia time and watch it, but if I\u2019m nominated for any position on any federal court — all the way up to the Supreme Court — the last thing I\u2019m going to do is bone up on Perry Mason episodes. This woman sounds boned-up on Perry Mason! She had to know this question is coming. She starts answering it before Franken even finishes it. Listen to it. <\/p>\n

FRANKEN: We\u2019re going to have round two so I\u2019ll ask you some more questions there. What was the one case in Perry Mason, that, uhh — <\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: There, I — I wish —<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: — Burger won.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: — I remembered the name of the episode, but I don\u2019t. I just was always struck that there was only one case where his client was actually guilty.<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: And you don\u2019t remember that case?<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I know that I should remember the name of it but I haven\u2019t looked at the episode.<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: Didn\u2019t the White House prepare you for…<\/p>\n

AUDIENCE: (laughter)<\/p>\n

FRANKEN: For that?<\/p>\n

RUSH: Perry Mason lost one case. Now, Sotomayor apparently has told somebody that that TV show was part of the mix that inspired her to want to go into law. The fact is Perry Mason was a defense lawyer. She went into law as the prosecutor and then as a judge. Why would she emulate…? I mean, the prosecutor in the Perry Mason series was Hamilton Burger, one of the biggest klutzes in the history of television mysteries. Why would…? He never won a case. His name was Ham Burger, Hamilton Burger. Why in the world would you want to emulate a guy who never won a case? Why in the world would you bone up on Perry Mason? She knows. She knows the question is coming from the Democrats, even from that clown Senator Franken, who stole a Senate seat. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s amazing. It\u2019s a great country. They recount the votes in Iran (snorts) in a conflict over there, and Ahmadinejad gets more votes than he had in the original vote. Why, just like in this country! Franken\u2019s 250 votes short and by the time they finished, he\u2019s 250 votes long. Now, the State-Run Media is very upset. They think that Lindsey Grahamnesty has become a puppet of me. This, I think, is a great object lesson for Senator Graham. Senator Graham has spent a lot of his time, since he joined forces with Senator McCain, trying to curry favor with the liberals and the media by disagreeing with us in his own party — and bashing us, distancing himself from us — and after all of that they still call him a puppet of Rush Limbaugh. This is last night, Campbell Brown on CNN. She\u2019s talking to Sam Seder. (I don\u2019t know how to pronounce his name.) ‘Lindsey Graham is challenging the judge on her reputation among lawyers as a tough questioner. What\u2019s going on here?\u2019<\/p>\n

SEDER: Well, Lindsey Graham is saying here is he\u2019s basically saying, ‘I want to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for treating you so fairly, uh, yesterday and hope that, uh, the way I\u2019m questioning you — you now will, uh, put me back in his good graces and so I think —<\/p>\n

BROWN: (giggling)<\/p>\n

SEDER: He — Uh, that his hope, anyway.<\/p>\n

RUSH: So after all this — Lindsey Graham joining forces with McCain and trying to curry favor with the State-Run Media — and all he does is he asked her one really good question: ‘Ma\u2019am, you know, I couldn\u2019t say what you said and be sitting where you are.\u2019 So now all of a sudden he\u2019s out there trying to apologize to me for going soft the first day, trying to curry favor. I\u2019m sorry, Senator Graham. I didn\u2019t mean to do this to you, but after all these years of trying to curry favor with these people… I think the liberals saying that he is a slave to me seems to maybe have gotten to Senator Graham a little bit. This is this morning in Washington, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing during his questioning. Graham had this exchange with Judge Sotomayor.<\/p>\n

GRAHAM: You have come a long way. You have worked very hard. You have earned the respect of Ken Starr — and I would like to put his statement in the record — and you have said some things that just bug the hell out of me.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: May I —<\/p>\n

GRAHAM: Last question on the ‘wise Latino woman\u2019 comment. To those who may be bothered by that, what do you say?<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: I regret that I have offended some people. I believe that my life demonstrates that that was not my intent, to leave the impression that some have taken from my words.<\/p>\n

GRAHAM: You know what, Judge? I agree with you. Good luck.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, I don\u2019t think Lindsey Graham is trying to curry favor with me here. (laughing) She said that phrase four or five times over a period of as many years in various speeches. It\u2019s not subject to misinterpretation. It\u2019s who she is. I gotta take a break, but we\u2019ve got the audio sound bites, a couple audio sound bites of unhappy leftist legal beagles with Sotomayor\u2019s unwillingness to come forth and be an honest commie babe. <\/p>\n

BREAK TRANSCRIPT<\/p>\n

RUSH: We chronicled earlier this morning — well, earlier today, depending where you are — Justice Sotomayor\u2019s butchering of the English language, which is important \u2019cause she\u2019s a judge about to sit on the Supreme Court. Among the things that we highlighted: ‘The first seven who are going to be hired only because of the vacancies of that moment,\u2019 she meant to say vagaries. ‘Under New York law, if you\u2019re being threatened with eminent death or very serious injury.\u2019 Imminent is what she meant, with an I, not an E. ‘Educate themselves, they build up a story of knowledge about legal things.\u2019 Store of knowledge, not story. And she said, ‘All questions of policy are within the providence of Congress.\u2019 No, province of Congress. And the latest, in a conversation with Senator Chuck-U Schumer, ‘I want to talk to you, ask you about the 1995 player strike case, which comes up, it is an interesting case for everybody,\u2019 da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da, ‘could you tell us a little bit about the case, why you listed it in your questionnaire you filled out as one of your ten most important cases, and that will be my last question.\u2019 <\/p>\n

And she says, ‘People often forget how important some legal challenges seem before judges decide the case. Before the case was decided all the academics, all the newspapers and others talking about the case were talking about the novel theory the baseball owners had developed in challenging the collective bargaining rights players and owners.\u2019 So that\u2019s the context. She said, ‘And it becomes clear to me after looking at that case that that process led to affirming the decision of the National Labor Relationships Board, that it could and should issue an injunction on the grounds of the claim.\u2019 It\u2019s the National Labor Relations Board, not the National Labor Relationships Board. (interruption) What did I say, providence? Provenance. I said what? Providence, whatever. Yeah. I got it right. You\u2019re confusing me here with all these notes. Here I am in a very detailed, proper discussion on how Sotomayor can\u2019t speak and I\u2019m getting notes from my own staff saying you can\u2019t, either, essentially, and I\u2019m sitting here laughing about it. <\/p>\n

What is it, National Labor Relationships Board? It is The Oprah show. What is it, a chic thing, I mean, this is not insignificant stuff, if you ask me, any Republican nominee butchering the language like this would be disqualified and it would be all over the headlines and they would be investigating the educational history of the nominee. I mentioned earlier today also that Jon Kyl really scored some points on the Ricci case. Here is the audio on that. We got three bites. Kyl said, ‘There was no Supreme Court precedent that required your result in Ricci.\u2019 She cited precedent. There wasn\u2019t any precedent and finally Kyl said so. ‘And I\u2019m not sure what the Second Circuit precedent is. The Supreme Court said few, if any, and I don\u2019t know what the precedent would be, I mean I\u2019m not necessarily gonna ask you to cite the case, but was there a case, and, if so, what is it?\u2019<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: It was the ones that we discussed yesterday, the bushy line of cases that talked about the prima facie case and the obligations of the city in terms of defending lawsuits claiming disparate impact. And so, the question then became how do you view the city\u2019s action. Was it a — and that\u2019s what the district court had done in its 78-page opinion to say you\u2019ve got a city facing liability.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Well, I mean that\u2019s mumbo jumbo gobbledygook. There is no precedent. And don\u2019t tell me I said ‘president,\u2019 Dawn, there is no precedent in this case. He nailed her on it. Now he zeros in on the en banc review.<\/p>\n

KYL: So you contend that there was Second Circuit precedent. Now, on the en banc review, of course, the question there is different because you\u2019re not bound by any three-judge panel decision in your circuit. So what precedent would have bound — and yet, you took the same position in the en banc review. And in that case, of course, they\u2019re not bound by a three-judge decision because it\u2019s the entire circuit sitting of 10 or 12 or 20 judges. So what precedent then would have bound the court in the en banc review? <\/p>\n

RUSH: You listen and see if she has an answer.<\/p>\n

SOTOMAYOR: The panel acted in accordance with its views by setting forth and incorporating the district court\u2019s analysis of the case. Those who disagreed with the opinion made their arguments. Those who agreed that en banc certification wasn\u2019t necessary voted their way and the majority of the court decided not to hear the case en banc.<\/p>\n

RUSH: The question was about precedent. My dad was a lawyer, I know this stuff, she didn\u2019t answer it. Now, let\u2019s move on, ladies and gentlemen, to liberals unhappy with Sotomayor hiding who she really is. Last night on PMSNBC, Dahlia Lithwick was the guest. And she was asked this question: ‘You\u2019ve raised the issue of the Democrats\u2019 lost opportunity here. You said at Slate.com today that you learned more about liberal theories on jurisprudence from Democrats\u2019 opposition to Roberts and Alito than you could glean from the way they\u2019re supporting Sotomayor. What do you mean by that?\u2019<\/p>\n

LITHWICK: All they needed to do for three days was just wind up and explain what\u2019s wrong with the John Roberts court, why does the Roberts court have this determination to keep Americans, average Americans, out of the courthouse doors? Why are they so set on doing away with the racial progress we\u2019ve made? Nobody makes that point. Instead we have at least half the Democrats on the committee racing into the embrace of John Roberts, you know, promising us that Sotomayor is going to be tough on crime, loves guns, is a strict constructionist, is a minimalist. It\u2019s just bizarre the extent to which John Roberts\u2019 shadow hovers over these hearings. And Democrats, it\u2019s like Patti Hearst syndrome. They completely bought into the notion that, you know, justices call balls and strikes; anything over and above that is horrible.<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, you see, this is fascinating stuff here, because the liberals are winning everything. They\u2019re getting everything they want. They\u2019re gonna get Sotomayor, all things considered. The Republicans don\u2019t have the votes to stop anything Obama wants to do. And here comes this Lithwick babe just bent all out of shape because they\u2019re not on the warpath against the Roberts court. She\u2019s upset in order for this confirmation to go smoothly Sotomayor has to lie about who she is. She has to stay in the closet. Exactly right. Sotomayor cannot come out. She cannot come out of the closet. She has to pretend that she\u2019s not a liberal and it\u2019s upsetting these liberals out there. They still think they\u2019re losing. It\u2019s fascinating to listen to these people because normally they\u2019re all about doing whatever you have to do to win: lie, cheat, ACORN, whatever you have to do to win. This Lithwick babe is not happy with the way they\u2019re winning. She wants Roberts impeached or destroyed. Here\u2019s another one. This is last night on CNN, Campbell Brown talking to a contributing editor Cathy Areu from the Washington Post. The question: ‘If she weren\u2019t sitting before this committee right now with so much at stake would she really be backing off that statement?\u2019<\/p>\n

AREU: Nooo. As a wise Latina I can tell you, no, she\u2019s not backing down and she probably would want to say, ‘Not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a white man could.\u2019<\/p>\n

RUSH: Now, this is a Washington Post reporterette, an infobabe, so put this now in order. Sotomayor has told everybody that Sandra Day O\u2019Connor didn\u2019t mean what she said and now a Washington Post reporter, Cathy Areu, says Sotomayor didn\u2019t mean what she said. Here, play this again. This is a woman who knows what Sotomayor is hiding and is upset she\u2019s hiding it. Listen again. <\/p>\n

AREU: Nooo. As a wise Latina I can tell you, no, she\u2019s not backing down and she probably would want to say, ‘Not only do I mean a wise Latina, I meant any Latina could make a better decision than a white man could.\u2019<\/line> <\/line>RUSH: As though that\u2019s okay, as though that\u2019s right, as though it\u2019s correct. That\u2019s what Sotomayor wants to say. Now, it\u2019s actually what these people want her to say because they know what she meant. That\u2019s what Sotomayor meant. They\u2019re right, by the way. These critics of Sotomayor are right. She said the wise Latina comment at least six times, my good friends, in speeches and comments over the course of many years. This is eye-opening in so many ways. A Washington Post reporter, ‘I\u2019m going to tell you what she really feels, I\u2019m going to tell you what she really thinks, I\u2019m going to tell you what she really wanted to say.\u2019 (laughing) So these liberals out there revising each other at every opportunity. As a wise Latina myself, let me tell you what I know she meant, as a wise Latina myself. Not only wise Latina, any Latina, an unwise Latina, stupid Latina would make a better decision than your average white guy. That\u2019s what the Washington Post babe said, and we played this because nobody, folks, is watching CNN in primetime. I mean, you could put their audience in a thimble. We\u2019re airing this for you so that you know about it.<\/line><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

RUSH: Jon Kyl. I\u2019m given to understand here from my buddy Andy McCarthy at National Review, via Jennifer Rubin who\u2019s writing about this on Commentary at their Contentions blog, that Jon Kyl is just tying Sotomayor up in knots this morning. Did you watch a little bit of it, Snerdley? I didn\u2019t. As I said […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"categories":[],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nHearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Hearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"RUSH: Jon Kyl. I\u2019m given to understand here from my buddy Andy McCarthy at National Review, via Jennifer Rubin who\u2019s writing about this on Commentary at their Contentions blog, that Jon Kyl is just tying Sotomayor up in knots this morning. Did you watch a little bit of it, Snerdley? I didn\u2019t. As I said […]\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/\",\"name\":\"The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"description\":\"Excellence In Broadcasting\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/\",\"name\":\"Hearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-05-19T02:10:16+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-05-19T02:10:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Hearings Aren\\u2019t Helping Sotomayor\"}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Hearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/","twitter_card":"summary","twitter_title":"Hearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show","twitter_description":"RUSH: Jon Kyl. I\u2019m given to understand here from my buddy Andy McCarthy at National Review, via Jennifer Rubin who\u2019s writing about this on Commentary at their Contentions blog, that Jon Kyl is just tying Sotomayor up in knots this morning. Did you watch a little bit of it, Snerdley? I didn\u2019t. As I said […]","twitter_image":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/","name":"The Rush Limbaugh Show","description":"Excellence In Broadcasting","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#primaryimage","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/live-rush-limbaugh.pantheonsite.io\/wp-content\/uploads\/01125108.Par.89380.ImageFile.jpg"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/","name":"Hearings Aren't Helping Sotomayor - The Rush Limbaugh Show","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#primaryimage"},"datePublished":"2011-05-19T02:10:16+00:00","dateModified":"2011-05-19T02:10:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/2009\/07\/16\/hearings_aren_t_helping_sotomayor2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.rushlimbaugh.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hearings Aren\u2019t Helping Sotomayor"}]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#\/schema\/person\/911066e449df26406b107ca78cbbde0b","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/#personlogo","inLanguage":"en-US","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f18195e0073013fa0e16b040686c2924?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"url":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/daily\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32971"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32971"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32971\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32971"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32971"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/admin.rushlimbaugh.com\/api\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32971"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}