Stephanopoulos Fawns: 'Calm,' 'Cool' Sotomayor 'Didn't Make Any Mistakes'

Photo of Scott Whitlock.
  • Bookmark and Share

Former Democratic strategist-turned-journalist George Stephanopoulos appeared on Wednesday's Good Morning America to coo that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "didn't make any mistakes" and "did exactly what she had to do" in her confirmation hearings on Tuesday. In contrast, during Sam Alito's confirmation hearings in 2006, Stephanopoulos related Democratic complaints about membership in a supposedly discriminatory group.

The ex-Clinton aide enthused that Sotomayor brushed aside evidence that she was difficult to deal with: "On the question of bullying, she answered that with her manner all day long. No matter how many tough questions she got, she stayed even. She stayed calm. She stayed cool." He added, "She didn't meltdown. She didn't make any mistakes."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

On the January 11, 2006 edition of World News, Stephanopoulos highlighted then-Supreme Court nominee Sam Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton. Reciting Alito's assertion that he had no memory of joining the group and also liberal complaints, he fretted, "Democrats don't buy it. They say the group was notorious for its discriminatory agenda when Alito listed it in his 1985 job application for the Reagan Justice Department. So notorious that prominent Princeton alumni like Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist had publicly disavowed it."

In fairness, Stephanopoulos also appeared on the January 11, 2006 Good Morning America and corrected misinformation by co-host Charlie Gibson about Alito's abortion record. He claimed that Alito had done "a fairly effective job of answering the questions" of the senators. However, he wasn't as effusive to the conservative nominee as he was with Sotomayor.

On Wednesday, Stephanopoulos spun the White House as happy to be a target of Sotomayor. After playing a clip of the confirmation hearings where the nominee disagreed with a quote by Obama that a judge has to rely on his or her "heart," Stephanopoulos mused, "How's that for gratitude? She threw the President under the bus right there. But the White House doesn't care at all because they know she ended up on the safe ground where she wants where they want her to be."

In an earlier segment, ABC legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg informed viewers that "a liberal Georgetown Law professor said he was completely disgusted with [Sotomayor's] testimony." She added, "It's highly doubtful, though, we'll hear anything like that from the supportive Senate Democrats." Greenburg didn't identify law professor Mike Seidman, but he wrote at the Federalist Society's website:

Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts?

The ABC correspondent didn't mention the Georgetown professor when she filed a similar report on Tuesday night's World News.

A transcript of the July 15 segment, which aired at 7:15am, follows:

ROBIN ROBERTS: And now, for the bottom line, we turn to chief Washington correspondent, and host of This Week, George Stephanopoulos. Morning to you, George.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Hey, Robin.

ROBERTS: So, how did she do? She took a lot of tough questions on abortion, gun rights, her temperament. How do you think she did?

STEPHANOPOULOS: She did- She did exactly what she had to do, Robin. As Jan pointed out in her piece, Judge Sotomayor had to address two major sources of complaint. That she's biased and that she's a bit of a bully. And she answered those, in part, on the bias question, by a tactical retreat. She simply gave up statements she's made in the past. Saying that she didn't mean to say what people heard. And she pointed those to her record of judicial restraint. She said a record of judicial restraint. On the question of bullying, she answered that with her manner all day long. No matter how many tough questions she got, she stayed even. She stayed calm. She stayed cool. You know, Senator Graham said on Monday that unless she had a meltdown under this questioning, she would be confirmed. She didn't meltdown. She didn't make any mistakes.

ROBERTS: And one of the tough questions came from Republican Senator Jon Kyl. I want to play it for you and get your reaction.

SENATOR JOHN KYL: Let me ask you about what the President you said. Do you agree with him that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon? And that that last mile has to be decided by what's in the judge's heart?

SUPREME COURT NOMINEE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: No, sir. I don't- wouldn't approach the issues of judging in the way the President does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart.

STEPHANOPOULOS: How's that for gratitude? She threw the President under the bus right there. But the White House doesn't care at all because they know she ended up on the safe ground where she wants where they want her to be. What's interesting, Robin, is that I actually think you're going to see the Republican senator who want to vote against Sotomayor, using the President's reasoning that he used when he voted against Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. He conceded that those justices were qualified. He conceded that they were intelligent. He just disagreed with the direction they would take the court. I think the Republican senators who vote no can use that exact same reasoning. The Obama reasoning.

ROBERTS: Well, let's look ahead to today, George. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, big speech on foreign policy today. And she went to, let's just say, a few of her friends. More than a few. What do you make of all this?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, you know, there's been some criticism of Secretary Clinton. Some wondering, you know, what is her influence? You see that cast. Part of the reason she's been a little less visible recently is because of that broken elbow. But, her supporters in the State Department points out that she's traveled as much in the first six months as any secretary of state, except for Condoleezza Rice. They say there's a lot more travel and that she's been a real force behind the scenes. Despite the fact that all of these envoys in that front row of that speech today, to give the impression that a lot of the policy has been subcontracted.

—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

She chooses her words

She chooses her words carefully. It may take awhile but eventually they all come out. 

"DumbAssity of Dope"

kg

kg, I found myself waffling between looking around for TOTUS (hell, even ol Joe is using em now), or figuring that, like the Bamster, she had to cough up one tortured word after word because she did NOT have it.

Scott...

I find your first sentence to be offensive.  Stephie is not a "Democratic strategist turned journalist".  He is a Democratic strategist turned:

pathetic liberal shill;  Obama lagdog; cover man for his Messiah; pathetic Obama shill (ironically P.O.S.), etc.

He is certainly not a journalist.  At least not by any standard of normalcy. 

PAC

That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends,
it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new government...

Stephy and Reality

Someone should let him know that reality doesn't give grades. If it did, Obama would be getting F's across the board.

And Stephy the White House Mouthpiece would be wearing his dunce cap in the corner.

2010: A GOP Hill

i guess the knee pad press

i guess the knee pad press goes both ways - or is it all ways now

Palin/Prejean 2012

Personally, I think she

Personally, I think she sounds like she's taken a couple of Xanax...a little too calm and cool.

Bea Arthur on Xanax

I've tried, but I can't take listening to her for more than 10 minutes or so.

She's got a sing-songy Bea Arthur inflection that I find really annoying. And I don't mean sing-songy in a good way.

SoL~

You can take her for a whole 10 minutes? You win! And yes, she does have that Bea Arthur inflection in her voice, doesn't she? 

It's obvious she's been coached to keep her voice very steady and not let the "Latina" out of the box, so to speak.  To me she's just coming off as vocally and mentally dull.

Kat:

OK, I exaggerated - I made it about 5 minutes this morning, then downloaded and listened to two older Mark Levin shows I had missed.

The only thing she could possibly do to slow it down to a dead crawl would be to have a slew of Powerpoint slides accompanying her droning.

Not the sharpest tool in ANYBODY'S shed IMO. 

Stare decisis

It's also a cheat for Sotomayor to claim that her decisions in controversial cases can't be criticized because she is forced to follow precedent.

  1. If she has no choice, why is she "judging" the case at all? The legal process isn't perfunctory or automatic. If the case is for review, that alone means that she has a choice about it.
  2. The choice is usually whether (and which) precedent applies. But that's different from saying that she has no choice, and therefore can't be criticized.
  3. The proof that she isn't handcuffed to a decision is that other judges on the appellate panels decided differently.

Sotomayor wants us to believe that she had to rule in favor of the city of NewHaven, against the firefighters, and that she couldn't disagree even if she wanted to. That's disingenuous at best, lying at worst. Besides, as Krauthammer pointed out, once she gets on the Supreme Court, she won't be restrained by precedent.

* * * * *

Throughout these hearings, Sotomayor has offered two statements that glaringly contradict each other.

  • Her record proves her objectivity.
  • In her controversial cases, she can't be criticized because she was forced to follow precedent.

Well, wait a minute ... if her decisions in controversial cases were forced by precedent, we can't use them as soothing proof about her practice of law. On the other hand, if she wants to promote her decisions (her 17-year record!) to reveal how wonderful she is, then we have the right to examine and criticize that record. She can't then excuse our criticisms by claiming they were forced upon her.

She can't have it both ways.

Stephy is a fawning Obama ass kisser from the State Run Media

Those who believe in nothing will believe anything.

Sotomayor the ice princess ...

It's the same analysis Obama got during the campaign. No matter what he said, it was the fact he was calm, and cool, and collected ... he appeared unruffled ... etc., etc.

Speach coaches and speakers take note.

Speak slowly, somberly, thoughtfully, even icily, and you have 90% of the debate won, no matter how simplistic or glib your comments, no matter what you say.

metaphorsbwithu

Is "stephanopolous" Greek

Is "stephanopolous" Greek for lackey, or what?

Stephanphetchitopoulos

You're thinking of Stephanphetchitopoulos, the Greek God of Anal Hygiene, son of Hypocrites and Clintonysus.

Thanks for clearing that up!

Thanks for clearing that up!

Cool And Calm

I watched part of this last night. She could have seen questions from the dems beforehand, no wonder she was 'comfortable'. 

Her responses and/or reactions to the GOP were anything but relaxed and far from confident.

JDW

DAILY WAVE

Jobs, jobs, jobs ... Spending, spending, spending

 

I watched her responses to the Wise Latina Women stuff

 I watched her responses to the Wise Latina Women stuff and everytime she tried to answer them her eyes would begin blinking rapidly ....where is BOR Body Language segment

_______ Him and the Unicorn he rode in on

The meltdown stuff

I have sat through thousands of hours of hearings and only saw one meltdown...and it was my own boss...ah, memories. Anyhow, what are they expecting some flake-out--"Omigod, I admit it, I don't read everything I should, kill me now, I am a bad American, I don't deserve the support of this fabulous president, I once shoplifted, I was young, underprivileged..." Some dopey Perry Mason moment?

 She is a lawyer, a judge, older, has seen it all--come on! To me, she did seem a little drowsy--but so does the president, for my money. 

After watching Sotomayor on

After watching Sotomayor on and off, my impression is that she does not present herself very well.

She seems confused, trying to remember what Emmanual to her to say, not at all quick with a clear response. Mumbles a bit. Eyes darting.

The "Do you think Americans have a right to defend themselves?" question put her into complete meltdown. Should have been one of the easiest questions to respond to.

Doesn't seem to have thought through serious issues beyond affirmative action. Not a great intellect, not impressive at all.

No citizen's right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, or property is safe as long as Obama is President of the United States.

She is clearly an

She is clearly an affirmative action product if I've ever seen one.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be