Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), the former "Saturday Night Live" comedian, has turned out to be the only member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to stump Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
In the process, he sparked the biggest laughs of the so-far dry hearing, living up to his reputation as a funnyman.
Franken’s flash of humor was a departure from the cautious approach he has taken to public appearances since coming to the Senate last week after an eight-month legal battle with former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.).
Franken’s straight-man performance has disappointed various members of the media, who have hungered to see Franken’s sharp humor liven up the stuffy Senate.
But Franken gave his fans a tasty tidbit when it came his turn to question the nominee.
While some colleagues have challenged Sotomayor’s comments about the judgment of a “wise Latina” or her view of gun ownership rights, Franken challenged, tongue-in-cheek, Sotomayor’s decision to become a prosecutor after watching "Perry Mason" while growing up.
“It amazes me that you wanted to become a prosecutor based on that show because in 'Perry Mason,' the prosecutor, Burger, lost everything,” Franken said in his trademark deadpan, as laughter spread through the hearing room. “But I think this says something about your determination to defy the odds.”
Franken then quickly turned to the more somber and serious tone that has characterized his short tenure in the upper chamber.
He asked Sotomayor about the First Amendment implications of deregulation of the Internet and the implications for telecom companies that have tried to restrict content. He also asked the nominee about the wonky topic of employer discrimination motivated by cost-cutting goals, such as laying off employees with expensive benefits.
But before wrapping up his question time, Franken returned to "Perry Mason," posing to Sotomayor the only question that has stumped her so far during the Judiciary Committee hearings.
Franken asked Sotomayor the name of the one case where Mason’s client was actually guilty.
But Sotomayor, for all her knowledge of real-life cases, couldn’t come up with the answer, prompting mock surprise and disappointment from the senator.
“Didn’t the White House prepare you?” Franken quipped as the hearing room burst into laughter.
Sotomayor assured the panel that “I watched it all of the time” but could not remember.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) chimed in and asked Franken the name of the unique television case, but Franken said he couldn’t remember either and explained that was why he asked the nominee.
Leahy assured Sotomayor that her knowledge gap would not affect her confirmation: “Judge, we will not hold your inability to answer the question against you.”
My-Wardrobe.com
Happiness is not,except in very rare cases,that drops into the mouth like a ripe fruit.Happiness must be,for most men and women,an achievement rather than a gift of the gods,and in this achievement,effort,both inward and outward,must play a great part.
1This sounds odd, but there wasn't a frozen roast involved was there? I think I'm mixing in a Twilight Zone.
2I guess he used it to cut the tension; however, she should have known the answer. She was just stumped but I am seriously thinking if it was Janice or if that was Matlock.
Happiness is not,except in very rare cases,that drops into the mouth like a ripe fruit.Happiness must be,for most men and women,an achievement rather than a gift of the gods,and in this achievement,effort,both inward and outward,must play a great part.
3Yea Bella!
*******SPOILER*********
According to IMDB.com, the episode commonly known for being "the only time Perry Mason loses" was The Deadly Verdict, which was broadcast in 1963.
TV.com says that "Janice Barton is found guilty of the murder of her wealthy relative and sentenced to death." And, the website adds, "this was the only case in which Mason's client was found guilty, and sentenced to death. The outcry from the public was so severe that they never ventured down this road again."
But, as IMDB points out:
In the first-season episode The Case of the Terrified Typist, not only is Mason's client convicted of murder -- he turns out to be really guilty! (However, Mason figures out that the murderer was impersonating someone else, and since some of the prosecution's evidence was related to the actual person whose identity had been stolen, a mistrial is declared, meaning a second trial for the defendant, presumably without Mason's services.)
4In the sixth-season closer, The Case of the Witless Witness, a respected judge rules against Mason in some civil matter; when the judge ends up falsely accused of corruption, then murder, Mason doesn't hesitate to defend him.
4:00 PM ET | 07-15-2009 | permalink
OMG, I was thinking I was confusing my two favorite men. I think there was another client but the person was proven to be innocent. Does anyone even watch to see if they would lose. I just tired to solve the case before the end of the show.
Happiness is not,except in very rare cases,that drops into the mouth like a ripe fruit.Happiness must be,for most men and women,an achievement rather than a gift of the gods,and in this achievement,effort,both inward and outward,must play a great part.
5Sometimes I think they lose too often on Law & Order.
6I never watch the original but I love SVU. I have no idea but Munch (sp??) is one of my favorites.
Happiness is not,except in very rare cases,that drops into the mouth like a ripe fruit.Happiness must be,for most men and women,an achievement rather than a gift of the gods,and in this achievement,effort,both inward and outward,must play a great part.
7It was good of him to lighten the moment. She has been through some hard days.
8Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.