During hearings today, the Honorable Senator Al Franken questions Sotomayor on one Perry Mason episode in which he lost a case. Neither could recall the case, though technically speaking, there was more than one, or you could argue, none.
The case is, The Deadly Verdict from 1963, though you could argue he lost The Case of the Terrified Typist, as well. A Senate GOP staffer suggested just that very thing, according to Glenn Thrush. So, why could neither Franken, nor Sotomayor remember these facts? Well, one involved a defendant lying on the stand and the other was a case of mistaken identity. Perhaps given Sotomayor's less than candid testimony, the cases hit a little bit too close to home?
See here, here and here for more background on Sotomayor's appearance.
Although it's popularly believed this episode represents the only time Perry Mason loses a case, 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.) In 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.
So Dan Riehl has taken to personally deleting my posts and then replacing them with these vulgar ones basically calling me gay? What a pathetic and cowardly maneuver.
And the irony of a 50 year old unmarried man calling anyone gay is amazing.
Posted by: dansyellowbelly | Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 07:53 PM
Dan is a "confirmed bachelor" ? Didn't know that. Interesting.
Posted by: Slide | Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 08:13 PM
Dan,
With regards to Sotomayor, it's just gratifying to know that she hasn't actually cited Perry Mason as precedent. Yet.
____
Ooooh!! Tho Thlide and Danthytummy are interethted in Dan'th bachelorhood. Thay, why not you two jutht get a room!
Posted by: Ran | Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 09:25 PM
dansyellowbelly-
dude, you are are cracking me up. not only do you get kneecapped, but your 'weeping' sounds like nancy kerrigan.
"Why? Whhhy?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=696UtmWNkSw
the vid was made for you. (never a big fan on censorship, but in your case, I have to laugh.)
Posted by: mark l. | Wednesday, July 15, 2009 at 11:56 PM
Sotomayor: "I'm not a real judge, but I play one on TV."
Posted by: skatzbert | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 02:32 AM
God I can't stand Al Franken.
Posted by: xerocky | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 07:12 AM
how about the fact that Soto began answering the question before Franken even came close to finishing asking it !!
Soto obviously was given the question(s) ahead of time . . . yet no uproar over the lying/cheating going on in the Democrat Congress that are making a mockery of such an important event.
Posted by: Jay | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
confirm her.
she looks like she is about to fall over, dead.
as predictions go...souter outlives her.
Posted by: mark l. | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM
Rush played this one. Hilarious. She obviously has all the Dem questions way in advance. She's bumbling and fumbling the Republican questions.
On another note, the fatuous mind of Al Franken displays itself for all to see. If he isn't a total lightweight he'll do until one comes along. Soto is a bit dim herself.
Posted by: Peg C. | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 01:47 PM
'Dan is a "confirmed bachelor"'
Geez, I am? Thanks for letting me know!! There are two houses I no longer have any ownership over I'd sure like to get back thanks to my "confirmed bachelorhood".
Posted by: Dan Riehl | Thursday, July 16, 2009 at 05:43 PM