Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see. So because they don't agree with her ideology they "don't get it". Because they don't vote blindly and tote your parties line they "don't get it". What the hell is a vote for in the first place then? They should just appoint czars and bypass the voting process huh?
Could you have possibly twisted my words any more?
I'm not saying they "don't get it" because they disagree with her ideology. I'm saying those who vote to not confirm, OR to confirm BASED on her ideology "don't get it"....
Based on your response, you "don't get it" either...
I wonder why this is the way it should be or a probable racist proposed member but it wasn't that way with John Roberts. It seems like I remember the Dems acting at least as bad as the Republicans have with her.
I addressed this later in the thread.... I also capitalized the word BOTH, as in BOTH parties, need to learn from this.... To reiterate, I remember how the Dems acted toward Roberts and Alito and it wasn't any better.
Funny I can't even give a Republican credit for understanding what is and is not a good reason for approving or denying a Supreme Court Nominee without catching flak...
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
As far as I am concerned I wondered who would take Spector's place as the leading RINO and Graham has stood up for the title. Do you think she will get more AYES than Roberts did. The Dems want that so bad and were so sure that with 60 seats and some RINOs they could beat it. I am hoping that not more than 10 Republicans vote for her for that very reason.
I don't really care on the stat sheet, and for the record, I'm not a huge fan of Sotomayor and think her "wise latina" comments in her speeches crossed a line and were mildly inappropriate (taken out of context as has been done in the media they're VERY inappropriate), but her record does NOT reflect any racial bias from the bench and THAT is what we are supposed to look for here....
In the end, it doesn't matter a whit. But GOP Sens. Chuck Grassley and Jeff Sessions now say they will oppose Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court appointment.
The media are dutifully reporting the senators' objections today as if they really matter.
They don't.
In fact -- with at least five GOP senators already saying they are on Sotomayor's side -- she will easily be confirmed if and when the Senate gets around to it, probably in early August.
Sessions criticized Sotomayor as being involved in "judicial activism" and someone with "liberal political thoughts."
Wow, what a surprise that a liberal president with fairly activist feelings of his own would appoint a judge who thinks a lot like him.
There's nothing surprising about the GOP senators speaking out against Sotomayor.
There's also nothing meaningful, in the end, about their viewpoints.
In the end he gets it. The only Republican in the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve Sonia Sotomayor for SCJ....
To paraphrase he basically said that this is not about partisan politics, but whether Sotomayor is qualified to be on the bench of the supreme court, to which he gives an unequivocal 'yes'......
THIS is what the question is when we are going through the vetting process for a Supreme Court Justice.... We don't look at whether we agree with their politics or rulings, but whether the justice has a habit of unsound rulings and legislating from the bench.
I respect Graham for getting this right and I hope politicians from BOTH sides of the aisle can learn something from this...
I was appalled to find out only one senator voted for Sotomayor.
After the questioning, mad comments, lies and finger pointing. She answered their questions like how a judge should of answered and they know it!
Sessions criticized Sotomayor as being involved in "judicial activism" and someone with "liberal political thoughts."
Which is ignorant because the NRA opposed her basically for her not ignoring precedent in the Maloney case. So conservatives do want activism, just the type that follows their issues.
In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated former Justice Department lawyer Miguel Estrada to a seat on the federal courts of appeals.
In that instance, as today, the nominee was was a Hispanic with a compelling story and impressive qualifications.
And some of the very people who are today praising Sotomayor spent their time devising extraordinary measures to kill Estrada's chances.
It was precisely the fact that Estrada was Hispanic that made Democrats and their activist allies want to kill his nomination.
They were determined to deny a Republican White House credit, political and otherwise, for putting a first-rate Hispanic nominee on the bench.
This is different.
In my Opinion this is politically driven. Sotomayor is thee best canindate for this positions. The Repubs are trying to throw a wrench into anything Obama decides on!
Basically Sotomayor is in the middle of a fight between 2 parties.
Why not vote for the best canidate, they couldn't dispute her history!
Do you know how many racist insulting statements Republican sentators have made recently? It's like they can say what they want and get away with it.
The Republican party are a bunch of thorns driven in Obama A$$!
This is a Pathetic Attempt to discredit Obama.
Is this what our country has become? A bunch of petty bureucrats fighting like school kids after school.
"No, You can't have that, NA NA NA NA!"
We have important stuff in our nations to deal with.
Whose acting childish? I see a whole party (Republicans) that will not vote yes to the perfect canidate for Political reasons.
What will they say no to the next time?
First of all, Sotomayor will get the nod and become the next justice, so there is no need for the left to worry about that.
Second, every nominee goes through the same grilling as Sotomayor. The dems were much harsher on most of Bush's nominations. Does Robert Bork ring a bell? (Regan Admin).
Judge Sotomayor's case law decisions, as well as her public speeches indicate that she is an "activist" judge who considers the U.S.Constitution, Bill of Rights and Rule of Law as living, conditional documents subject to her own personal "ethnic" interpetation and jurisprudence.
If a moderate or conservative Supreme Court nominee would have espoused such rhetoric or comments, they would have been skewered by the Left and liberal MSM before ever reaching the senate comfirmation hearings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
