Loading ...
All Republican Senators With The Exception Of Nine Who Prefer The More Moderate Candidate To The More Liberal Ones On President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Short List”
Obviously, the true Conservatives have been whining about the G.O.P.’s slick, quick move to the left lately, and judging from today’s vote for the confirmation of President Obama’s first SCOTUS nominee with only nine Republicans voting in her favor, Conservative American Citizens have good reason to fear their Grand Old Party’s leftward lurch in the last few years. I mean, after all, Justice Sotomayor is the most “moderate” of all of President B.H. Obama’s short-list candidates, so obviously, my Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions and his buddies MUST have been hopeful for a more “liberal” Supreme Court Of The United States appointee to aid them in their lefward drift or they’d have readily voted “AYE“, would they not have?
Voting largely along party lines, the Senate on Thursday confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the 111th justice of the Supreme Court. She will be the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the court.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was expected to administer the oath of office to Judge Sotomayor, 55, in the next few days, with a formal ceremony likely in September. She succeeds Justice David H. Souter, who retired in June. …”
I might not be being completely fair here. After all, the only OTHER explanation for the almost unanimous “NAE” vote by the Republicans in the Senate could be the simplest of all — they don’t particularly like Latinas and Latinos. Or even women, perhaps, although I doubt the latter since there are a number of somewhat powerful women serving in high places in the Republican Party while Hispanics are extremely rare in the body of the G.O.P. After all, recall their last serious “hispanic Republican experiment” DID wind up in a total disaster by the name of FORMER Attorney General (under FORMER President “Surge” W. Bush) Alberto Gonzales.
My conclusion? Today’s vote reflects either the latter or the fact they wish to move even FURTHER to the “left” and are quite disappointed in their nine more “Conservative” Senate brethren who voted in favor of the moderate Latina judge.
***
Other bloggers weigh in on this topic: Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money holds back and simply congratulates Justice Sotomayor; skippy says the G.O.P. dissed her because white people are too discriminated against these days; Justin Gardner of Donklephant predicts we Liberals will be highly disappointed when Justice Sotomayor proves herself to be “not as liberal” as we’d hoped in the end (I predict Justin is correct, by the way); Lively conversation persists at Drudge Retort of course, as ALWAYS…
Well, at least she isn’t to the left of Souter.
Not that there is much room over that way anyhow. Go much to the left of him and you start coming out on the extreme right.
But now we get treated to empathy rather than law, and racism rather than colour blindness. On the other hand, being in the hot seat like that, with no one above her to correct her mistakes, she just may settle down to the center. Look at some of the ones that liberal presidents have put on the Court – ended up being pretty strict constructionists. And some by conservative presidents have been guided by anything bu the Constitution. Go figure.
Exactly, Joe. How many times do we have to see SCOTUS nominees go on to oppose their appointer’s party after awhile on the bench before we realize it’s the president’s choice and every choice is nothing more than a roll of the dice before our Senators stop playing the game and the childish antics?
Did you ever read Clancy’s “Executive Orders”, Guns? The method Ryan uses to try to pick the members of the new Court sounds good to me. Had someone give him the records or X number of federal judges, names, sex, race, etc. left out. And had set the standards – so many years on the bench, only such and such a percentage overturned, good reasoned decisions, then he picked blind from that based just on the record. We need some method like that to take the bias out of selecting those who are arugably the most important unelected politicians in our Republic.
I haven’t read Clancy for awhiile. I’ll have to order “Executive Orders”.
Guns, you ask when the Senators stop playing the game; probably not until we have a strong four party system.
I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a video of the TALKING HEADS. They were the nerds of rock for a couple of years. Totally freaky and I loved them. Where I’m going with this is that I think, and I’m not snarking here, that we need a nerds party. Every nerd I know likes to follow the logic chain.
And now, I’m going to go have a beer.
GTL
Just a thought buddy, but maybe these folks objected to her views on the 2nd Amendment. Personally, that would have disqualifed her for me.
Hard to argue with the GTL and most of the posts here, and especially Gaia’s point about additional parties.
I will say it was easy for the GOP to continue the “pettiness” here. Obama voted against both Roberts and Alito, even though he himself said they were qualified (I don’t have his exact words – please correct if I’m mistaken someone).
Even if you don’t agree with Lindsey Graham, you gotta respect him for voting for Sotomayor. He’s getting HAMMERED on talk radio down here in his home state.
Steve
@Chuck — Yeah, that’s probably correct, however; Heller has been established and it’s going to be hard for her to do much damage for we Pro-2A’ers
To my left wing brothers and Sisters
As this topic ostensibly refers to Constitutional and judicial matters, I have a legitimate question and request thoughtful answers.
The Whitehouse, and by extension President Obama recently requested, to much ballyhoo, that Americans report their fellow Americans for “fishy” personal conversations and emails regarding Health care reform. This is in violation of a law (passed during the Nixon years) that prohibits the Executive branch from collecting any information on individuals. This is not hyperbole, simply the facts as they appear. The Whitehouse absolutely posted the request, and the law absolutely designates this activity as illegal. For the sake of my information, let us set this aside for the moment.
My question is: Had President Bush published or alllowed to be published on the Whitehouse website, a call to report our fellow citizens for their anti-war comments or emails, how great of an infringement of the 1st amendment would you have considered that act?
@Chuck — glad you brought that up, brother. As B/D pointed out, Obama in some ways seems more like Bush, Jr. II and this is another example.
When I read that proclaimation at the W/H website, a chill went down my spine. It eerily reminded me of President Bush, Junior’s ill-fated TIPS program he kept telling the American People via the MSM this is something we needed. I agree — the POTUS (no matter which party they hail from) should refrain from turning Citizens against Citizens, PERIOD
Obama is finally showing his stress. Putting that message on the WH web site was stupid, stupid, stupid. He tried to cover his ass by saying later that they didn’t want names, weren’t going to take names, just wanted info on what was being said against health care reform. The info is out there, viral e-mails are already making their way through the web about how the government is going to decide when we’re going to die.
And talking about stupid. I was just over at ARRP and they have an entire web site about the myths about health care reform. which is not stupid. But they also have “groups” which you can join.
One group is “Against government health care.” Most of the people in it are retired and on, guess what, MEDICARE.
What is it about health care reform that makes people so crazy? I don’t care, I’m going to be dead before health care gets so expensive that only the rich will be able to afford it. But if I was 40 or under I would be raising all sorts of hell to get our system changed and get it changed now.
This is ridiculous. Seriously, Obama is actively expanding the Bush Administration’s illegal cancellation of Habeas Corpus, the right that allows all our other rights, and THIS is what you come up with?
Obama’s got this giant internal security apparatus called the Department of Homeland Security, but he has the White House Communications Office build a national database of millions of calls from neighbors ratting out other neighbors? [jaw drops, blinks rapidly, shakes head, slaps forehead] Huh????
The White House already clarified this for the reading-impaired: They’re not interest in information on individuals, they are looking for rumors–those breathless viral emails that spread lies and propaganda specifically designed to stop anybody from trying to solve the healthcare crisis–so they can counteract these lies with facts.
But you see Stalin everywhere you look, so naturally you see Stalin here. It’s almost like right wingers WANT communism to come to America, probably so they can have something real to complain about. Why do you want American to fail? Why do you want America to become communist? Why do you want the terrorists to win?
Planet Earth is calling. I have to go home now. I’ll try to visit again later.
Guns, Heller confirmed that the RKBA is indeed a FEDERAL individual right, but it did not incorporate it to the states. Nor did it fully confirm the right to bear arms. It was very narrowly constructed and addressed only the ability of honest citizens to buy them, and have them ready to hand in the home.
The Nordyke decision of the 9th circuit seemed to incoprorate it to the states under the 14th, BUT apparently one of the judges the 9th didn’t like the way the ruling came out, so there will be an en banc rehearing of the case. See: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/enbanc/07-15763pfr.pdf and scroll way the hell towards the bottom. So it is still up in the air. Considering the make up of the 9th, and the way it consistantly rules against the individual and the people in favor of the State, or the idea of an all powerful State, I expect that it will overturn itself and say “OOPS! We meant to say that “the right of the people” as expressed in the 2nd Amendment really means the right of the State, not the individual. Unlike the other places in the Bill of Rights where the framers used “people” to refer to individuals, in the 2nd it obviously means the State. Sorry for the confusion.”