GOP Senator Says Attacks on Sotomayor "Mainly About Politics"

posted by John Nichols on 07/13/2009 @ 1:57pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (106)

Subscribe Now

"Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed," South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

"And I don't think you will (have a complete meltdown)," added the conservative member of the Senate Judiciary Committee as the hearing on President Obama's first high court nominee commenced.

Most members of the committee followed pattern. Democrats were supportive, while most Republicans -- led by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions -- repeated anti-Sotomayor talking points.

Graham broke the pattern.

His comments were the most significant of the opening session of the confirmation hearing, as they seemed to lay the groundwork for mainstream Republicans to vote to make Sotomayor the first Latina justice to sit on the Supreme Court.

Democrats have a majority of the seats on the Judiciary Committee and 60 seats in the Senate -- enough to force a confirmation vote, and to win it. So the safest bet has always been that the federal appeals court judge from New York will be confirmed by a Senate where Judiciary Committee member Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says Sotomayor is "uniformly" seen by Republicans and Democrars as "highly qualified."

But the signal from Graham at Monday's session suggested there is a good chance key elements within the "party of no" will say yes to Sotomayor. That should allow her nomination to be sent from the Judiciary Committee to the full Senate with a strong recommendation that it be approved. And it now looks increasingly likely that the vote of approval will be broad and bipartisan -- though Monday's combative statements from Sessions and Senator Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, suggested it will not be unanimous.

What was clear from Graham's comments and from a gentler than expected opening statement by Texas Senator John Cornyn was that the far right's campaign of character assassination that sought to block the nomination seems to have fallen far short of the baseline goal of solidifying Republican opposition to Sotomayor.

Graham, a swing vote on the committee, rejected most attacks on Sotomayor as "mainly about liberal and conservative politics."

"I'm not going to hold it against you or an organization for advocating a cause with which I disagree," said the senator, who grumbled a bit about specific statements that Sotomayor had made but who went out of his way to reject that absurd claims by talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh and others that the nominee is some kind of "racist."

In fact, Graham directed his criticism at Senator Barack Obama rather than the president's nominee.

Taking shots at Obama for voting as a senator from Illinois to block judicial nominees of the Bush administration, Graham declared that, "My inclination is that elections matter."

That was the essential message of the South Carolinian's challenging but essentially warm opening statement, which leaned heavily on the principle that presidents should be given broad latitude in making judicial nominations.

"I don't think anybody worked harder for Senator McCain than I did, and we lost," Graham said. "Barack Obama won, and that matters."

Comments (106)

The cons have nothing to hold against Sotomayor. She is not an ideologe, like Alito and Scalia, her opinions are straight forward and succint.

As far as the fireman case, by attacking her on this one they show themselves to be ignorant of the job of an appelate judge, or at best, hypocritical about being an activist judge. They think she should have ignored supreme court precedent or ignored the city council.

She will get the nomination and she will not be the liberal activist the cons fear. I think she actually has the potential to be Obamas Souter or O'Connor, not what he intended.

5 catholics on the Supreme Court should cause all of us concern though. That is no where near represenative of our countries make-up.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 11:10am
I think she actually has the potential to be Obamas Souter or O'Connor, not what he intended.

~ crabbert.

oh, i think it's just what he wanted.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:12am
GOP base really disheartened over Sotomayor.

No, not her nomination. No the likelihood that Graham and a goodly number of NON-Snowe/Collins Republicans will vote for her confirmation.

No...disappointed that not EVEN Rasmussen can find polling data showing that the ditto-heads and Newt Fans are anything but a tiny minority on her nomination.

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:21am
i think mr. graham's attitude may have something to do with this:

IN 2008, THE LATINO VOTE MADE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE OUTCOME OF THREE STATES: NEW MEXICO, WHERE ABOUT 2 IN 5 VOTERS IDENTIFY AS HISPANIC, AS WELL AS -- SOMEWHAT SURPRISINGLY -- INDIANA AND NORTH CAROLINA -- WHERE OBAMA LOST NONHISPANIC VOTERS BY A TINY MARGIN AND WAS PUT OVER THE TOP BY HISPANIC VOTES. It probably also made the difference, believe it or not, in the 2nd Congressional District of Nebraska -- Omaha actually has a decent-sized Hispanic minority -- although the exit polls aren't detailed enough to let us know for sure.

That the Hispanic vote helped Obama to win electoral votes in such "gringo" territories as Nebraska and Indiana is a reminder that there are Hispanics everywhere now; the presence of a surprisingly large and extremely Democratic-leaning Hispanic vote in New Jersey, for example, is one reason why Republicans are no longer competitive there. Moreover, the growth rate of the Hispanic population tends to be fastest in such nontraditional areas as the South and even the Prairie states. According to the Census Bureau, the state where the age 18+ HISPANIC POPULATION GREW THE FASTEST BETWEEN 2007 AND 2008 WAS SOUTH CAROLINA (+6.6%), followed by a three-way tie between North Carolina, North Dakota and South Dakota (each +6.5%).

538......

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:21am
Qualifications being equal or better of course, this is the slot for an Hispanic female. Just as with Thomas and Ginsburg, it's the only way to have the court reflect the makeup of the population it administers jurisprudence to --- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth

Posted by reg373 at 07/13/2009 @ 11:29am
who cares what her (or any of the justices') religion is?

Posted by urmygyro at 07/13/2009 @ 11:31am
who cares what her (or any of the justices') religion is?

Posted by urmygyro at 07/13/2009 @ 11:31am

unfortunately, many do.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/13/2009 @ 11:43am
I am VERY concerned that so many of a single religious group are making laws for the rest of us. Particularly when several of them are members of Opus Dei. While I certainly don't think they are as described in Da'Vinci Code lterms, I have serious qulams about these people running my country. The same as I would if there were 5/9 Temple Mormans, or 5/9 Orthodox Jews, 5/9 Druids, 5/9, 5/9 Pastafarians. Catholics present a particular concern because in order to be recieve rites, they are supposed to follow papal canon over all else. And when that is combined with Papal infallibility, I get a little shudder going from my pointy little head to my pointy little feet.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 11:56am
who cares what her (or any of the justices') religion is?

Posted by urmygyro at 07/13/2009 @ 11:31am | ignore this person | warn this person

It matters as much as gender or race in influencing ones viewpoints. While I wish our justices could be like robots and not bring anything from their past personal histories to the bench, the fact is they do. Everyone views the world through their past experiences, its just how we work. So a justices religion does matter, as it affects their worldview.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 11:58am
"terms"

Mormons

etc

Bad typing.

apologies to all

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 11:58am
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 11:56am

Uh-oh, crab...it's finally happened.

You and Larry/antisoc are going to agree on something...."Temple Mormons"!!!!!

LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:25pm
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 12:25pm

Why do you think I included them? It's not as if this is only a concern to us Heathen scum.

Who makes a better bonfire, heathens or xtians that aren't "real" xtians? Or, do we burn the same and gOd sorts through the ashes?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 12:47pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 12:47pm

Only thing better than Palin being the 2012 nominee....would be it being Mitt Romney and poor Larry's laments for an entire Election Season.

LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:40pm
Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 1:40pm

S'okay

Obviously if Obama is succeeded by Romney, Rapture is soon to follow.

The End Is Near!....Repent all ye sinners..

...or be left behind with all the gerbils and shoes.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 1:57pm
i think that lindsey is, like many repubs, often caught between the rock and hard place of sensible and ideologically approved speech in terms of politics.

but unless some serious bombshell falls, she's getting confirmed.

ironically i almost wonder if all the hoopla about her ethnicity is a tad patronizing.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2009 @ 2:01pm
"These glossy cards keep your message simple and to the point. Each has room inside for a personalized message. (Please include recipient's name and address when ordering). Remember that these cards will only be delivered after the Rapture occurs

"Told You So" Card - $7.99 When herding the flock, sometimes it takes a little tough love. This card tells the recipient in no uncertain terms that he or she should have followed Christ, but they chose not to. Upon seeing the error of their ways, many non-believers will return to the path of righteousness from their lives of sin before the Rapture. "

http://postrapturepost.com/order2.html

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 2:02pm
But, I digress.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 2:04pm
and although i find her at least as qualified as the previous junta's nominations, and obama COULD have gotten a ham sandwich on the supreme court if he had wanted...

seems the number one concern is her ethnicity, and her ethnicity makes serious republican opposition IMPOSSIBLE regardless.

ultimately it all adds up to a non-issue. the first latina supreme court justice will soon serve as such and she will do so because she is qualified regardless of ethnicity.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2009 @ 2:08pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/13/2009 @ 2:07pm | ignore this person | warn this person

you could remove your "protocols of zion" poison and your other criticisms would be fairly spot on from time to time.

til then i'm having a hard time taking you seriously.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/13/2009 @ 2:12pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/13/2009 @ 2:07pm

Of Course! Sotomayor is one of those nefarious Jewish Catholics.

I realize your continued jealousy of the American life is what actually brings you to this site. From your insignificant courner of the world you see the American life portrayed in the media, and dream about owning a slice of it. The pain from not being able to have what you long for is acutally what causes you to lash out at the object of your desire. You participate on this site soley for the interaction with Americans, that which you wish you could be but never will. Your angry expletive laced rants is all you can really offer, as you want to be noticed, but really have nothing to intelligent to say.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 2:25pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/13/2009 @ 2:07pm

where is your slice of Utopia and how much of it do you control?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 2:26pm
There's a sound bite floating around from one of the Republican senators addressing President Obama's "empathy" qualification.

The Senator said something to the effect that "empathy" means substituting your opinions and politics for the written law. I agree that this is the problem.

We cannot get away from the fact that our perception of reality is influenced by our own personal experiences. We cannot be perfectly objective robots, but, the function of judges is to determine facts of law and a judge's findings should change depending on the race, sex, religion, or party affiliation of the defendent or plaintif.

In the Ricci case, Sotomayer, would have reached a different conclusion if the plantiffs had been black or women.

And, Hey Crabman.

Before you reitterate you claim that she was just applying precedent, remember that she obviously applied it incorrectly because she was overturned.

Not only was she overturned in a 5-4 decision, none of the 4 dissenters defended her ruling. All nine disagreed with her.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/13/2009 @ 2:29pm
GOP base really disheartened over Sotomayor.

No, not her nomination. No the likelihood that Graham and a goodly number of NON-Snowe/Collins Republicans will vote for her confirmation.

No...disappointed that not EVEN Rasmussen can find polling data showing that the ditto-heads and Newt Fans are anything but a tiny minority on her nomination.

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:21am

Wow, pretty much a posting that is a figment of your imagination.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 2:31pm
Not only was she overturned in a 5-4 decision, none of the 4 dissenters defended her ruling. All nine disagreed with her.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/13/2009 @ 2:29pm

She was one vote away from being upheld...

I agree with the majority of your post, judges should be as impartial as humanly possible. They should look at laws and interpret them based on law as Roberts said, "call Balls and strikes". I wish he actually could do that.

The addition of Roberts has actually pushed the court to a much more pro business stance his "court allowed Navy exercises using sonar that threatened whales off California. It limited the liability of companies partly responsible for toxic spills. It made it harder to challenge Forest Service regulations and easier to dump mining waste into an Alaskan lake. And it allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to use cost-benefit analysis to decide how much marine life may be killed by cooling structures at power plants."

A real anti environment shift. But I am sure a republican would say this is a fair and just interpretation of the law. So to complain about Sotomayor is a bit childish. We all know none of the justices ignore their ideologies. But somehow the only ones ever accused of being "activist" are the ones the lean democratic?

Activist judges and the liberal media = creations by the republicans to mislead America.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 2:31pm

Uh, Larry....you want a link to Rasmussen Reports or think you can find it yourself?

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 2:55pm
Uh, Larry....you want a link to Rasmussen Reports or think you can find it yourself?

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 2:55pm

But Mask, you state that Rasmussen is just a biased conservative poll, why should I be looking to them for answers if I want to be getting objective info?

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 3:10pm
Funny how less than 2% of the US population has about 90% Control of pretty much EVERYTHING in your pimped whore of a "country", isn't it?

Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/13/2009 @ 2:07pm

Refreshingly frank if not subtle.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 3:11pm
Mask,

And perhaps I misunderstood your post; it seemed like you said that polls show GOP base is disheartened by her nomination

<GOP base really disheartened over Sotomayor.

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 11:21am>

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 3:12pm
Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 3:12pm

Sorry for the confusion.

What I was saying was, that even some "reliable" fall-back support like Rasmussen (the ONE and ONLY poll the Right seems to like....hmmmm? Wonder why that is? Must be Scott's infallibility)...

there's virtually NO major support for opposing Sotomayor.

Despite you guys in the base and Rush....Mitch McConnell likely going to see 70 votes for her, maybe more. Not just Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 3:14pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 11:56am

Morman/Mormon/Schmormon.

I want to know if the difference between "Pastafarians" and Rastafarians is that the former believe that Chef Boyardee is the reincarnation of Christ, as opposed to the late emporer of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie?

Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2009 @ 3:26pm
Despite you guys in the base and Rush....Mitch McConnell likely going to see 70 votes for her, maybe more. Not just Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

Posted by Mask at 07/13/2009 @ 3:14pm

Perhaps you've forgotten, but I said that just as I believed with Bush, Obama has the right by virtue of the election to have his nominees confirmed.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 3:36pm
Rastafarians is that the former believe that Chef Boyardee is the reincarnation of Christ, as opposed to the late emporer of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie?

Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2009 @ 3:26pm

As to Chef Boyardee:

I once heard a conspiracy theory that he and famous ex-jarhead kiddy show host Captain Kangaroo were...the same guy.

Check out the resemblance.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 3:55pm
Obama has the right by virtue of the election to have his nominees confirmed.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 3:36pm

That is awfully generous. I would think that one who is such a proponent of constitutional rights that consent of the senate would not be a given for supreme court nominees (article 2 section ii).

Or did you mean that he should have the right to have his nominees receive an up or down vote? That would be different.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 3:57pm
That is awfully generous. I would think that one who is such a proponent of constitutional rights that consent of the senate would not be a given for supreme court nominees (article 2 section ii).

Or did you mean that he should have the right to have his nominees receive an up or down vote? That would be different.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 3:57pm

I believe elections have consequences and that presidents, regardless of party should have their nominees confirmed unless some gross malfeasance or something surfaces that would show they would violate their office.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 4:47pm
Posted by cka2nd at 07/13/2009 @ 3:26pm

http://www.venganza.org/

What I want to know is why so many people genuflect to so many others that believe a long haired sandal wearing prostitute loving collectivist carpenter is the Son of gOd, but then those same people mock those that regard Haille as the re-incarnation...then want to kill those that split off from the Sons of Abraham so long ago, but want the lands of the Third Splitters From Abraham to remain sacrosanct till The Rapture, when gOd will smite them but good.

That is of course when they are not killing each other by the thousands to prove to one another who loves gOd the mostest.

It's all so confusing, this Truth.

Religions of the world:

Taosim: "Shit happens"

Budhism" If Shit happens, it's not really shit"

Jehovah's Witness: "Knock knock, shit happens"

Shi'ism: "If shit happens, take a hostage"

Hare' Krishna "Shit happens rama lama ding dong"

Catholicism: "If I pray harder shit won't happen to me"

Judaism: "why does this shit always happen to us?"

Rastafarianism "Let's smoke this shit".

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 5:05pm
I believe elections have consequences and that presidents, regardless of party should have their nominees confirmed unless some gross malfeasance or something surfaces that would show they would violate their office.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/13/2009 @ 4:47pm

While I think the confimation process has become overly partisan. I think the confimation process is critical to insure some sense of quality assurance. If presidents did not have Senate review of their nominees, we could end up having SJCs who have no background in law, or who are pure partisan plants to implement a particular ideologic agenda. Not saying we don't have some of that allready, but there would be no checks. With the power that the court has to define important laws, it is critical that we seek justices who are at the least appropriately trained. this is especially important as we cannot impeach or remove justices once seated.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 5:11pm
"If presidents did not have Senate review of their nominees, we could end up having SJCs who have no background in law, or who are pure partisan plants to implement a particular ideologic agenda."

EXTRA, meet Clarence, Clarence, EXTRANEOUS

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 5:15pm
EXTRA, meet Clarence, Clarence, EXTRANEOUS

Posted by crabwalk at 07/13/2009 @ 5:15pm

Not saying we don't have some of that allready Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 5:11pm

Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 5:33pm
Hearings on Sotomajor's appointment occupy every news program. Certainly, the appointment of a SCOTUS judge is important but not more important than our costly war in Afghanistan, failure to prosecute Bush, Cheney et al. for torture, corruption of our Congress by campaign funding, etc.

Posted by goedel at 07/13/2009 @ 5:56pm
"I believe elections have consequences and that presidents, regardless of party should have their nominees confirmed unless some gross malfeasance or something surfaces that would show they would violate their office."

no interpretation there.

is this a "ball" or a "strike"?

Posted by urmygyro at 07/13/2009 @ 8:41pm
Goedel, you are STILL suffering from BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome). Newsflash: Bush is no longer President! Can't you just move-on.org?

Posted by barry25 at 07/13/2009 @ 9:19pm
A racist will soon serve on the highest court of the land. Now that's progressive, wouldn't you say? This country is far more racist than it was 10 years ago, and it's a whole new racism aimed directly at whitey by the likes of the media, academia, Obama, the dem. party, hollywood, our gov't, sotomayer, NAACP, ACLU, La Raza etc. It's very obvious that none of those listed above desire anything close to a "colorblind America"! Racists through and through!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by barry25 at 07/13/2009 @ 9:23pm
A racist will soon serve on the highest court of the land.....

Posted by barry25 at 07/13/2009 @ 9:23pm

Look who's talkin'.

LOL

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/13/2009 @ 10:22pm
Racism is the tool of choice of those intractable FOOLS unwilling and unable to live, work, or learn anything beyond the civil rights achievements already made which along with the constitution assure equality for all races!

What they really seek is guaranteed continual racial inequality through the continual denegration of whites, equivication of any and all living or working standards based on race, and when ever possible the use of inflammatory and deroggatory false accusations and language in attempts to elicite defensivesness from the subjects they wish to vilify...or in Jesse's case extort!

Sotomayor seems to exemplefy the usual minority "avenging angel" syndrone whon reguardless of personal gains and achievements would rather punish all the imagined "white demons" who in her fanciful mind people the U.S.A. and somehow vaguely rule over her SUPERIOR elitist mentality! You know like most of the leftist that post here!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/13/2009 @ 10:48pm
To all the stupid cons in America... go fuck yourselves!! Why didn't you have a single bitch when psycho's like Alito and Roberts and Scalia and Thomas were allowed into the courts? They are crazy, right wing freaks!!! They are incapable of intelligent, fair, unbiased thought. You cons had nothing to say, because all of you are full of lies, bullshit and ignorance. Fact is, you lost ALL of your political power because of rove, bush, cheney and the cast of clowns you love so much. Too late suckers!!!

Posted by Tiger2Lover at 07/14/2009 @ 03:59am
Man what happened to the fringe conservatives. They used to complain that liberals used the term racist too much. Now they are using it like it's a gift from Santa Clause.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2009 @ 05:04am
BARRY, please explain how a Latino ruling against Latinos is racist. I would also like to hear you explain away Newts apology for calling her racist and explain away several committee members calling out those that would call her racist.

Rush got your tongue?

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 06:43am
Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 3:57pm

Extra, thing to keep in mind about Larry/antisoc is...he's a "Presidential authoritarian". Has little trust for the "mob-ruled" Legislature and wants as much power as possible invested in the Executive, the "king" if you will.

He's fair though. Same support for "the Leader" under Obama as under Bush.

Well...almost the same.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:48am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/13/2009 @ 10:48pm

RIO, how is it you represent "most Americans"....yet "most Americans" don't oppose Sotomayor and almost none think she's a "racist"?!?!????

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:49am
Did you guys see this? Ted Kennedy is going to sell his book for $1000 per copy.

Can you say, "conspicuous displays of obscene opulence"? Sure you can.

This champion of the oppressed and downtrodden is nothing but a poseur concerned only about his own self aggrandizement.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/07/14/ special_copies_of_kennedy_book_to_fetch_1000_apiece/

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 10:26am
oh jeez...

i understand the importance of this, but since she's getting the job...

BORING!!!!

its all down to a few he said/she said's, a bunch of friendlies patronizingly complimenting her for being a latina and having achieved so much, enemies floating a few polite platitudes and trying to dig out a supreme "gotcha" moment...

but that's it.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 10:27am
Posted by Extraneous at 07/13/2009 @ 3:57pm

Extra, thing to keep in mind about Larry/antisoc is...he's a "Presidential authoritarian". Has little trust for the "mob-ruled" Legislature and wants as much power as possible invested in the Executive, the "king" if you will.

He's fair though. Same support for "the Leader" under Obama as under Bush.

Well...almost the same.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:48am

I see. I was under the impression that he was more of a libertarian, strict reader of the constitution kinda guy, but wishing to disallow (or water down) the constitutional checks on presidential authority in nominating SJCs changes that. Seems he may read the constitution kinda like the bible, picks, chooses, and interprets as he sees fit.

Kinda enables him to live in his own insulated world of ideology. Big surprise.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 11:23am
"I see. I was under the impression that he was more of a libertarian, strict reader of the constitution kinda guy"----Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 11:23am

Oh, no, far from it. He's an ardant supporter of not just the War Powers Act, but the authority of a President to start any war, any time...and that the Congressional Constitutional power to "declare war" is essentially meaningless.

And naturally, that once such a war has begun, only 'traitorous anti-war types" would dare de-fund it or oppose it.

Oh and despite "okey-doke" with the States having the power to allow 9 year olds to work in un-safe coal mindes, he DOESN'T mind "Government intervention" when it comes to forcing people to buy auto insurance....which, "oddly", he sells!

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 11:29am
I would hope that a white man, with the richness of his life experiences, would, more often than not, come to a better conclusion than a latina woman! If Alito or Roberts had said that 6 times or more, would you say they were taken out of context or would you call them a racist, CRABCAKE? You would call them a racist, and everyone on this site knows it, including you! So, did that answer your pathetically ignorant question?

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:36am
Sessions lit that cradle-to-grave, nipple-to-gov't, (just like Obama) racist UP! She's trying extremely hard to hide or deny who she is! How many times is she going to claim that she was "taken out of context" ( a technique taught in ch.1 of the "liberal handbook" ). Remember, knuckleheads, Obama, when questioned about Sotomayer's racist statements, said that she probably mis-spoke. 6 TIMES? Please. She's a racist through and through! Sickening and saddening!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:41am
Nice try. Not working. And FUCK you.

Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 07/13/2009

And into the ignore bin you go...

Posted by Balrog at 07/14/2009 @ 11:44am
Rush just called her a "stealth radical"! I disagree. She's very transparent, just like Obama. Anyone with half a brain could see that these 2 compulsive liars are radical leftists, just like many of Obama's peeps, but they have the help of the media,hollywood, academia, and the dem. party to try to hide it! They want to keep America in the dark! They have all this power, yet they want to shut down little ol' talk radio only. Fairness Doctrine? Pure evil has taken root in America!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:48am
while i think barry25 is a cretin, I agree that trying to pretend her words were "taken out of context" is weak when she repeated them five times.

the real issue is we're all racist; and by that, i mean, we still make race an issue. every senate democrat who makes a big deal out of her potentially being the first latina on the court is pandering to race.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 11:49am
So, did that answer your pathetically ignorant question?

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:36am

nope.

It fulfills the talking points you so willingly parrot, though. Can you point to a single decision that would support your claim that her "racism" affects her judicial decisions?

One of the con appointees said he brings his family history of being immigrants into his decisions. Does that make him an anti-native?

I've been waiting for one of the fear mongers to bring up Sotomayors 60% overturn rate...

So they could explain why Alitos 100% overturn rate was a better sign of judicial moderation.

Or why Clarence Thomas had no decisions overturned.

But maybe the word went out that that dog is not hunting this week.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 11:49am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/13/2009 @ 10:48pm

RIO, how is it you represent "most Americans"....yet "most Americans" don't oppose Sotomayor and almost none think she's a "racist"?!?!????

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

mAsKeD fool, how is your statement or question even a relevant consideration to what I posted? Try not chasing rabbits or setting up strawmen for once. If you want to refute what I posted or question it try makeing a relevant remark!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am

How does one refute craploa when the crap machine is totally uninterested in anything resembling reality.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 12:10pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:36am

Depends. If they were talking about something that a white man should have a better perspective on. She was speaking of her experiences as a wise woman and a wise Latino woman and compassion. I don't think that there is any doubt that this would give her a better perspective with regards to compassion on being a wise Latino woman then a white male.

In her 1994 speech in Puerto Rico, she said "A wise woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a man."

She was speaking of a more compassionate and caring conclusion.

Sexist?

The Latino addition in comparison to a white male simply added the experience and empathy that comes with a harder road.

So Barry, who do you think would make the more compassionate and caring conclusion?

Posted by !immutable at 07/14/2009 @ 12:13pm
"Not only was she overturned in a 5-4 decision, none of the 4 dissenters defended her ruling. All nine disagreed with her"

so what?

her record is extraordinary, and she's running circles around her GOP critics today.

her nominations is guaranteed.

Posted by darladoon at 07/14/2009 @ 12:24pm
Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 11:59am

It's a quite relevant question, RIO.

Relevant to your relevancy...or irrelevancy, yours and Barry's.

How is it that you're likely going to lose not just "RINOs" Snowe and Collins....but some other Repubs too, on Sotomayor's confirmation...and nary a SINGLE Blue Dog Democrat is even hinting at voting against her...

if you guys represent ANY kind of influential majority...or even worrisome minority of the American electorate?

I say "if"...you'll note.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:49pm
SESSIONS IS STILL TRING TO GET EVEN FOR HIS OWN REJECTIONS. THE OTHER REPUBLICANS DEEP INSIDE ARE CONFLICTED. THEY HOW HOW QUALIFIED SHE IS.HER OPINIONS AND PREDIDICES ARE NO WORSE THEN ANY OTHER JUSTICE ON THE SUPREMES.THE ONLY THING SHE DID WRONG IS SAY WHAT SHE THINKS AND THEY TWISTED IT, BUT SHE DID MAKE COMMENTS THAT DESERVE ANSWERS AND SHES GIVING THEM. IT'S THE ONLY TIME YOU GET TO SEE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES BEING JUDGED THEMSELVES. OE CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONSJ

Posted by CITYLIFE9 at 07/14/2009 @ 12:50pm
"Rush just called her a "stealth radical"! "----Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 11:48am

Yet nobody and not hardly any in the US Senate...cares.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 12:52pm
Ilya, Sotomayor is a Catholic, and only the sixth Catholic justice. I don't care one way or another, but you whined about her being Jewish.

Posted by swanny58 at 07/14/2009 @ 12:56pm
Ilya, Sotomayor is a Catholic, and only the sixth Catholic justice. I don't care one way or another, but you whined about her being Jewish.

Posted by swanny58 at 07/14/2009 @ 12:57pm
Hey, BARRY, if celebrity entertainers are who you worship and get your marching orders from...then you go boy.

Just don't let us catch you writing about Hollyweird, Al Frankens past, Mike Farrel, Mike Mooore or any of the other targets of Rush (thrice divorced drug addict Family Values) Limbaugh.

but then again, we know never to expect consistency from "core values" neo-conservatives.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 12:59pm
My take on the Sotomayor is that she will be very comfortably voted in, her prior statements notwithstanding. In a nutshell, her record illustrates that she is no radical. Her sympathies may lie with minorities but the present makeup of The SC with her replacing of Souter does not present a drastic change. Now, if any one of Thomas, Alito, Roberts or Scalia were to leave the court, the right would have reason to worry.

I don't see Obama being re-elected unless the economy miraculously does an about face. The SC will tilt to the right for the forseeable future, probably for the next generation.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:22pm
I'd like to add a comment about the decision on the New Haven Firefighter case. I think that the SC ruled correctly with their decision. I, for one, think the the time for affirmative action has come and gone. What may have been a reasonable solution to discriminatory practices in the past has no place in the present. A full generation or more has passed since the playing field was leveled in terms of hiring practices as well as in educational opportunities. If minority groups failed to take advantage of those opportunities when they were popular, then its too late now. That was the essence of the SC ruling.

It is now up to ALL ethnic groups to prepare themselves for lucrative employment and advancement. That means taking school seriously and actually studying for advancement tests like the firefighters in New Haven did. Anyone who sits back and thinks that they are owed anything because of or in spite of their race or ethnic background is going to be increasingly in for major disappointment in the future.

Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:40pm
timmutable, the answer to you question is: the colorblind, fair-minded person who judges people based on the content of their character, not gender, religious beliefs, or the color of their skin. Obviously, you and Sotomayer disaggree. You have shown youself to be not only a racist but a sexist too which keeps you in lockstep with the Obama admin. , La Raza, NOW, NAACP,ACLU, the MSM, Academia, Hollywood etc.!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:53pm
Crabcake, the Ricci case!!!!!! Are in in need of some medical attention/help??? Have you any knowledge of this racist's ruling on that case? Are you for real? Seriously, I'm concerned about the mental disorder known as liberalism more and more everytime a cupcake like youself makes such insane statements or asks such a stupid question that's so easily answered with fact!!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:58pm
Unbelievable.

The last two entries of The Beat by John Nichols were about the CIA and withholding information from Congress. I didn't know what the new revelation was, and didn't particularly care once I understood that it was just a program that was considered and never implemented.

I just read something titled "Another Phony Scandal". Do you mean to tell me that you people have drummed up all this sanctimony over CIA personnel trying to think of ways to kill Bin Landen? That's that scandal?

For six years it's been nothing but, "How come Bush hasn't killed Bin Laden?" I guess to Bush his name is "Been Forgotten" (Chortle snort) "How come you haven't killed Bin Laden?"

And this "trial ballon" is about Holder investigating Dick Cheney's involvement with the CIA thinking up ways to kill Bin Laden and other Al Qeda big wigs but not telling Congress?

Are you fucking kidding me? Is there no bottom to depths of your hypocrisy? You basically want to impeach Bush for not killing Bin Laden and you want to impeach Cheney for trying to think of ways to kill Bin Laden?

You better fucking hope Holder doesn't get any hearing on this. When normal American's hear you're going after Cheney for trying to think of ways to kill Bin Laden you'll have a revolt on your hands. If you think Democrats have a perception problem with the American people regarding national security today, this is the type of thing that would give the dead and burried Republicans a majority in 2010.

I understand that politics involves a certain amount of posturing, but this is fucking disgusting.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:58pm |

Your endless, ditto-head bleating about Sotomayor and baseless accusations of racism and sexism say more about the flexibility of your ethics in the face of imminent failure than they do about this eminently qualified jurist.

You have been, are, and will be a laughing stock, just like your ever-dwindling 'base' of GOP support.

Whittle away; keep up the good work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTF1LAGrBoE

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:07pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 2:06pm |

Try six years of, "Why haven't you CAPTURED Bin Laden"...

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:07pm

Two points of reality (vis-a-vis Sotomayor) that guys like BARRY try to ignore-

1. They have no political power in the Senate. They'll lose Snowe and Collins, and possibily 10 or more other Repubs.

2. Every Repub Senate vote for her (ex Collins and Snowe) is a b***h-slap to Rush and the ditto-heads and indication of their true "influence." And there WILL be some.

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 2:12pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:40pm

Part 1 of 2

A full generation or more has passed since the playing field was leveled in terms of hiring practices as well as in educational opportunities. --And yet whenever a news organization or academic sends out job applicants, one black and one white, its the white one who gets offered the job most of the time, even if by most objective standards (typing speed, etc.) the black one is equally or more qualified.

If minority groups failed to take advantage of those opportunities when they were popular, then its too late now. That was the essence of the SC ruling. --So popularity is now the standard, not justice or an objective analysis of reality? And that was the essence of the majority's ruling, not the whole Court's.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/14/2009 @ 2:28pm
This woman is a racist! She's getting hammered with the truth, and the saddest part is that she refuses to admit to who she really is, like Obama. If all of America were forced to watch this, most would be horrified, as to where we've come concerning race. She has proven, through repeated statements and over time, that she's a bonafide racist, plain and simple! This is a VERY, VERY sad day for America! No white male or female with an "R" next to their name could serve in any form of political office or on ANY judicial bench if they'd made the same statement even once in their lives! Truly disgusting! She's using rule #1 in the liberal's handbook: when faced with facts that you can't dispute or explain away, deny...deny...deny!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:37pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:40pm |

If anything, the SCOTUS ruling says only that they didn't believe the test formulated by I/O Solutions or the administration of that test exhibited 'disparate impact', as defined by Title VII.

It's not a statement on affirmative action or racism (reverse or otherwise) being perpetrated by Sotomayor, the other 2 judges on the circuit panel, or the New Haven Fire Dept.

In essence, if you're going to freak out over racial implications of a test, make sure you have your ducks in a row first. No more, no less.

It's amusing how many people (especially conservatives, who should recognize Sotomayor as the constitutionalist that she is) project they're hatred of established precedent onto every decision made by the courts, whether it makes sense to or not.

Your, "anyone who disagrees with me MUST be wrong", excuse for logic is a gigantic joke.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:42pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:40pm

Part 2 of 2

It is now up to ALL ethnic groups to prepare themselves for lucrative employment and advancement.

--And now CLASS comes into play. Just how are most poor and working class people - hell, even a majority - supposed to "prepare themselves for lucrative employment and advancement" when:

- manufacturing jobs - the traditional route to the middle class for far more Americans than a college education, contrary to liberal and conservative mythmakers - have been outsourced or automated out of exististence in the millions - unions have been broken, and thousands of union supporters are fired every year - tuition increases, the conversion of most financial aid from grants to loans and rules making it harder to go to school part-time (or from prison) have made it harder to get a college education - suburban school districts enjoy far greater educational resources (as opposed to bureaucratic ones) than inner-city and rural ones; - immigrant and foreign workers are imported into this country to keep labor costs down and profit margins fat, with illegal immigrants kept from bettering their situations (and raising the floor for all workers) by a combination of their bosses, the government and nativist sentiment as old as the republic?

Let me make it clear: while class oppression is the central faultline of capitalism, people of color are still victims of racism in this country. Yes, white racism has decreased since the 60's, but it is not gone yet. And while racism on the part of blacks, Latinos and Asians is not by any means unknown, it has far less of an impact on society as a whole than white racism.

Posted by cka2nd at 07/14/2009 @ 2:46pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 1:58pm |

Your endless, ditto-head bleating about Sotomayor and baseless accusations of racism and sexism say more about the flexibility of your ethics in the face of imminent failure than they do about this eminently qualified jurist.

You have been, are, and will be a laughing stock, just like your ever-dwindling 'base' of GOP support.

Whittle away; keep up the good work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTF1LAGrBoE

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 2:07pm

I do believe though, snow, that this site and ones like it provide an important and socially-desirable outlet for rage-a-holics like barry25.

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by BigPasture at 07/13/2009 @ 10:48pm

RIO, how is it you represent "most Americans"....yet "most Americans" don't oppose Sotomayor and almost none think she's a "racist"?!?!????

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 07:49am | ignore this person | warn this person

He most likely misspoke. I'm sure he meant "real Americans."

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:02pm
You know, out in Ms. Palin's "real America."

Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:03pm
Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:02pm

That WOULD "explain" it, wouldnt' it?

LOL

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:11pm
It amazing how the nuts on this site will claim that claims of racism and sexism are baseless, when that claim is proven credible by her own words, repeated many times in many forums. 2 questions loser libs can't and won't answer clearly: 1) if a white male had made the same statement towards women or any minority, would it be considered racism by the left and the media? Yes or No. 2) Did Trent Lott's statement, which the left called RACIST, costing Lott the speakership, rise to level of racism that Sotomayer's statements have, and if so, why? Got ya cornered? You bet!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:14pm
He most likely misspoke. I'm sure he meant "real Americans." Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:02pm |

An increasingly rare breed, in Rio's peculiar form of dementia.

I do believe though, snow, that this site and ones like it provide an important and socially-desirable outlet for rage-a-holics like barry25. Posted by schnellerheinz at 07/14/2009 @ 3:00pm |

I'll accept that as an axiom, but I'd like to see some indication of progress on the rager's part. Barry, instead, seems to be drifting further into psychosis.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:17pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:14pm |

What kind of 'reverse racist' rules against minorities of all varieties repeatedly over a 17-year career?

If a justice's rulings are sufficient to determine their lack of partiality in the case of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts (oh my!), then why isn't that a workable standard for this particular female, hispanic nominee?

Would such a statement be 'considered' racism? Maybe.

Would it be grounds for exclusion from the SCOTUS? Uh no.

Sotomayor's statement certainly doesn't rise to the level of a specific endorsement of explicit racism, as in the case of Strom's platform and Trent's dumb-ass comments.

Only in your Rush-addled neural NASCAR track would her statements be considered comparable.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:25pm
snowflake wouldn't/couldn't answer the question, anyone else wanna try? It's really not hard, it just might not feel good to give a truthful answer. Alito and Roberts made no racist/sexist statements that showed them to be the racist/sexist Sotomayer is!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:29pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:29pm |

Let it be known that Sotomayor will not be confirmed to the SCoB25...which has all the relevance of a fart in an F5 hurricane.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:31pm
By the way snowflake, if your looking for a judicial standard to show racist tendencies, open your eyes, wake up, and read! You'll find that there's a case about white firefighter's and 1 hispanic that had their rights violated by gov't based solely on skin color! Sotomayer ruled aganist them! Case closed MORON!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:32pm
Why do you make it soooo easy? Can't one of you compete? I mean, I absolutely rip you apart, Session's style, daily! I have backed most of you, if not all, into a corner on numerous occassions, to the point that you won't/can't even answer simple questions for risk of showing you blatant hypocrisy! Twerps

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:35pm
there is absolutely no doubt if a white judge said he was able to make better judgments than a non-white judge b/c of his whiteness he'd be skewered (and no president would even take the chance to nominate such a person, so it'd be moot anyway).

is it racist? yes. are we all racist? yes, even the democrats that keep applauding her for being latina.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 3:36pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:32pm |

I bet I know more about this case, from actually reading the public record on same, than you've heard about on the radio.

The fact that you think that this case was about Sotomayor's attitude towards the white firefighter who brought the suit demonstrates that you are completely bereft of a clue and completely intent on justifying YOUR attitudes about affirmative action, by whatever pathetic means eek out of your car's speakers.

Turn off the radio and open YOUR eyes, dimwit.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:38pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:35pm |

That's our Barry...legend in his own (hallucinating) mind.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:40pm
Oh wait.....I'm looking outside.....it's beautiful, sunny, warm, peaceful, with calm water and small, but good shaped waves in the pacific. Well sickos, class is dismissed due to my desire to take my dogs to the beach and surf while you miserble cradle-to-gravers sit around drinkin' cool-aid!

Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:40pm
Posted by barry25 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:40pm |

Funny...I'm looking at the same Pacific through my front window, but I don't see a gaping a-hole bobbing in the waves...you must be in SoCal.

Here's hoping a Mako can do us all some good and take a bite out of your fat, seal-looking ass.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 3:48pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 10:26am

This is just harping. It's a special collectors edition of the book Darin. The rest will sell at a normal price. This is just trying to find anything to dislike about the man. There plenty of more expensive collectors editions. Of everything including Harry Potter. There are going to only be 1,000 copies of this particular edition which is why it's so expensive. I know you don't like Ted Kennedy but give me a break this is grasping at straws.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2009 @ 4:42pm
Pure evil HAS taken root in America and barry is ragin' alongside the devil himself.

Posted by sirhcus at 07/14/2009 @ 6:12pm
Now is indeed the moment for a "Latina" on the Court, and SS is the right one for the job. But SS will make the sixth Catholic. You think that doesn't matter? Brennan, the liberal Catholic, understood State action quite differently from Douglas, with whom he often agreed in result. Six justices, before attaining the age of reason, will have absorbed their formative notions of the world from parochial schools. As the examples of Nino Scalia, Roberts-Alito, Bill Buckley, Garry Wills, E.J. Dionne, G.K. Chesterson and many others attest --and as Aquinas himself boasted -- no mind is capacious enough to discard a Jesuit indoctrination. Perhaps there exists, somewhere in the world, a Jesuit turned Ninth Amendment libertarian (Julia Sweeney?) But none such is a judge of a Federal court.

Posted by dhdunlap at 07/14/2009 @ 7:34pm
Posted by dhdunlap at 07/14/2009 @ 7:34pm

Dunlap, good post. Brings to mind the concept of patriarchy, wrapped up too comfortably in Catholism. This time we can hope the patriarchy is wrapped around a matriarch. Who knows, but this could be an angle on the settled law bit, a nod toward women, and her ground, the Goddess.

Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 8:12pm
Very juicy indeed. A Goddess raising hell inside the tent could bend more ears than an O'Connor mincing words outside. I'm signing on to that one until experience refutes us. Kennedy will wilt. I like it, I like it!

Posted by dhdunlap at 07/14/2009 @ 8:37pm
The first Hispanic would have been Repubilican Miquel Herrera except that the Democrats were so afraid of this happening that they held up even hearings for his nomination to the BENCH. Talk about Hypo-CRACY in action.

Posted by hamiltongrad at 07/15/2009 @ 09:32am
TIme for Ted to TALK

Please someone at the Nation, or CBS etc, time for an in depth interview with the Lion of the Senate, to clear the air, for closure and understanding. What really happened that night ? What does he feel now, what has he learned. What good will it do to keep it inside ? How did he handle the pain each day ? As a True Progressive, I would like to move on, we need one more interview.

Time to Move On. Time for Ted to TALK.

Posted by hamiltongrad at 07/15/2009 @ 09:39am
Posted by dhdunlap at 07/14/2009 @ 8:37pm

I've always been suspect of the neocon's strict constitutionalist vs. activist blather - since Bush v. Gore! Where O'Connor showed her cards. Ugly stuff. That was the most activist judicial action imaginable.

Going back to patriarchy, it will assert itself aggressively - or hold territory already won through aggression and imperialism. That's not a bad heuristic to apply to Bush v. Gore. The USSC looked like they'd let Florida sort it out. State's rights, strict constitutionalism -- until oops, looks like they might lose some major territory.

And I don't know if you ever heard where O'Connor reveals her true loyalties, there's the following but also other stuff on her proving she was never anything but Bush lite.

------------------------------

Another confirmation of the naked political bias in the Supreme Court decision comes in a report in the current issue of Newsweek magazine, citing comments made by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the night of the election, November 7. O'Connor and her husband were hosting a party when she heard Dan Rather on CBS call Florida for Democrat Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed, according to two eyewitnesses. She told a guest that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other big "battleground" states, Illinois and Michigan.

The Supreme Court Justice then walked away from the TV set, while her husband John explained that she was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, but had been waiting so that a Republican president could name a successor. O'Connor, 70, has been on the court since 1981. Before that she was Republican majority leader in the Arizona State Senate.

Posted by winyahn at 07/15/2009 @ 09:56am
Posted by hamiltongrad at 07/15/2009 @ 09:32am |

I've googled and googled but can't find any mention of a Herrera nominee except the one that got confirmed:

"145. Judith Herrera, D NM, June 3, 2004 (vote 93-0)"

Could you point me in the right direction or should I just count you in the 'tin foil hat' column?

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 10:04am