Sotomayor Says Roe Is "Settled Law," Still Gets GOP Props

posted by John Nichols on 07/14/2009 @ 2:40pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (65)

Subscribe Now

The second day of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing proceeded as smoothly as the first, even as the judge placed herself firmly in the camp of those who say that the debate about whether women have a legally-defined right to choose has been settled.

Asked by Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl, a ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, to comment on the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that removed key barriers to reproductive rights, Judge Sotomayor said that "settled law" now affirms the right of women to terminate unwanted abortions.

Noting that the high court had upheld the Roe ruling in its 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the judge said: "Casey reaffirmed the holding in Roe. That is the Supreme Court's settled interpretation of what the court holding is and its reaffirmance of it."

That's likely to be the headline from Day 2 of the Sotomayor session. As the National Journal observers note: "Over the course of her long career, Sotomayor has not ruled in an abortion-related matter. This marks her first public affirmation for support of the precedent set in the landmark case."

But it is not exactly "news" that President Obama's first Supreme Court pick -- a woman who before her appointment to the federal bench worked with groups that supported abortion rights -- would err on the side of reproductive freedom.

As such, the real "news" of the day was subtler in character but no less significant with regard to the question of whether (or, perhaps, by what margin) Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.

The key conversation was between Judge Sotomayor and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, the former Republican chairman of the committee.

Unlike the committee's rabid Republican pointman, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, Hatch was not just respectful of Judge Sotomayor. The Utah senator seemed, genuinely, to be listening to her answers to his questions – and perhaps looking for a hook on which to hang a "yes" vote.

Hatch was firm with the nominee, especially during a pointed line of questioning about cases involving gun rights. But Judge Sotomayor matched wits with the senior senator point for point, meeting arcane questions with precise responses that referenced footnotes and comments by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

Hatch was impressed, telling the nominee at the close of their discourse: "I want you to know I've appreciated this little time we've had together." Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold, a key Democrat who led Judge Sotomayor through a line of questioning about executive powers issues, went even further, telling the committee how much he had "enjoyed" the Hatch-Sotomayor dialogue.

More significantly, Hatch borrowed a page from South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who on Monday outlined what appeared to be a case for Republican votes in favor of the nomination. (On Tuesday, Graham raised real concerns about the nominee's judicial temperament in conversational line of questioning that drew high marks from liberals and conservatives. But he also told Judge Sotomayor, "I like you," and said that should count for something because "I might vote for you.")

Like Graham, Hatch put more effort into attacking Obama than the president's nominee. (Hatch also took a ridiculous potshot at People for the American Way.)

The senator from Utah went out of his way to note that as a senator from Illinois, Obama opposed former President Bush's nominations of John Roberts and Sam Alito to the high court.

"In fact, Senator Obama never voted to confirm a Supreme Court justice," Hatch said. "He even voted against the man who administered the oath of presidential office, Chief Justice John Roberts, another distinguished and well-qualified nominee."

"Whether I vote for or against Judge Sotomayor," Hatch continued, "it will be by applying the principles I have laid out, not by using such tactics and standards against these nominees in the past."

Some observers thought "Hatch was doing more than reciting past grievances."

The Los Angeles Times suggested the senior senator was "making the case for Republican opposition to Sotomayor on the Senate floor -- suggesting that if Republicans end up opposing her en masse, it will be no different than how Democrats treated the Alito nomination."

In fact, there is a better argument to be made that, as Graham did on Monday, Hatch was trying to frame an argument for Republicans to support a nominee they disagree with -- and that their base voters have been told to fear.

At the heart of that argument is the claim that, by backing Judge Sotomayor's nomination, Republican senators are proving themselves to be fairer and more respectful of the system of separated powers than was Senator Obama.

That may be a convoluted case for approving Judge Sotomayor. But it may just allow Hatch to vote for a nominee he acknowledges that he appreciates.

Comments (65)

It is settled law. It was a terrible overreach. It was ridiculous. It was a mistake, but our system keeps all decisions, not just the ones we personally like. That is part of strict constructionism as well.

Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 2:48pm
one might be surprised at how few republican lawmakers see the abortion issue as little more than a way of rounding up single issue voters.

but of course they cannot publicly go there.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 2:49pm
Judge Sotomayor said that "settled law" now affirms the right of women to terminate unwanted abortions. posted by John Nichols on 07/14/2009 @ 2:40pm

Mr. Nichols, I hate to point out a brain fart as I have many myself. But that one is a little scary..

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 2:54pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 2:49pm

The repugs really don't want Roe v. Wade overturned. It would be a disaster for them to lose such a single issue voting stimulator for their more religiously impaired contituents.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 3:02pm
I though it was a very good move by Sotomayor to just plainly state that it was settled law. No dancing around the issue.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 3:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person

decepti-CONS!!!

lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 3:08pm
It's apparently settled POLITICS too...

case in point-

From 2003-2006, the Republicans (the "pro-life" party) had control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

yet the "Human Life Amendment" a Constitutional Amendment declaring life begins at conception (the supposed conservative and GOP belief), which would have Constitutionally bypassed "Roe"...

languished in Committee where it had been since 1973.

Now, the question one has to ask is....why?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:09pm
<But it is not exactly "news" that President Obama's first Supreme Court pick -- a woman who before her appointment to the federal bench worked with groups that supported abortion rights -- would err on the side of reproductive freedom.>

Liberal word spin. this isn't about "reproductive freedom". It's about continuing the practice of legal infanticide.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:18pm
kill the unwanted babies. they'd just be more mouths to feed. we don't need that.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 3:26pm
"It's about continuing the practice of legal infanticide."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:18pm |

But Larry, YOU don't want to make that "legal infanticide" ILLEGAL, until everybody agrees to it, right?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:56pm
It's about continuing the practice of legal infanticide.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:18pm

That was a stupid and ill informed statement. I'm sure even you know the difference between an "infant" and a "fetus".

An infant is a child between the ages of 1 and 3. It is a born child. A fetus on the other hand is an unborn child. Still within the womb of a women. And as such is not yet a living human being.

You would have to murder a child between the ages of 1 and 3 to qualify as committing "infanticide".

If you want to be more accurate in your description you should attempt to make your point with the word "Feticide". And Feticide is only used as a description of a crime concerning the destruction of a fetus due to a criminal act.

Since abortion is settled law, and thus a "legal" procedure. It is not a criminal act.

You make a weak case.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 4:02pm
Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 4:02pm

I would submit a slight correction, in that an infant is between the ages of 0 and around 1, at which point they often start walking and are considered a toddler. Other than that I agree with you.

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:13pm
Don't get me wrong though. I personally believe that abortion is abhorrent. It is a sloppy and disgusting solution as far as birth control is concerned.

Imagine resting comfortably in the womb. And suddenly a dose of potassium chloride or digoxin invades your bloodstream. The fetus trembles as it's little heart goes crazy and finally explodes or just stops. A life that could have been. Then the little body softens as it decays which makes extraction easier. And a would be mother has conveniently removed a bad decision or an unwanted responsibility.

Tragic? Yes. But until science comes up with a solution or society guarantees the adoption of unwanted pregnancies, this horrible situation will continue. Until then, this decision and it's consequences should be up to the woman who must address it.

I'm glad I don't have to make that decision. And can only imagine how difficult it may be.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 07/14/2009 @ 2:48pm 

It's not, for two reasons.

First of all, abortion jurisprudence has been a little more chaotic than some let on. The scope of protected abortion has been narrowed, Roe's test has been replaced with an "undue burden" standard, and on top of that, no one has been able to agree on the precise ground upon which Roe rests (though I think there's a good argument for "air").

Second, following on that last line, stare decisis factors in a lot of variables, not just "how long has X decision been around?" It also looks into how bad a decision was, to what extent it has enjoyed reliance, etc. I'd argue that under that standard, Roe is far from settled.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 4:02pm 

The legalistic point at the end isn't responsive because it's shifting terms. Antisocialist isn't speaking strictly in legal terms, since "murder" can also refer to a wrongful killing that isn't illegal. Otherwise, "we should legalize murder" would be an incoherent statement. That's also why, regardless of whether they're right (they're generally not), those who say "our troops go abroad to murder innocents" are not guilty of a logical incoherency.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 5:19pm
Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 5:19pm

"Stare decisis et non quieta movere", loosely translated because I am not a language scholar, means "to stand by precedent".

Judges generally respect, at whatever level that a legal precedent is a legal principle which they are obligated to follow. The defining rule of this principle is that judges follow the precedents established in prior decisions.

In Roe v. Wade the supreme court decided that a woman and her doctor could chose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction. With certain restrictions applied to later months.

This is precedent at the highest level of jurisprudence. That is what the term "settled law" refers to.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 5:43pm
"It's about continuing the practice of legal infanticide."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:18pm |

But Larry, YOU don't want to make that "legal infanticide" ILLEGAL, until everybody agrees to it, right?

Posted by Mask at 07/14/2009 @ 3:56pm

You know that's my position. That's why I refer to it as "legal infanticide"

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 5:51pm
Like it or not. Legally or morally, a woman has the right to decide the destiny of what goes on in her body. That is the way it should be. We must draw the line somewhere. Whether or not you agree where that line should be set is a moot point.

I have said before that men should not even have a say in this. We have no resume' in the area of childbirth.

It is a womans decision. Like it or not.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 5:52pm
You know that's my position. That's why I refer to it as "legal infanticide"

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 5:51pm

You persist in refering to abortion as "legal infanticide". Even after I made it clear that you were in error.

Maybe you have me on ignore? You have no credibility whatsoever!

Why don't you just leave. You have nothing to offer here.

Begone Demon.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 5:59pm
Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 4:02pm

Posted by Extraneous at 07/14/2009 @ 4:13pm

Another attempt to mangle language to spread fear, or in this case to create a "feeling" of horror.

There is no such thing as "partial birth abortion", but you will read it even in MSM/"liberal media".

Frank Luntz Republican Playbook -- .in his introduction he actually claims that Bush said what he meant and meant what he said. What more irony do you need?

"George W. Bush won because 9/11 had truly changed America and because he accurately reflected America's resolve that the War on Terror has to be won. Not waged. Won."

Did Chimpy McFLightsuit "win" the GWOT? I think not.

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "legal infanticide", except in the fevered imagination of right wing extremists that think they speak for the majority. Infants are protected by law. As are women, protected from government interference in their personal lives.

Sotomayor answered the same as Alito and Roberts.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 6:16pm
More gems from Frank Luntz, I wonder if these still apply?

"The results on Election Day illustrated an essential principle of electoral success: it is no longer enough to say no."

But, we have Teabaggers now.

"In the end, hope won."

What is HAPPYS creed? Hopey change?

"Strategy: Pick out issues that matter to the base and HOLD some of them until the second year of the Congress."

See Masks comments about the anti-freedom (see, I can play too, anti) legislation went nowhere.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 6:21pm
Begone Demon.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 5:59pm

AARGH, the goggles....they do nothing!!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 6:24pm
Posted by crabwalk at 07/14/2009 @ 6:16pm

Have you noticed that none of the wingnuts will even post here?

Thr truth is a powerful weapon indeed.

Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 6:32pm
she has proved cool under pressure. looks qualified.

enough about her ethnicity. she's qualified regardless.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 7:05pm
she's qualified regardless.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 07/14/2009 @ 7:05pm

"Well-qualified" according to The American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary. A better rating than Clarence got.

Posted by FLaim at 07/14/2009 @ 7:12pm
More interesting than Sotomayor's opinion on Roe, is the introduction of HR3188 to ban fed funding of HPV vaccine programs.

If there were a just G-d, Phil Gingrey would be stricken with anal warts for bringing this before the House of Reps.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/14/2009 @ 7:15pm
infanticide:

1. The act of killing an infant.

2. The practice of killing newborn infants.

3. One who kills an infant.

Posted by darladoon at 07/14/2009 @ 7:22pm
ergo, abortion is hardly such as there are no infants involved.

Posted by darladoon at 07/14/2009 @ 7:23pm
Interesting analysis of Hatch's motivation. I view him as more cold and calculating than most politicians, and would add a couple things to the algorithm which seeks to explain his backhanding of Obama. He smoothly, gladly, slickly spews anything which serves him. The Obama reference does so as follows.

1- Low IQ / rednecks / red-meaters love any and all criticism of Obama, period, the end. Should Hatch vote yes (and I believe he will) given the difficulty low IQ rednecks have with memory and cognition generally (for ex., inability to remember what they just ordered even though they get the same thing twice a day from McDonalds) few will remember or understand enough to be pissed at his cold-blooded calculations.

2- Higher IQ repugs may bite the more principled bit.

3- Risk of alienating more Hispanics, as more of them people seem to be racist in the wrong direction (in Hatch's view) as they align themselves increasingly with the party of the brown pres.

4- Everyone wants to vote for a winner.

Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 7:25pm
Less abortions = good, important. Let's declare war on biology, and put the best and brightest of this generation to work on the nano-condom!

Rid this nation of this smelly old curse. Real 'merkins can get behind this moonlanding -- no abortions, AND no restriction of womens' rights.

Posted by winyahn at 07/14/2009 @ 7:31pm
Posted by chaoszen at 07/14/2009 @ 5:43pm 

Yes and no. Yes in that precedent is given respect. No in that precedent is not given absolute deference, especially not at the Supreme Court level. Were that the case, Plessy v. Ferguson would not have been overturned.

Stare decisis is not an absolute bar; it's only a relative one, and a pragmatic one. If a previous Court gets a decision grieviously wrong (see Plessy), a later Court may be justified in overturning it. Especially if, unlike Plessy, the foundation for the previous decision is extremely murky at best.

So no, again, stare decisis does nothing to bar overturning Roe. Nor should it. Roe was a terrible decision that rested on a foundation of pure hot air.

Posted by Thrawn at 07/14/2009 @ 8:22pm
It's about continuing the practice of legal infanticide.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/14/2009 @ 3:18pm

Conservative word spin.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/14/2009 @ 8:56pm
As George Carlin noted, why is it that you don't see too many of these rabid anti-women (abortionists) lining up to adopt these kids? Nope, that might be something Christ would do.

Posted by onthehelm at 07/14/2009 @ 9:14pm
the wheels on the bus

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 9:43pm
sammy alito's confirmation opening statement:

"But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .

When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account."

hmmmmm.........

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 9:46pm
does "take that into account" equate to "reach a better conclusion"?

think with some subtlety now.

hmmmmmm..........

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 9:55pm
does "take that into account" equate to "reach a better conclusion"?

think with some subtlety now.

hmmmmmm..........

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 9:56pm
too many "m"s.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 9:59pm
Citibank Announces Foreclosure on White House.

Posted by frosty zoom at 07/14/2009 @ 10:00pm
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....

frosty's not into subtlety. surprise, surprise.

"soul"

vegetarians are happier.

taking into account is in the same ballpark as reaching a better conclusion.

tsk, tsk.

Posted by urmygyro at 07/14/2009 @ 10:07pm
I always find the blogs on here entertaining to read, but I find the polarity people seem to have about the abortion issue very incomprehensible. I am pro-choice, but I'm also the mother of two. Someone who quibbles that a child is not actually an infant until it leaves the mother's body obviously hasn't experienced the wonder and magic of seeing a 4 month sonogram and seeing a perfectly formed, albeit tiny, person in the womb or felt a baby they carried respond with vigor to music or other stimulation- revealing thought and preferences, even before birth. On the other hand, a person who says abortion is always due to irresponsible behavior or is selfish on the mother's part has probably never worked rape crisis calls and talked to a 12 year old unsure if the baby she carried was her father's or her uncle's. I can't imagine condemning that child to any additional unwanted intrustions on her body. So, I believe in choice, but I believe that most grown-ups are not responsible enough about their reproductive behavior, and that there are entirely too many abortions. On the other hand, until we can transform our society into one where women can be guaranteed that every sexual encounter they have is consensual, outlawing abortion would be tantamount to The Handmaid's Tale and female slavery. Furthermore, are people who are too careless to even handle birth control (a simple task) prepared to parent children? There are not enough foster and adoptive homes for the existing group of unwanted children. Moreover, abortion only in cases of rape doesn't make sense- the fetus has the exact same status regardless of how it came into being. I just wish people wouldn't treat this issue as something so black and white, because it really is not a black and white issue.

Posted by surprisinglymoderate at 07/14/2009 @ 10:58pm
Mr. Nichols is taking a GIANT LEAP of biased journalism!

"During her first chance to answer questions publicly, Sotomayor STOPPED SHORT of calling the right to abortion settled law but also said, "All precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law subject to" great deference but NOT absolute. "

Maybe it was just wishful thinking or misinterputation to quote her incorrectly? Perhaps otherwise there is insider information that she LIED when she said it is not absolute? Sadly we will probably find out after she is appointed!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/14/2009 @ 11:20pm
From a legalese blog:

http://volokh.com/archives

/archive_2009_07_12-2009_07_18.shtml#1247620080

Mike Seidman on Sotomayor: On the Federalist Society Online Debate on the Sotomayor hearings (click here and scroll down), my Georgetown Law colleague Mike Seidman--a cofounder and intellectual leader of the Critical Legal Studies movement in the 1980s--is brutally candid in his opinion of Judge Sotomayor's testimony today:

Speaking only for myself (I guess that's obvious), I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor's testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate--that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise--to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results--is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional carers?

Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth....

Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:32pm
...by Fred Schwarz at NRO:

"Speaking of Sotomayor, I've been struck by the contrast between her testimony today and that of John Roberts and Samuel Alito at their confirmation hearings. Roberts and Alito stood up for their beliefs and defended them ably, knowing that it might lose them some votes, whereas Sotomayor's strategy has been to shamelessly deny or disavow everything she's spent the last 20 years saying. Now where could she have learned that?

....Still, you have to wish that Sotomayor and Obama would be more like Roberts and Alito. Instead of backing off and denying and rationalizing and cheese-paring their rhetoric, Roberts and Alito said what they believed and defended it, like grown-ups. That's why they will be remembered as influential Supreme Court justices, while Sotomayor will be a minor figure -- and why Obama will go down in history as a man of fine words but few results. Winning people over is harder than tricking them, but the respect it gains is much deeper.

Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:42pm
We have a superb president, and will soon have a great supreme court appointee. Both believe in the rule of law, and in upholding basic rights, such as Ragin' Rio's freedom to hate.

Posted by winyahn at 07/15/2009 @ 12:00am
Posted by surprisinglymoderate at 07/14/2009 @ 10:58pm

The tennis match does get old. Uninspired, snarky, and that's just my part!

Just chiming into say I concur and - great contribution.

Posted by winyahn at 07/15/2009 @ 12:03am
...until we can transform our society into one where women can be guaranteed that every sexual encounter they have is consensual, outlawing abortion would be tantamount to The Handmaid's Tale and female slavery. Posted by surprisinglymoderate at 07/14/2009 @ 10:58pm

By far the best summary I have read on the abortion issue to date! My compliments!

Posted by oneworld at 07/15/2009 @ 12:28am
Are readers aware of Judge Sotomajor's out of hand refusal to consider the appeal of Jeffrey Deskovic, who was wrongly convicted of rape on coerced evidence and sentenced to life?

Read about the final vindication of Mr Deskovic six years after Sotomajor refused his appeal on a technicality. You can find the story on Democracy Now (www.democracynow.org) This is not merely an example of the law being applied mechanically; it is one of a judge to busy even to read the basis for the appeal because it was filed late due to a clerk's error. Six years of imprisonment later, Deskovic was exonerated on improved DNA comparisons, and the real perp was determined to be another man.

Is this judge one who should be deciding what comes before the court in the future?

Do you know that the Senate Judiciary Committee, deciding on Sotomajor, refused to allow Deskovic to testify? Is this the sort of fair hearing by which judges should be confirmed. Shame on you, Senator Leahy !

Posted by goedel at 07/15/2009 @ 01:27am
The war's over...it's the battles that are interesting. Sotomayor WILL be the next USSC Justice...everybody knows that.

What will be fascinating will be what Mr Nichols noted....Will Orrin Hatch vote yes on her?

It would be a stunning slap in the face to the Republican base (RIO, HAPP, etc.) who have been all ginned up on "Sotomayor is a racist" by their nose-ring pullers like Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reilly.

And then Orrin Hatch from UTAH, pull the rug out from under them and votes for Sotomayor...giving cover to other conservative Republican Senators to do the same, thus telling the ditto-heads, Beck-heads, loufa-heads...."Who cares what you guys think of her?"

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:49am
"ead about the final vindication of Mr Deskovic six years after Sotomajor refused his appeal on a technicality."

I am not familiar with this case, but just FYI, ALL laws are technical in nature.

Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 08:25am
hmmmm...

(how many is too many?)

No Nation cons have any comments about Alito having 100% of his cases that made it to The Supremes overturned?

Interesting, as many of them tried to make hay about Sotomayors overrulings.

could it be a double standard and Bloviator led nonsense?

Nah, not from our neo-cons!

Posted by crabwalk at 07/15/2009 @ 08:37am
And then Orrin Hatch from UTAH, pull the rug out from under them and votes for Sotomayor...giving cover to other conservative Republican Senators to do the same, thus telling the ditto-heads, Beck-heads, loufa-heads...."Who cares what you guys think of her?"

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 07:49am

Interesting conjecture. Were you similarly pushing for Senators Obama and Clinton to confirm nominees Roberts and Alito?

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:32pm |

I'm fairly sure a Georgetown Law Library Monday morning quarterback like Siedman knows diddly compared to an actual Fed circuit judge about what goes into adjudicating cases...keep scrapin' that barrel, Zippy.

Posted by snowball777 at 07/15/2009 @ 09:17am
Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:03am

If a politician feels that the judge doesn't reflect their constituents' views...he or she should vote against them. Same for Hatch. I'd have no problem with him representing the views of his voters and voting down Sotomayor....same for Clinton and Obama voting down Roberts or Alito.

I'm not a "Presidential authoritarian" (as you are)...it's why we have the "advise and CONSENT" clause in the Constitution.

If Republican Senators REALLY think Sotomayor is a "radical" or "racist"...or even if they oppose her judicial outlook...they should vote against her. That's the "representative" part of the "democracy".

Now the question, Larry is...

Why does the Hard Right's view of Sotomayor NOT seem to be the view of guys like Hatch and Lindsey Graham? Or...why do they feel safe in IGNORING it???

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:17am
Why does the Hard Right's view of Sotomayor NOT seem to be the view of guys like Hatch and Lindsey Graham? Or...why do they feel safe in IGNORING it???

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 09:17am

I don't have the ability to explain what other people say or do in matters like this.

I just try and be consistent on issues. That is one reason I have no respect for Hannity. He pounded the "elections have consequences" angle for Roberts, Alito, and others, yet turns around and acts a hypocrite in this instance.

Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:22am
It's "settled law" until it gets over turned. So it's settled on unsettled ground. And that is unsettleling to some.

Posted by sofakingdabest at 07/15/2009 @ 09:47am
PART 1 -- Just hours after President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh accused her of being a racist and demanded that conservatives oppose her nomination.

PART 2 -- Limbaugh suggested that, if he becomes convinced that she is anti-choice, he would consider supporting her nomination. Sotomayor "might be the biggest hope for overturning Roe v. Wade down the line"

PART 3 -- SETTLED LAW

PART 4 -- She's a racist / activist / hysterical Hispanic with a uterus between her ears!

Posted by winyahn at 07/15/2009 @ 10:05am
"I just try and be consistent on issues. That is one reason I have no respect for Hannity. He pounded the "elections have consequences" angle for Roberts, Alito, and others, yet turns around and acts a hypocrite in this instance."----Posted by antisocialist at 07/15/2009 @ 09:22am

And you usually are. It's typically your "allies" here who follow Hannity's hypocritical lead.

But I'm consistant too. The Senate has the Constitutional mandate to "advise and consent" to the President's nomination. Typically, this has gone forward with out much fuss. But the Legislature has a role.

I merely note the increasing irrelevancy, even in their own Party, of the Hannity AND Limbaugh types.

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 10:25am
We have a superb president, and will soon have a great supreme court appointee. Both believe in the rule of law, and in upholding basic rights, such as Ragin' Rio's freedom to hate.

Posted by winyahn at 07/15/2009 @ 12:00am | ignore this person | warn this person

Pity you, you can't even distinguish the posting of the truth from hate!

Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 10:55am
Posted by BigPasture at 07/15/2009 @ 10:55am

I pity you, RIO....From Hatch to Lindsey Graham, Republicans starting to sound like "Demoncrats"...

and knowing that guys like you can be taken for granted and ignored.

Posted by Mask at 07/15/2009 @ 11:23am
Nothing that happens today or any of the other "Question days" for the new SC nominee will change anything. Abortion is the law of the land and nothing will change that until the culture or the peole change their positions in the neccessary numbers need to invoke a change, neither of which will happen any time soon...

and...

The woman will be seated on the court...it is the Presidents choice..as was Bush picks, and they should and will for the most part, get their picks....at least the Repubs are absent from the frothing the dems usually do for ANY Repub pick...but then again, the repubs have morphred into dem lefyty light...no conservatives left in govt..or maybe in the country...when a senator is elected and defined as center/left when his last real job was on SNL....it is over..

Your comrade , Jomamma

New handle to soon appear

Posted by YourJomamma at 07/15/2009 @ 12:43pm
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth....

Posted by Happy at 07/14/2009 @ 11:32pm

Weird, it sounds Happy like this person is saying that a judge has to have....empathy. That it's not just you applying the law like a robot. Didn't Republican's say that was BS? Oh well.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 07/15/2009 @ 2:48pm
New handle to soon appear

Posted by YourJomamma at 07/15/2009 @ 12:43pm

So long, YourJomamma, have a well-earned retirement in ObamaLand!

Posted by Happy at 07/15/2009 @ 2:59pm
NO DOUBT SHE IS GOING TO BE THE NEXT SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.THE SENS ARE TRYING TO PROVE SOMETHING WE KNOW EXISTED FROM THE TIME OF CAVEMEN AND THAT IS PREJUDICE IN TERMS WHO YOU ARE, WHERE YOU WERE BROUGHT AND HOW YOU LOOK UPON OTHERS. SHE POINTED OUT CORRECTLY THAT HER RECORD IS CONTRARY TO HER SPEECHES THE SPEECHES WERE TO MOTIVATE THE SPECIFIC GROUPS SHE WAS SPEAKING TOO.SHE KNOWS NOW HOW BAD OF AN IDEA IT WAS BUT HER SAVING GRACE WAS HER BODY OF DECISIONS DOESENT REFLECT THOSE SPEECHES.YOUR NEVER TO OLD TO LEARN AND SHE LEARNED THAT THINGS SAID FOR GOOD FOR ONE REASON MAY END YOUR CARREER FOR ANOTHER REASON. NO GOOD DEED GOES UNPUNISHED.THAT SAID/ SHE WILL BE GREAT. AS I WATCHED HER UNDER FIRE AND THE WAY SHE HANDLED HERSELF I GREW TO RESPECT HER AND ADMIRE HER DEMEANER AND ABILITY TO ANSWER ANY QUES THEY DRILLED HER WITH. BY THE WAY SESSIONS DID A GOOD JOB OF BEING THE BAD GUY IN A GOOD WAY. JOE CAPRIO/CITYLIFEPRODUCTIONS

Posted by CITYLIFE9 at 07/15/2009 @ 11:33pm
Yeah, she pretty much dominated the scene at the Capitol. Let's just say she capitalized on her opportunity at the Capitol. Maybe we can even give her domination of the Capitol a name. It was a merciless Capitolization!

Posted by winyahn at 07/16/2009 @ 10:27pm
Yeah, she pretty much dominated the scene at the Capitol. Let's just say she capitalized on her opportunity at the Capitol. Maybe we can even give her domination of the Capitol a name. It was a merciless Capitolization!

Posted by winyahn at 07/16/2009 @ 10:27pm