GOP Senator Says Attacks on Sotomayor “Mainly About Politics”

GOP Senator Says Attacks on Sotomayor “Mainly About Politics”

GOP Senator Says Attacks on Sotomayor “Mainly About Politics”

“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.

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

“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.”

Support independent journalism that does not fall in line

Even before February 28, the reasons for Donald Trump’s imploding approval rating were abundantly clear: untrammeled corruption and personal enrichment to the tune of billions of dollars during an affordability crisis, a foreign policy guided only by his own derelict sense of morality, and the deployment of a murderous campaign of occupation, detention, and deportation on American streets. 

Now an undeclared, unauthorized, unpopular, and unconstitutional war of aggression against Iran has spread like wildfire through the region and into Europe. A new “forever war”—with an ever-increasing likelihood of American troops on the ground—may very well be upon us.  

As we’ve seen over and over, this administration uses lies, misdirection, and attempts to flood the zone to justify its abuses of power at home and abroad. Just as Trump, Marco Rubio, and Pete Hegseth offer erratic and contradictory rationales for the attacks on Iran, the administration is also spreading the lie that the upcoming midterm elections are under threat from noncitizens on voter rolls. When these lies go unchecked, they become the basis for further authoritarian encroachment and war. 

In these dark times, independent journalism is uniquely able to uncover the falsehoods that threaten our republic—and civilians around the world—and shine a bright light on the truth. 

The Nation’s experienced team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers understands the scale of what we’re up against and the urgency with which we have to act. That’s why we’re publishing critical reporting and analysis of the war on Iran, ICE violence at home, new forms of voter suppression emerging in the courts, and much more. 

But this journalism is possible only with your support.

This March, The Nation needs to raise $50,000 to ensure that we have the resources for reporting and analysis that sets the record straight and empowers people of conscience to organize. Will you donate today?

Ad Policy
x