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.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

“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.”

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x