« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The Sotomayor Hearing Begins – A Test for Republicans…

By: hogan (Diary)  |  July 13th, 2009 at 11:58 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Confirmation Hearing for Judge Sotomayor has begun in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. We will hear a series of opening statements – and then, likely, a couple of days of questions for the aspiring Supreme Court Justice.

This is a real test. But the test is not for Ms. Sotomayor. The test is for Republicans.

In the 1990′s, President Clinton had two opportunities during his tenure to replace Supreme Court Justices – and his picks were the obviously liberal and activist judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. These two Justices received precisely 3 and 9 Republican “no” votes, respectively. That was pathetic, given the extent to which Republicans then knew full well that each of these Justices would often times ignore their role to interpret the law in order to seek an outcome based on some other rationale… say, “empathy,” or what is “in their hearts.”

Today and in the coming days, Republicans can choose how to approach the confirmation question of Judge Sotomayor and their decision will say a lot about whether the Republican Party, as a whole, has any fight left in it…

There is no good reason to for any Republican – or any Senator who values the Constitution and the role of judges to, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “call balls and strikes” as an umpire – to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor given her very public pronouncements on the role of activists judges and her quite apparent penchant for ruling on issues of race with a personal or policy purpose in mind rather than basing her decision on the law and believing her race and sex make her a better judge.

The world is watching, yes. But, conservatives who believe the Republican Party has lost its way in recent years are watching this hearing particularly closely… to see whether Republicans are on the right road – whether they have an ounce of core beliefs that can serve to provide backbone and a will to fight.

This is an easy test. Let’s see if they pass it.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    really watch it because of the way he expresses emotion and gravity. It was a real tour de force.

    • djemi

      See

      http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/sotomayor-hearing-senator-statement-texts.html

      and

      http://www.redstate.com/brian_d/2009/07/13/senator-jeff-sessions-i-will-vote-no-if-sotomayor-is-not-fully-committed-to-fairness-and-impartiality/

    • Hera

      Rush pointed out that Sessions was so effective that the state run media (eg Chrissy Matthews) felt the need to attack him.

  • izoneguy

    Republicans gain nothing by voting for Sotomayor….

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1307

    American voters say 55 – 36 percent that affirmative action should be abolished, and disagree 71 – 19 percent with Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s ruling in the New Haven firefighters’ case, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today.

    More than 70 percent of voters say diversity is not a good enough reason to give minorities preferential treatment in competition for government or private sector jobs, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University survey of more than 3,000 voters finds.

    Looking at specifics of affirmative action, American voters:
    Support 55 – 39 percent affirmative action for the disabled in hiring, promotions and college admissions. Protestants and Catholics support it, 49 – 46 percent and 49 – 47 percent, respectively. Jews also support it 59 – 25 percent;

    Oppose 70 – 25 percent giving some racial groups preference for government jobs to increase diversity. Black voters support it 49 – 45 percent while Hispanic voters are opposed 58 – 38 percent;

    Oppose 74 – 21 percent giving some racial groups preference for private sector jobs to increase diversity. Voters in every racial and religious group oppose this;

    Oppose 64 – 29 percent affirmative action for Hispanics in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support it 59 – 30 percent while Hispanics split 47 – 48 percent;

    Oppose 61 – 33 percent affirmative action for blacks in hiring, promotion and college entry. Black voters support this 69 – 26 percent, as do Hispanics 51 – 46 percent;

    Oppose 62 – 32 percent affirmative action for white women in hiring, promotion and college entry. Women oppose this 58 – 35 percent but blacks support it 55 – 37 percent.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      see my Soto column up now that links and cites the latest poll that shows Hispanics OPPOSE Sotomayor’s nomination!!!!!!!!

      It is HUGE news that it seems only I am interested in.

      • izoneguy

        Sotomayor will be a disaster. We need a Senator to stand up and say that.

    • eburke

      take this to heart and realize that they can do the right thing *and* have it be politically beneficial would require that they put down their Georgetown cocktail and brie, and remove their heads from the elite beltway pundits orifices where they currently reside.

      • izoneguy

        Dead fish go with the flow.

        What a toxic sludge they must all swim in….

        • eburke
  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    80+ votes in favor of confirmation, and I’m being generous.

    The current crop of Republican Senators have shown time and time again that they have no backbone at all.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      half of the GOP senators are that cowardly.

    • Princeliberty

      Oh Yes the Republicans senators for the most part of worthless.

      I hate to say it, there is only a little desire to hold the Republican party to account.

      Obama is heading off a cliff no doubt about.

      But in 2012 January you will see a Republican President (probably Romney or Jeb Bush) and Speaker Boehner and Senator Majority leader McConnell.

      A unreformed Republican party that will governor like a Bush third term and will GROW government.

      And will tank big time. And in 2014 the Republican party will be slaughtered
      at the polls in a way that will make 1994 or 2006 or 2008 look like nothing.

    • SIConservative

      I think 23 Republicans, mostly southerners, vote no. I expect that a few of the no votes will come from Republicans who might otherwise vote to confirm (e.g. Shelby) but who will go the way of the other Senator in their state.

  • Princeliberty

    Remember Dole and Hatch lead the way on taking dive on Ginsburg and Breyer.

    They both endorsed each as soon as Clinton picked them. They went out of there way to preempt any fight.

    Another reason why in 2010 the Republicans need to boot Bennett (who joined Hatch in taking the dive) as preview to giving big government loving Hatch the boot.

    In this hard core red state we have really got to take a stand and hold these folks to account in the primary.

    Just think if in each of the hard core red states we elected one true small government pro-constitution senator after another what a huge impact that would have.

    The whole debate would be changed if you had at least a couple dozen senator who on ever each would bring and argue for following the Constitution.

    And overtime that would change public opinion as the good arguments are put out there.

    Instead of today were the Constitutional and small government view is for the most part left out the debate.

    And it would certainly mean we would not have sorry leaders like Dole and McConnell.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • eburke

      just enraged at the spinelessness of Hatch/Bennett on so many major issues. Don’t know if you’ve been following or not, but Hatch, as usual, gave the MSM the soundbite they needed by trotting out the “some have gone to far in criticizing you” meme. I’m sick to death of Rs giving the Dems and the MSM cover for their whining and attacking.

      His senatorial ‘comity’ is exactly what is wrong with far too many in the GOP cloakroom.

      • Princeliberty

        The question when will conservatives in RedStates like Utah hold Republicans to account?

        There is no question of you must vote for Hatch or a Democrat will win!

        No chance. Yet conservatives in Red States like Utah put up with Hatch and in South Carolina that put up with Graham?!

        Why???!!!! How can things ever change for the better if we keep acting like sheep.

      • Princeliberty

        The question when will conservatives in RedStates like Utah hold Republicans to account?

        There is no question of you must vote for Hatch or a Democrat will win!

        No chance. Yet conservatives in Red States like Utah put up with Hatch and in South Carolina that put up with Graham?!

        Why???!!!! How can things ever change for the better if we keep acting like sheep.

  • mom2oneson
    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
      • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

        should have been to quote My Cousin Vinny, specifically Vinny’s opening statement:

        Vinny Gambini: Uh… everything that guy just said is bullshit… Thank you.

        If I could figure out how to put the video up I would.

        But seriously, everthing Sen. Sessions said was spot on. I just hope to God the other Rs were listening.

        • eburke

          Can you imagine the senatorial implosion if someone on our side actually said something like that and then just stood up and walked out.

          Now *that* would be worth the price of admission.

        • Aaron Gardner

          • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

            Beleive it or not, clips from MCV were actually used, to great effect, at the continuing education seminar I recently attended. Aside from being just plain funny the movie actually has useful tips for courtroom practitioners!

  • IJB
  • Toneman

    To preface, I am not a liberal, I do not support the President, and I am not trolling right of center websites to start trouble.

    I am a lawyer, a committed VRWC member, served in President Bush’s Administration, and have been around the Judicial nominations game for longer than most.

    That said, I am increasingly distressed by the notion that Republican Senators should reject Judge Sotomayor outright. For more than 30 years, Republicans have consistently stuck to the notion that the Senate’s consent role is limited to questions of qualifications and temperament. Judicial philosophy is not a reason to vote against a nominee. If we want to have the last say in judicial philosophy, we have to win elections. Period. That’s it.

    Should they fire hard questions at her? Absolutely. Should they grill her about her personal philosophy and views of the law? Absolutely. Should they ask questions that are likely to expose either a weak understanding or of the law. But at the end of the day, each Republican Senator will have to look themselves in the mirror and think about a couple of things. 1. Is she qualified and capable of performing this job? 2. The next time there is a Republican President, do we want the Democrats to use judicial philosophy as a bar to the court?

    I realize the Democrats have done it to us before. The Miguel Estrada filibuster is a shameful stain their party should live with for centuries. Janice Rogers Brown’s treatment was similarly embarassing. But we don’t play that game, nor should we.

    You don’t point a gun at someone when they know it’s not loaded. Any votes against Sotomayor will be empty gestures, and I’m tired of people who call themselves “real conservatives” failure to understand that.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Judges take an oath to uphold the Constitution. The living constitution philosophy is antithetical to the Oath.

      For most of our history justices exercised judicial restraint, but once they stopped doing so, it was critical to refuse to nominate the liberals. We failed to do so for too long.

      This has nothing to do with revenge. It has to do with retaining our liberty for self government rather than rule by oligarchs.

      see here

      http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/12/sotomayor-sessions-on-race-and-judicial-activism/

      and here

      http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law–Politics-Examiner~topic207541-Sotomayor?selstate=allcat#breadcrumb

    • Marcus_Traianus

      I reject your entire premise.

      Based on what we know about Sotomayor’s record, we can probably guess with 100% accuracy every case she would judge sitting on SCOTUS. I bet we could also divine the logic she will use to justify her rulings. That’s not practicing law in any sense. It’s practicing politics under the guise of being a judge. Don’t we have enough of this ridiculous, outrageous, undemocratic, unconstitutional behavior already? Apparently, you don’t think so.

      If you are a veteran of this process, then you would let the facts and ruling speak for themselves- and they speak loudly. They outline a person who is not bound in any traditional or historical sense by the law- someone unpolished and hardly profound in any sense of the word. A judge who has been reversed more than most of her colleagues based on faulty reasoning and interpretation of the law. Don’t forget, those are her contemporaries making the calls. And you say what?

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        nominated by a Democrat. Her appeals court record and even reversals per se are not that relevant given the bounds of precedent and given that many SCOTUS precedents need to be reversed!, but her out of court statements are quite indicative of how should would set policy from the bench.

    • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

      Like they haven’t already? Sorry, but for this lawyer your argument gets a no sale. As far as I am concerned, the question of a nominee’s judicial philosophy is part and parcel of their qualifications and temperament. It is Sotomayor’s philosophy that clearly disqualifies her. Voting against her is not an empty gesture; asking “hard questions” and then voting to confirm in spite of the answers is the empty gesture.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      as the dems have used the court as a political branch for years.

    • Hera

      The dems already use judicial philosophy to reject well qualified conservative nominees. I for one am tired of playing by the rules while the other side is free to cheat at will. I look forward to seeing Republicans apply the Obama/Shumer standard to Judge Sotomayor. She should be treated exactly as all conservative nominees have been treated by the dems. I expect nothing less then that from the GOP.

    • eburke

      and stuff which says that we should play all nicey-nice and bring dueling pistols to a howitzer fight because, well, we’re just better than them and besides, if we don’t treat them right, wait until *they’re* in control.

      Ummm….first of all, you may not have noticed but the Dems don’t play nice no matter what we do; and, second, take a look around you at what you’re ‘let’s leave the field of battle to just one side’ has gotten us – a Marxist president, a filibuster-proof Senate, and a gaping minority in the House.

      Yup…your philosophy, and that of your boss and most of the GOP leadership has worked out just swimmingly I’d say.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Let’s save that attitude for the other side, you know, like your own comment suggests.

        • eburke

          of the major reasons that we find ourselves in the situation that we are is because of the ‘philosophy’ (or whatever you want to call it) of far too many in leadership positions of the GOP, and especially GWB, to not fight fire with fire. The result is that, as a party, we continually find ourselves fighting with both hands tied behind our backs.

          To see that type of thinking repeated again and again by many on our side just reminds of the old saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results. That hurts our side so I get pretty frustrated when I see it expressed as a strategy again and again.

          (plus, I posted this prior to Moe’s ‘verification’ downthread and half-figured the guy was a troll; which kinda says something about the line of thinking when, if the guy’s legit, his position makes him sound, well, trollish)

    • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

      Note that this is completely independent of whether or not you should listen to him, of course.

      • Toneman

        I appreciate all your comments, but I’ll bet all of you objected when the Dems declared that the judicial philosophy was an acceptable reason not to confirm judges like Saad, Keisler, Haynes, and every other Bush Nominee over the last 8-years. Most of the VRWC were fine then with the point I’m making – it’s not about philosophy.

        If we want to stand on principle, the right principle to stand on is that Elections have consequences, and the Constitution mandates that the President selects Article III judges. I 100% agree with the principles of judicial restraint, and there is no way I would ever support anyone who nominates someone like Judge Sotomayor – but we lost in November. We don’t get to decide these things until we win again.

        I would also recommend this outstanding law review article on the Advice & Consent clause from a few years ago – it was passed around a lot with respect to the Constitutional option and still serves as the best treatment of the question of what role the Founders thought the Senate should play in Presidential nominations.

        http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          That includes the elections for Senators.

          When we lost the Senate, that had consequences for President Bush.

          The seats we have, have consequences for President Obama.

          It cuts both ways. We can’t sit back and pretend that every election only has consequences against us, and never for us.

          • Aaron Gardner
        • Hera

          Why shouldn’t the Obama standard be applied to his nominee? Here’s what then Sen Obama had to say while trying to organize a filibuster against Judge Alito.

          __________________________________

        • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

          We have got to fight fire with fire or just let the Dems have their way all the time.

          Now in regards to this particular nomination there is just no way in hell she does not get confirmed with 60 votes.

          But at least have our doubts and questions on the record. We must oppose these type of nominees as a matter of course because the next person he nominates might be a radical with a judicial weakness. Such a person might be defeated if enough juice is generated.

      • Toneman

        I appreciate all your comments, but I’ll bet all of you objected when the Dems declared that the judicial philosophy was an acceptable reason not to confirm judges like Saad, Keisler, Haynes, and every other Bush Nominee over the last 8-years. Most of the VRWC were fine then with the point I’m making – it’s not about philosophy.

        If we want to stand on principle, the right principle to stand on is that Elections have consequences, and the Constitution mandates that the President selects Article III judges. I 100% agree with the principles of judicial restraint, and there is no way I would ever support anyone who nominates someone like Judge Sotomayor – but we lost in November. We don’t get to decide these things until we win again.

        I would also recommend this outstanding law review article on the Advice & Consent clause from a few years ago – it was passed around a lot with respect to the Constitutional option and still serves as the best treatment of the question of what role the Founders thought the Senate should play in Presidential nominations.

        http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No1_White.pdf

        • Hera

          Didn’t Einstein say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?The GOP has shown deference and respect for the liberal judicial nominees yet we have not been rewarded with mutual respect for conservative nominees. Clearly that approach has failed, to quote Barack Obama its time for “change”.

          • Toneman

            Just because then-Senator Obama applied that standard does not make it right, and certainly does not bring it in line with what the Founders intended the advice and consent clause to mean.

            If Republican Senators apply the Obama standard, they are nothing but hypocrites.

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            I would much rather the fleeting scold of hypocrisy than the continued damage of losing to these socialists.

            Times change and our tactics have to adapt.

          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            “We” are having a discussion over whether we want to do that.

            “You” don’t think that we should.

            You’re not speaking for anybody but yourself, and the people that want you to speak for them.

          • Hera

            The Barack Obama standard is that judicial philosophy matters, surely that is the standard that he would expect to be applied to his own judicial nominees.It would be hypocritical for him to expect anything less. As Obama himself has said America voted for “change” and “change” is what Dem Senators and President Obama should get.

          • Marcus_Traianus

            This is about honoring and protecting our Constitution while carrying out the courts role as intended by our founders. ANY judge with proclivities to do otherwise, irrespective of party, should be disqualified.

            Ms. Sotomayer, et al contemporaries have done very little ti show an adroit understanding of Constitutional principle and tradition. This is especially highlighted by her “wise Latina” comment, judgment on “Ricci” and long line of decisions and statements.

            Following the Constitution demands loyal jurisprudence. That does not mean one injects their own personal circumstance as weight in making decisions. It means one follows the intent of law as designated by our Constitution and articulated by the founders.

            In 1801, Thomas Jefferson said the following;

            “The only shield for our Republican citizens against the federalism of the courts is to have the Attornies & Marshals republicans. There is nothing I am so anxious about as good nominations, conscious that the merit as well as reputation of an administration depends as much on that as on it

          • Toneman

            Just because then-Senator Obama applied that standard does not make it right, and certainly does not bring it in line with what the Founders intended the advice and consent clause to mean.

            If Republican Senators apply the Obama standard, they are nothing but hypocrites.

          • JadedByPolitics

            If Republican Senators apply their standard of Sotomeyer NOT heeding the Constitution and we know she DOESN’T then they need to MAN UP and VOTE NO! I would respect them much more if they do the RIGHT thing and for once let We The People know that people like Ginsberg and Sotomeyer are NOT friendly to our Constitution and want to allow international law into our Constitution and that as stalwarts of our Constitution that they cannot in good conscience vote for her.

            They will by doing so explain to the American public the actual Constitution and how the leftist that were elected for Hope & Change are hoping to change our Consitution and our country they will have taught a new generation who are watching the hearings in school about the original intent of our founders and voting NO they are voting to keep America the land of Freedom and Opprotunity for ALL!

            In case you have missed it there is a uprising in this country that is begging for SMALL GOVERNMENT and a return to STATES RIGHTS and movement away from judicial activism and the government taking over companies, health care and forcing our fellow citizens to be crushed by a government take-over of energy etc under the LIE of global warming. It would be a shame if you having been in the mushy middle of Republicanism did not recognize this because it will be determining the next election and anyone you are giving advice too will unfortunately be left behind.

          • JadedByPolitics
        • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

          I have two things to say. Robert Bork. Clarence Thomas.

          No amount of nice words can make up for what Democrats did to these two fine men. We must fight fire with fire. The rules have been rewritten and we must play by the new rules or be the perpetual bumbling schmuck to the Democrat cultured sophisticate.

          Not I.

          • Toneman

            i appreciate and agree wtih much of what has been written here. Go down the right-wing checklist, and I’m on board with almost everything. “I” (for Moe) just don’t view it as a worthwhile exercise of political capital for Republican Senators to turn themselves into hypocrites over this nomination. As to the “they did it to our guys” fire with fire mentality, it strikes me as extremely short-sighted.

            Let me also be clear – my issue is with attacking Judicial Philosophy in the abstract – in some sort of vacuum – for all Federal judicial appointments.

            If the argument is that any nominee’s past writings/speeches/opinions indicate he/she is not qualified to sit on whatever court they’ve been nominated to – that’s fine. Senators should bring those things up and explain that they go to qualifications.

            If the argument is that he/she have not lived up to the oath they took upon first being seated as a federal judge (for elevations), that’s a fine argument, as well. Senators should bring those things up and explain that they go to character and qualifications.

            There are any number of ways to attack the effect of a nominee’s judicial philosophy within the context of things that are fair game. But to attack by saying – I don’t agree with how you think about the law, therefore I vote against you – that’s just not what the Framers had in mind at all, and it’s not what “I” think the Republicans in the Senate should do.

          • http://cib4me.blogspot.com mrdadx6

            You don’t view voting against Sotomayor as a “worthwhile exercise of political capital?” So, your position is that the Republican senators should roll over and go along with President Obama because… otherwise the MSM will call Republicans “hypocrites.”

            Really? Are you and most of the Republicans in Washington DC that lily-livered? In South Carolina, we call that COWARDICE. You’re afraid to take a stand because someone will call you a hypocrite and you think that might have some negative impact on the Republican party?

            I dunno, maybe you were hiding under a rock for the last 12 months or so. There was this lady from Alaska, name of Sarah Palin, she got ruthlessly eviscerated by the media because she… dared to be conservative. Not because she was a “hypocrite” on USSC confirmation votes, but because she got in their way.

            You, Toneman, make the same mistake as many other Republicans who’ve been exposed to Washington DC for too long: You assume that the democrats are tame, that “gentlemens agreements” can be made with them. They’re like tame lions, just waiting for you to stick your head into the cage a little too far, at which point they will eat you alive and spit out your bones.

            You’re being played by the Democrats. Just so you know, they’ll take your “non-hypocritical” vote for Sonia Sotomayor and spit in your face. But at least you’ll still be able to go to their cocktail parties, right?

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            It’s her philosophy that’s behind her writing/speeches/opinions and is responsible for the positions she takes. It’s her philosophy that calls into question her understanding of and/or living up to the oath that she took.

            If you don’t deal with the judicial philosophy, then it’s ignoring the elephant in the room (or in this case the lion) – you’re just jousting at shadows in the margins rather than dealing with the core issue on which our nation will rise of fall.

            If we abandon faithfulness to the Constitution and to its limits of government power – which is judicial philosophy – and do not demand such faithfulness from our judges, then we as a nation have entered back into the darkness of tyranny, as the rule of law is overthrown.

            The problem is that we are so used to the rule of law here in America that we take it for granted and do not see the clear and present danger of its demise, as is happening all over the world.

            So indeed, whether Sotomeyer is confirmed or not is jsut one a battle – but if we do not take a stand on define a correct judicial philosophy and opposing violations thereof, then we have lost the war.

            And if we lose the war, there are no mulligans.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/12/sotomayor-sessions-on-race-and-judicial-activism/

          • David123

            unless they truly believe that she will uphold the written Constitution of the United States [which will be her job]?

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            Constitution

          • David123

            that there were as many as 23 Senators who could bring themselves to vote FOR her.
            :-)

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Toneman

            i appreciate and agree wtih much of what has been written here. Go down the right-wing checklist, and I’m on board with almost everything. “I” (for Moe) just don’t view it as a worthwhile exercise of political capital for Republican Senators to turn themselves into hypocrites over this nomination. As to the “they did it to our guys” fire with fire mentality, it strikes me as extremely short-sighted.

            Let me also be clear – my issue is with attacking Judicial Philosophy in the abstract – in some sort of vacuum – for all Federal judicial appointments.

            If the argument is that any nominee’s past writings/speeches/opinions indicate he/she is not qualified to sit on whatever court they’ve been nominated to – that’s fine. Senators should bring those things up and explain that they go to qualifications.

            If the argument is that he/she have not lived up to the oath they took upon first being seated as a federal judge (for elevations), that’s a fine argument, as well. Senators should bring those things up and explain that they go to character and qualifications.

            There are any number of ways to attack the effect of a nominee’s judicial philosophy within the context of things that are fair game. But to attack by saying – I don’t agree with how you think about the law, therefore I vote against you – that’s just not what the Framers had in mind at all, and it’s not what “I” think the Republicans in the Senate should do.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            reason it wasn’t questioned for most of our history is that most judges shared the same philosophy to follow the written Constitution according to plain meaning/intent etc.

            Once judges started succumbing to the temptation to re-write the constitution with subterfuge, such deference as you suggest became folly and was probably followed by repubs because of senators’ desire more to curry favor and keep their traditional role of nominating lower court judges.

            Then came Bork and repubs still didn’t get it and really they should have stopped the deference before Bork. Then cam Thomas’ lynching and they still let Clinton have his libs.

            No one is suggesting that Repubs FOR THE FIRST TIME engage in character assassination like the dems.

            No, what we insist on is that we not support judges that will not uphold their Oath.

            For you to suggest not engaging on the MAIN duty of a judge is amazing. It would be like interviewing applicants for a welding job and not inquiring as to whether they can weld.

            Judges must first show they understand what the Constitution means and have the character and courage to follow it no matter the temptation to please others or advance their political agenda.

          • JadedByPolitics

            beaten down politico….you know the type, like a beaten woman in a bad relationship they just cannot believe the abuser loves then any less even though the abuser (Democrats) have SMACKED them around like the sad weaklings they are. I think only years of psychiatric counseling might bring them back to people with some kahuna’s or just make them switch that R to D like Specter and just give in to their true political leanings!

          • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

            America the same way OJ loved Nicole.

            You have broken the code Jaded, keep on telling it like it is.

          • Princeliberty

            One of the big problems is that most Republicans in DC want to be loved by the media.

  • janis

    the concept of deciding a case based on their own experiences and not the Constitution? Or based on the law according to European interpretations?

    As to what the Dems should be ashamed of, there’s plenty, but it doesn’t bother them in the least, just standard operating procedure. And no matter how civilized Republicans may behave, Dems aren’t going to follow suit. If you truly were a member of the Bush Admin., I’d think you of all people would have learned that particular lesson.

    • INC

      Our nation is supposed to have the Rule of Law impartially applied, not a rule of experience.

      Europe, with the exception of Britain, has much to teach in the Rule of Tyrants, but we can teach them about the Rule of Law.

      Our nation was instituted as Lex Rex (The Law is King), not Rex Lex (The King is the Law).

      Here is the SCOTUS Oath of Office:

      “I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

      The U. S. Constitution states

      Article III – The Judicial Branch, Section 2 – Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials:

      The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…

      That’s the beginning of the opening sentence of that section. Please read the Constitution.

      • janis

        There is no way on God’s green earth that I would support someone who made their judicial decisions based on what I listed. My comment was mistakenly supposed to be a reply to Toneman in his first comment on this diary. And I have read the Constitution. It’s the reason why I reject the notion that any country’s legal decisions should influence those made in America.

        • INC

          Thank you for the clarification.

  • adamy

    I wish Graham wasn’t so quick to say that Sotomayor was to be confirmed “barring something unforseen”.

    Doing so only makes it that much easier for some wayward Republicans to hop on the confirmation bandwagon.

    What’s so bad about taking a stand on principle? What does the GOP have to lose?

    I like Graham – and he’s great when he goes on the Sunday shows to advocate the GOP position on Iraq and other issues related to national defense (and he was just great during the Aliton confiration hearings). But sometimes he just makes me shake my head.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • Hera

      I’ve disliked Graham since his support of amnesty. I did like his statement this morning especially pointing out the hypocrisy of Sen Barack Obama.

  • Rod_Patrick

    A BENCHMARK?

    Where’s honor in this kind of mentality from some of the R senators?

    THE LACK OF UNITED STAND among Rs in the senate is so appalling!

    Ref:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124744293060030141.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    • IJB

      There should be *no fewer* than that for her for SCOTUS.

      Any less than 29 ‘No’ votes, and it’s Epic FAIL from the Senate GOP.

      • Rod_Patrick

        I don’t care about the 60 Ds. [Although it would be good if at least 11 them will vote NO to join my ideal 40 Rs.]

        I care more about how my 40Rs are doing and thinking in this very perilous time. .

        • BlueLandRed

          Because when Senators run for office they need votes from people besides conservatives to win. If you instill on completely and total purity in the GOP Senatorial ranks we’re not going to even have 40 seats to get. Like it or not the Dems have the votes to confirm her. Letting the Senators with tough election fights ahead have the leeway they need to win makes a lot more sense then showing solidarity for a lost cause.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            Losing the vote on Sotomeyer because the Democrats have a majority means losing the battle.

            But if the Republicans stay united for the Constitution, then they are affirming support for that cause – and maintaining credibility for the next battle.

            On the other hand, if they just split up to be “nice” because they will lose the vote, then they will have no grounds to oppose the next SC nominee who comes along with the same philosophy.

            Or worse, having abandoned their lines, the next line will be drawn even further left as the boundaries get tested again, Soon, there’s nothing remaining to defend.

            That is, the cause is only lost if the Republicans surrender.

            On the other hand, if the Republican stay united, then the next battle will be close to the same line.

            It’s like dealing with an out-of-control adolescent: you may not win the battle, but if your teen knows where your boundaries are, that will constrain some his behavior in the future. If your give in, he/she will push the limits ever further.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            If the Republicans lose any influence on the SC nominees and thereby allows the court to take a left turn, the Democratic revolution will be irreversible because the courts will enshrine federal supercession and court-mandated rights with full Constitutional proection to prevent Congress and the President from reversing course (even if the Republicans by some miracle gain control).

          • BlueLandRed

            already lost the battle, it’s really dumb to start picking the “Hill to die on”, because that’s exactly what will happen.

          • David123

            yeah, we lost the Battle of the Alamo, but that gave us time to be ready to win the Battle of San Jacinto.

            And who knows, maybe instead of being like the hopeless battle of the Alamo the Sotomayer hearings will turn out like the hopeless Battle of Bastogne.

            One thing’s for sure – if nobody tried to stop the Mexicans anywhere they’d control the whole southwest … and if nobody tried to stop the Germans anywhere they’d control all of Europe or the whole world.

          • http://politics4all.com/users/davidshockey thersites

            David, is another good example. The 300 Spartans were wiped out but their sacrifice gave time for all of Greece to prepare a successful defense.

            Do military analogies apply to political tactics? I don’t know. But I do know that I am sick to death of continuous compromise that takes us down the path to ruin. I am sick of the slow death of a thousand cuts. I’d rather we made brave stands now instead of living with the creeping cancer that Democrats have put into our veins. I’d rather have pride of failure after struggle than the shame of ignoble death.

            Fight damn you! Is Jeff Sessions the only man with a pair in that place.

          • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

            Let me cut this into small pieces for you to digest.

            What difference does it make if Congress rejects Obama’s health plan if the Supreme Court decides that health care is a constitutional right that the federal government must provide for.

            What difference does it make to defeat Cap and Trade if the Supreme Court decides that CO2 emissions must be controlled at all costs, giving the EPAt full control and responsibility to do so.

            What if the Supreme Court goes the whole hog and decides that all activities fall under the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution. And that the federal government can then override local zoning regulations and housing codes and education standards and health professional licensure licensure. Or that the Second Amendment is not an individual right.

            Are you getting the picture: the havoc that a judiciariy unconstrained in its promulgation of law other than by the judges’ own lights. And if we just meekly toss in the towel, we’ve brought down the whole aedifice of rule of law upon our heads.

            Legistlators can be voted out; presidents have term limits, but Federal judges are in place for life.

  • BlueLandRed

    >Let me cut this into small pieces for you to digest.