Comments on: Obama’s Supreme Court Pick

By: Cigar Mike

Cigar Mike — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:07:51 +0000

Great link Chas....

By: charles_e_fromage

charles_e_fromage — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:56:15 +0000

In case you haven't seen this (even though it is a little outdated), The Case Against Sotomayor:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085

By: Robert Molleda

Robert Molleda — Wed, 27 May 2009 15:33:10 +0000

If the no votes are because Sotomayor is too liberal, that's perfectly fine with me. Most Americans are smart enough to know when politicians act out of spite.

By: caballerodeparis1

caballerodeparis1 — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:35:12 +0000

Fair enough. I hate rubber stamps as much as the next guy.

By: Cigar Mike

Cigar Mike — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:31:56 +0000

Cab, the irony here is that the two senators who voted against Roberts and Alito are now President and Vice President. They should get the same respect and deference they gave the last two Supreme Court picks. That's all I'm saying.

By: caballerodeparis1

caballerodeparis1 — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:22:03 +0000

Roberts was approved 78-22. That seems very bipartisan to me. In fact it was a greater measure of bipartisanship than when Justice Renquist was confirmed in 1971 by a vote of 68-26. It's not the 98-0 that Scalia got or the 97-3 that Ginsburg got, but it's nothing to sneeze at.

By: Cigar Mike

Cigar Mike — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:50:22 +0000

Screw the MSM and the left. It's a no win with them anyway. The importance is getting our message of the type of judges we want and like they voted no against Roberts even though he was "qualified" and brilliant, we'll vote no on his picks. Their pick is going to pass anyway, why join his bandwagon? And Honey, you're right. A principles explanation is this: "This nominee has shown that she would consider factors other than the law in reaching a legal decision. She has shown that she would rely on sources outside the US Constitution in reaching a legal opinion and is of the opinion that the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeal are to make policy, rather than interpret the laws. Such thinking is an anathema to our Constitutional system, and we cannot and will not support such a view." Done.

By: Honey

Honey — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:06:20 +0000

I like the no vetting way.
Any choice we make, the msm will make us out to be the baddies with its selective memory.
I prefer that every Republican vote no on this nominee, or, at least, McCain, as Biden and Obama voted no on Roberts and Alito.
Ah well, we will be demonized no matter what we do. The only thing I don't want is a Lindsey Graham, Powell type of courtly graciousness, as part of a yes vote, among those on our side. If some think it is political suicide to vote no, then so be it. But I do wish there were a way to be principled. Personally, I believe a principled explanation for a no vote is a good political move, but what do I know?

By: Cigar Mike

Cigar Mike — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:42:54 +0000

Robert, it's become political. The left started it with Bork. It got worse under the GW Bush Administration. During the Clinton Administration, Clinton picked a liberal and a moderate they appropriately go the deference they merited, while even though we may disagree on their positions, they were well qualified to sit on the Court.

Then comes Bush who picked Roberts and Alito, despite their outstanding qualifications, Biden and Obama voted no. This pick is and will be an uber liberal. We should vote no. The left will never change. Why should we be there lapdogs? And understand that by payback, I'm saying, we should vote no and give the same reasons the left gave about Roberts and Alito.

By: Robert Molleda

Robert Molleda — Wed, 27 May 2009 12:31:26 +0000

Sorry Mike, but you lost me at the end. We vote people into Congress to vote their principles, not as a way to "get someone back". Idealistic? Sure, but I for one am fed up with the BS that many of our elected officials (on both sides) try to pull of on a near-daily basis. Playing politics for a second, the rules don't quite work the same way when it's the Republicans enacting payback. The MSM will be all over the GOPers like blanco sobre arroz, and once again we're made out to look like the villains. If Republicans want to vote against Sotomayor's confirmation on the basis of principle, great. If not, then please no more games.

By: kghahn

kghahn — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:49:46 +0000

I am not a lawyer but I agree tactically for different reasons. The Democrats will not allow a serious confirmation hearing. There is no chance that any serious investigation into her qualifications or temperament will be allowed and any information that might embarrass her will be ignored by the Democrats and the lapdog media. Since it is impossible to vet her I cannot recommend a vote for confirmation. The lack of process should be our talking point. Since Obama will never nominate anyone better, I cannot see a filibuster or any other extraordinary resistance unless there are at least 3 or 4 Democrats along for the ride. That appears unlikely.

So, try to vet. Show the fix is in. Vote no.