Monday
13Jul2009
Lindsey Graham Wouldn't Vote for Sotomayor on Principle but Hey! Obama Won the Election So Forget My Constituents!
Monday, July 13, 2009 at 11:54AM After making a great case for why Sony Sotomayor shouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice, Republican Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that “Obama won the election and that means something.”
Essentially, Republicans should do what Democrats don’t and support the president’s nominee.
Well, Obama did win an election, senator Graham, but so did you. What about representing your constituents instead of Obama’s and opposing this nominee?
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (39)
With or without his vote Sotomayor will be confirmed. Voting against her will set the Republicans back YEARS with the fastest growing group in the USA the Hispanics. Why alienate that group with a meaningless vote ?
Amen Amy!
John, Amy is usually missing something called "foresight". "Lets alienate an entire ethnic minority and make ourselves even more outrageously outrageous and then we can definitely win an election! yaaaahhh woohooo!"
i really hope the GOP fights the Sotomayor nomination hard.
"foresight"
Is that what it is when the Dems go after Hispanics who are Republican appointees, like Alberto Gonzales? How about throwing Oreo cookies at Michael Steele or the mammy cartoons of Condoleeza Rice? What about what they tried to do to Clarence Thomas?
Dems don't care about minority groups. When are people going to figure that out? The only thing Dems care about is the "perception" that they care so they can keep power to keep people down and out... and angry.
And when people start pointing out these things, backed up by facts, they yell "RACIST!"
Gee, Amy what did you do that netted you 3 useful idiots on the same post?
Lindsay Graham is not much better than a Dem, himself, Amy. I expect nothing different from him. However, I don't really see the point of anybody working too hard against this nomination. The left controls the press and the message and she will be confirmed in spite of glaring issues with her judicial qualifications.
Anybody who fights against it will be subjected to the "politics of personal" destruction, including private citizens. The press called for such against Ricci because he is a witness for the opposition. And they're still attacking Rush Limbaugh for only God knows what. Sarah Palin resigned, they claimed victory, and they're still attacking her.
Ah yes, the party of caring...
Lindsey Graham is the epitome of everything that is wrong with the GOP. He is spineless and without resolve; he is tossed to and fro like a dingy in a storm. The compromise he speaks of has pushed this country into a very wicked state, and it will only grow worse under the corruption of weak minded politicians like Mr. Graham.
Interestingly, in the past the party who was not in control would attack the party that held control. But what we see now is the party who has control is attacking the party who does not because they see what's coming, and they're afraid of her. Her name is Sarah Palin
Oh, so that's why they keep attacking her even after they declared victory, ;-)
I don't see how she is not going to be confirmed. The Dems have all the control, I am so sad to say.
Lindsay Graham is Barney Frank in drag.
STephC, lets get real. Apart from your " my side is goood, your side is bad preschool games", in this so called beacon of democracy that is America, neither of the two political parties have any genuine desire for social justice.
Anyone with some sort of superficial illusion that these corporate driven machines "care" about any average Joe are probably souping up a little too much the fast food television politics and social cohersion sessions going on in media and not spending enough time reading a book or two.
Let me ask you people this question. As the so called, self appointed beacon of democracy in the world (I beg to differ), why is America run by two uncontested powerful, corporately driven political entities that waste billions of dollars on winning elections?
Hardly a beacon of democracy is it?
Yes, let's get real, Mavic. I never put it as an either/or. You attacked Republicans as if Dems are all good and then when I point out the Dems don't care, either, you come unglued?
Or is it the "useful idiot" comment the thing that drove you over the wall? It's the term used for people who spout talking points endlessly for a particular issue, which is what you and the others do. You never ever back up anything you say with hard facts, just endlessly repeat the same tired old talking points as if the more you say them will make them TRUTH.
When you prove you can think for yourself based on facts rather than talking points of which you have no idea whether they're true or not, then I'll believe you want to "get real." Until then, you can continue being a useful idiot for the left, happily as far as I'm concerned. It's not my life you're screwing up.
Righties you make me laugh. The party of lee Atwater and Karl rove can seriously complain of being attacked. LOL
Who's complaining? Mavic is a leftie.
So besides the fact that she was nominated by Obama (aka the devil incarnate) and is a Hispanic woman, what the heck is the problem with Sotomayor? She's a real middle of the road judge with a record that doesn't lean either to the right or left, and she is no more empathetic to her race and economic class than Samuel Alito is to his. This is one of those situations where right-wingers oppose someone simply because she isn't one of their own. The left doesn't like her much either. She's another corporate shill who usually supports the status quo.
Lindsey actually did a good job today getting her to acknowledge that making laws is the responsibility of the legislature and exposing her either inability or unwillingness to set aside her own personal feelings which is totally inappropriate. Justices should be chosen for their knowledge and expertise in constitutional law; not for political affiliations.
Representatives and Senators are obliged to their constituency while Supreme Court Justices are obliged to no one. That is why they do not make law. That is bad for everyone; conservatives and liberals alike.
StephC,
Relax, take a deep breath, and READ what I wrote before you go on your little rampage. Where on this posting did I "attacK" republicans. lol
"Attack" is a pretty strong action verb to be using for criticism of any sort isn't it?
Now StephC, since you are all about the "facts" and not about "talking points", please do consider educating and correcting my erroneous "talking points", will you? I mean, heck I would hate to be walking around being everything that is wrong in the world, so please Steph help me out here.
Where are my "talking points"? Please do cite them, so I can stand corrected.
"Yes, let's get real, Mavic. I never put it as an either/or. You attacked Republicans as if Dems are all good and then when I point out the Dems don't care, either, you come unglued?
Or is it the "useful idiot" comment the thing that drove you over the wall? It's the term used for people who spout talking points endlessly for a particular issue, which is what you and the others do. You never ever back up anything you say with hard facts, just endlessly repeat the same tired old talking points as if the more you say them will make them TRUTH.
When you prove you can think for yourself based on facts rather than talking points of which you have no idea whether they're true or not, then I'll believe you want to "get real." Until then, you can continue being a useful idiot for the left, happily as far as I'm concerned. It's not my life you're screwing up.
" - StephC
Does anyone see any "factual" information here?
I rest my case.
Mavic, your opinion means nothing here. you are an empty shell regarding American Politics. Ramble all you want; you'll soon be deleted anyway.
Back on point-
Sotomayor's Supreme Charade
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, July 14, 2009 4:20 PM PT
"Confronted with her disturbing racially oriented past statements, Judge Sonia Sotomayor had an excuse that only a liberal activist jurist could make: She meant the opposite of what she said. Sotomayor's oft-repeated rhetorical riff on race is clear as a bell: 'I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.' She would sometimes leave out the 'white male' part, but the remark was always a pointed disagreement with former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's maxim: that a wise old man and wise old woman would agree on a judicial case's outcome. Yet when the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Republican, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, quoted Sotomayor's own words to her, the response was basically: 'I didn't mean what I said.' Kind of like how the Constitution doesn't mean what it says, as so many judges believe? 'What I was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case and to ensure that that's not influencing the outcome,' Sotomayor told Sessions. 'We have to recognize those feelings and put them aside.' Put it all together and it comes out something like this: The richness of a Latina's experiences will help her reach a better conclusion than non-Latinos because she will 'recognize those feelings and put them aside.' That's tough to swallow. ... By claiming her 'wise Latina' comment meant the reverse of the plain meaning of her words, Judge Sotomayor has blemished herself on the first day of questions. If she dances around that, why should we believe her when she says 'the task of a judge is not to make the law; it is to apply the law'?"
Of course you do, Mavic. That's the problem. You always rest your case the second you write your little bullying blurbs. You call for proof but never provide any of your own. I've done that little game with you before and you just ignore the facts provided and continue "resting your case" on you same old, same old. Educate yourself, if you have enough intelligence for it. You claim to be so much more intelligent than the rest of us, so prove it.
The problem with you is, your brain is so dependent on someone else doing the thinking for you that you can't engage on any other level. I feel sorry for you and others like you. On the upside you don't know what you're missing. They do say ignorance is bliss, so you must be very happy most of the time.
An accusation is an attack, not criticism. You never ask anything. You just accuse. And you're still attacking, not criticizing. You've accused and judged on the basis of your own imagination, I expect.
Gary, didn't Soto take an oath before the congressional hearings? The same oath as is taken when going on the witness stand? Doesn't lying in a congressional hearing equate with perjury in court? I'm curious about that. I'm under the impression that it's equivalent but I could be wrong.
Steph, you know as well as I that to a liberal, truth is always relative... ;-)
I know... really, I do... the means don't matter as long as their desired end is achieved, right?
Righties you should be happy such a moderate was appointed I am disappointed a more liberal appointment was not made to counter the right wing extremist portion of the court (Thomas, scalia, Roberts, alito)
I still hear the crickets STephy........Still hearin' crickets.
Do you like to listen to yourself talk Steph?
If you cite where I need further "evidence", i'll be glad to give it. Do you disagree that America is run by two corporately driven political parties who, by and large represent the interests of a privileged few as apposed to their constituents?? Does this pass the "steph seal of factual approval"?
Most of us have a consensus agreement on some fundamental theories of existence. For example, we can (hopefully) agree that the sky is blue. Although, I am sure that since I claim the sky to be blue, you will certainly have something to say about it. Similar to these fundamental agreements, (most of us sane people), can probably agree that America is run by two corporate machines which ahve largely undermined and stifled the development of grass-roots candidates and smaller parties.
Now, I would love to quench your fact thirst, if you can indulge me and actually tell me where I am missing the "facts".
You seem to be having a problem creating a case, so maybe you can get Gary (aka Mr. Facts - Mavic, your opinion means nothing here. you are an empty shell regarding American Politics. Ramble all you want; " to help you out this time?
"I know... really, I do... the means don't matter as long as their desired end is achieved, right? "
Is this a fact Steph? Going a little off topic to make the case here.
I mean, the last time I checked, some crazies in the white house were looking for some "desired ends" without considering the consequences and costs of the means?
If you know agree that the means do matter, then I am guessing you either are legitimizing the thousands upon thousands of lives lost to what many (arguably) believe to be questionable ends or that the means only matter selectively?
hmmm.......I don't know what yah thikn about it, but it certainly smells of hypocrisy doesn't it?
Was sad (and funny) today to watch Judge Sotomayor explain the different roles of the judicial and legislative branches of government to Senator Al Franken. How the heck did he get on this committee. He wanted Sotomayor to agree with him that we have a First Amendment right to equal access to content on the internet and that ISP's should be compelled to provide this equal access. The judge very patiently provided a 101 level lesson on the role of the legislature to pass laws, the fact that the First Amendment does not provide a right to equal access to the internet, and that the courts' role is to apply the law, not write them.
Then the good senator said he would encourage his colleagues to write legislation... ummm.. isn't he a senator? He doesn't get to just complain that law makers are not making laws anymore.
Mavic, I repeat, reading comprehension is your friend. Gary is right. Your opinion is meaningless here. You're from Canada, a fact you repeatedly keep to yourself when you're on the attack.
This blog is nothing but a place for you to play internet bully, probably one among many where you unload for some sadistic thrills.
Written by a recovering liberal. I suppose having been a liberal herself, she understands them better than most would.
With or without his vote Sotomayor will be confirmed. Voting against her will set the Republicans back YEARS with the fastest growing group in the USA the Hispanics. Why alienate that group with a meaningless vote ?
John Ryan
Now, I don't know what your political persuasion or what side of the isle you're on, but that is the kind of STUPIDITY that cost Republicans congress in 2006 and ultimately the White House. America and the GOP don't need Republicans to act like Democrat light. Now is the time to DISTINGUISH the GOP from Obama and the Democrats, who are flushing our economy, freedom and country down a SOCIALIST toilet.
I'd want thoughtful and logical Americans to join the Republicans, because of our ideals and accomplishments, NOT BECAUSE OF PANDERING. That is what LIBERALS and DEMOCRATS do; voting for that wise racist LATINA because it might PISS OFF some IGNORANT hispanics is PANDERING.
Charles, Greatone, Mavic and their liberal ilk are always going to hate conservatives and Republicans, it might as well be something worthwhile; like opposing this STUPID LIBERAL judge who is about as RACIST as any WHITE supremist.
facts if you knew her record you would know she is not all that liberal. We now have a court with 4 right wing extremist, 1 conservative, and 4 moderates. Just think, at one time Stevens was considered a swing vote
Well, inspite of Lindsey's reasonable line of questioning, he rolled like an old lap dog and chose the administration over his constituency.
What a complete waste of air.
facts if you knew her record you would know she is not all that liberal. We now have a court with 4 right wing extremist, 1 conservative, and 4 moderates. Just think, at one time Stevens was considered a swing vote
Greatone
Really??? I like dealing with reality. The facts are she is a liberal and has USED that "WISE LATINA" crap in her speeches for years. It's not an off the cuff remark, brainiac! Your statement about the justices political leanings is so off base, I don't know what to say other than; do us all a favor and LAY OFF THE MEDS!
an analysis of her opinions show she is a moderate. to righties if you do not vote the straight righty line you are a liberal. i bet you consider justice Kennedy a liberal.
an analysis of her opinions show she is a moderate. to righties if you do not vote the straight righty line you are a liberal. i bet you consider justice Kennedy a liberal.
Greatone
Once again, Greatone, stay off the MEDS! You're off again... how surprising, not. Justice Kennedy is a MODERATE. He's swung back an forth, he reminds me of Senator Specter. No core beliefs. A CONSERVATIVE wouldn't have sided with New London's plan of CONFISCATING private property, you DUNCE! I really don't know how you think, but you're a liberal after all, so you FEEL. Please next time post something intelligent.
"Gary is right. Your opinion is meaningless here. You're from Canada, a fact you repeatedly keep to yourself when you're on the attack. "
Huh?? If I am from Canada, or Uzbekistan, why does it bother you? Maybe it is just a convenient alibi in order to avoid making a coherent argument on anything?
Because I can't conceive of a reason why your opinion should matter. Why should it?
Glad you conceded that you're unable to form a coherent argument to uphold your positions Steph. Instead you tell us that you can't "conceive a reason why my opinions matter".........apparently thats a valid argument.
Congrats!
No argument, Mav.
Move to the US and become a citizen, then your opinions will matter to us.
I don't think anyone outside of America cares about what America does with itself, as long as it remains within its own jurisdiction. You might want to take a few hints from Ron Paul. I might not agree with many things he has to say, but at least the man is smart enough to realise that attempted hegemony on lucrative regions in the world only serves to undermine the peace and prosperity of Americans abroad as well as at home.
As long, as all these gun-toting hicks have their ways, you'll be stuck in a perpetual cycle of wars with a one-eyed booger-monster of some shape or form. Hey, your neo-con friends did a good job of instilling this perpetual fear of all things "different". There where the big bad commies, and then now the Arabs, I wonder who's next.......hmm those big bad, igloo dwelling Canadians?
Naw,
You guys move too slow to be a threat. We can pick you off at 700 yards with plain adjustable sites.
Ha, our own jurisdiction! That's a good one. And if the U.N. does that, so will we.
As I recall, we are invited to be in South Korea, Germany, Italy, Panama, Africa, Egypt and all sorts of other countries. And as I recall, you bleeding heart liberals, who I really believe bleed venom and not blood, would leave the world to killers and massacres as you stay in "your own jurisdiction" singing kum by ya and smoking dope, pretending to give a damn.
Meanwhile, the only thing needed for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing. So go sit down and leave the heavy lifting to the real men of the world, Mavic.
Sotomayor endorsed by US Chamber. Too much emphasis in social issues with Supreme Court appointments. The business faction of the GOP and the DLC have gained a great deal of power that consumers and employees have limited protections. There is not 1 true across the board liberal on the Supreme Court now.