Tuesday, May 26, 2009

GOP Supreme Court Obstructionists

It wouldn't have mattered who Obama nominated to take Souter's place on the Supreme Court. The GOP will object to anything other than Scalito, Thomas and Roberts. Winger zealots who "interpret" the Constitution based upon their own personal religious rituals. Isn't that the definition of an "activist judge" over which idiots like Hatch drone on and on? Cornyn REALLY wanted the job...as does Ted Olsen. Two more white rich men without an ounce of compassion. I'll bet they're steamed Ginsberg didn't retire before Bush was out of office.
Judge Sotomayor was nominated by George H.W. Bush and by Bill Clinton timeline and serves on the 2nd Court of Appeals. She was born in the Bronx of Puerto Rican parents. Her father died. Her mother was a nurse. Her brother is now a doctor. She won a scholarship to Princeton and was first in her class. She went on to Yale. She married while at Princeton but divorced sans offspring.
I suspect she's in for a rough hearing nevertheless. Sessions is chomping at his bit, Cornyn is ready to lynch, Hatch will always have nasty aspersions to cast. Emotion, empathy, real life experience...characteristics lacking in the mostly wingnut justices currently sitting.




GOP to Label Sotomayor as ‘Activist’


Here are some of the key points Republicans will make against Sotomayor:

* They will call her an “activist” judge intent on making law from the bench, not interpreting law.
* As evidence of her “activist” philosophy, conservatives point a statement she made in 2005 that “court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know..” You’ll see THIS CLIP a lot.
* Republicans will also make much of a 2002 speech Sotomayor made, saying that the sex and ethnicity of a judge “may and will affect our judging.” She said: “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.”
* Republicans say that four of her opinions have been heard by the Supreme Court and that all four were overturned.
* Conservatives are also pointing to an article in the liberal magazine The New Republic by Jeffrey Rosen entitled, “The Case Against Sotomayor.” The article is stuffed with anonymous sources saying Sotomayor has temperament issues and is not an intellectual heavyweight.

Although it is highly unlikely that Republicans can defeat the nomination, they can make it extremely difficult for President Obama to reach his goal of confirming Sotomayor before the Senate’s August recess
.


Ah, the Grand Obstructionist Party:

Consider this from Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee: "I will focus on determining whether Judge Sotomayor is committed to deciding cases based only on the law as made by the people and their elected representatives, not on personal feelings or politics. I look forward to a fair and thorough process."

Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl, another member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, urged Democrats to allow the minority party plenty of time to examine Sotomayor's record. "Each member of the Senate has a constitutional duty to scrutinize judicial nominees before deciding whether to support their confirmation, and I will take great care in examining her record to ensure that she demonstrates personal integrity, a commitment to the rule of law, and a judicial temperament," he said.

Republican Leader Mitch McConnell also stressed the importance of a long process. "Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a 'rubber stamp,'" he said in a statement. "Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications."

Conservative GOP Senator Jim DeMint was more directly skeptical, issuing a statement stating that some of Sotomayor's writings "seem to raise serious questions about her approach to the Constitution and the role of the federal judiciary." He added that he "will withhold judgment about her nomination until she has the opportunity to fully present her views before the Senate."

Senator Tom Coburn wrote that Sotomayor "deserves fair and open hearings," but he signaled that he is unlikely to back the nominee.

"It is critical that the Supreme Court reaffirm, not undermine, our Constitution's limited role for Congress and the President," he wrote. "The American people need judges who will interpret the Constitution, not rewrite it based on ideology or personal opinion."

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggested that Republicans will "reserve judgment" on the nominee "until there has been a thorough and thoughtful examination of her legal views."

"Supreme Court vacancies are rare, which makes Sonia Sotomayor's nomination a perfect opportunity for America to have a thoughtful discussion about the role of the Supreme Court in our daily lives," added Steele.

The RNC later sent out a document suggesting that Steele is taking a more open-minded approach than former DNC chair Howard Dean did when Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito were announced. (Here are the RNC's leaked talking points.)

GOP Senator John Thune offered a similar sentiment to his colleagues, saying "it will be important to determine if Judge Sotomayor will decide cases based on her own personal feelings and political views, or the bedrock rule of law." He added that he needs time to see if "she possesses unimpeachable integrity, high intellect, and a commitment to applying the law as it is written, rather than legislating from the bench."


Not only are they mean, they're stupid too.
Is this where they plan on picking their fight?
A Latina (GASP) on the Supreme Court? FIRST in her class at Princeton.
MORE experience than any current SC judge prior to their nominations.
left to right (top) Kyl, Graham, Grassley
Left to right (bottom) Cornyn, Coburn, Hatch
Center Huckleberry Sessions.

Puke Judic


Sessions' statement
:
...
"Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one's own personal preferences or political views."
...

Gee, did he determine that with Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts? His voice will always remind me of Huckleberry Hound Dog. But mean.

Here we go...the obstructionists have no intention of confirming her prior to their lovely month-long August vacation. Just another "power play" by The Party of NO. Reid should force them to stay and vote but that would require some sort of spine and he has yet to display one to me.


Senate Judiciary Committee

2 Comments:

Anonymous Goober said...

And the really funny part about this is Judge Sotomayor is about as controversial as a plate of pasta. She has never challenged injustice, never made a ruling that wasn't safely backed up by settled case law nor has she ever dealt with privacy issues.

However, she is a Catholic- isn't 5 of those motherfuckers enough???? Jesus, that's what I want making decisions about justice in America- people who believe fervently in some whacked ritual ridden God On a Ghawddammed Stick religion that was stolen from Rome and imported directly into a belief system that revolves around unending guilt and blood scarifice.

All I have mentioned above is the antithesis of controversial. If anything it is a choice that shows us who Obama is- a weak coward with no compelling personal convictions who is seemingly dedicated to getting along with idiot and bigoted monsters masquerading as public servants while preserving the shadowy power of our venal and sociopathic Plutocracy.

It's like Obama wakes up every morning and thinks; "mmmm now lessee what will I do today that will make sure the Plutocrats don't have the CIA off me?"

Sadly and sickeningly, this is change you can belief in- once I get in office you can believe the only thing I'll change is all that BS I told y'all to get elected. Not a chance in hell I'll do anything remotely in the people's interests. Are you crazy? If I did that, they'd shoot me and pin it on some dumb kluxer so fast you're heads would spin right off your dumbass shoulders!

So why did you want to be President, Mr Obama? I guess the promise of wealth like that visited on Bill Clinton since leaving office fronting for the Plutocracy with your nice friendly smile and sweet talkin' ways, not to mention a nice spot in the history books was just too much to turn away from, 'eh? One thing's for damn sure, you didn't do it to do one damn thing for us, rather, you're derailing any chance we had at the tipping point of history to get our damn country back. I think I have another "funny name" we can add to your moniker Mr Obama.

How does "Judas" grab ya?

Fucker.

12:45 AM  
Blogger Panda said...

Goober, I know. As a "lapsed Catholic" myself with several family members who still claim to be Catholics I recoil in horror at the thought of yet another Catholic on the Supreme Court.
As for Sotomayor, she's not liberal enough for ME but compared to the other "Catholics" on the court she might as well have horns.
I'm still hoping Obama doesn't renege on his promises made during the campaign but again, we know the Friendly Face of Fascism. He's got to be realistic in case the wing nuts think he's too dangerous...his life is in danger any time he says something to the left of Limbaugh. And that's a frightening thought.
The Catholic Church is THE richest entity on the planet. In one fell swoop they could eradicate poverty worldwide but they'd rather dictate to women instead on birth control and abortion. Sickening.

5:06 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home