Democrats projecteth much
Hmmm... From NRO:
Senators Akaka, Inouye, Harkin, Mikulski, Kennedy, Kerry and Reid, the "Hyper-Partisan 7" I call them, voted nay on the 3 justices nominated by a Republican President (Thomas, Roberts and Alito). Only 3 of them (Inouye, Harkin and Reid) voted yea on Souter! If you throw out Souter’s vote, you will note that including the Thomas vote, justices nominated by Democratic Presidents receive an average of 6 nays while justices nominated by Republican Presidents garner an average of 37 nays, at least when it comes to long-serving members of 'the world’s greatest deliberative body.'
During today's opening statements, Sen. Orrin Hatch — who did not vote against any Supreme Court nominee — pointed out that Democrats are touting Sotomayor's compelling life story, but they filibustered Miguel Estrada when he was nominated for the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. No less a figure than Barack Obama voted against Estrada, as well as against Justices Alito and Roberts.
Does anyone doubt for a minute that while braying for "bi-partisanship" that it has been the Democrats who have been the most partisan over the past two decades?
Once again proving that the Democrat party is the party of "projection."
Yip Yip
Posts
20 comments:
I support the nomination of Sotomayor. I want to see a myopic racist serving on the Supreme Court. It would be like having our own Roland Freisler!
Coyote while I have to admit that I see plenty of partisanship from both sides of the aisle, particularly in the blogosphere, I have seen a lot more of it lately from the left side.
Bad timing too. Because of their blind partisanship they are actually going to confirm a person who has no business being on the Supreme Court (and really had no business being on the Court of Appeals either for that matter)...
God, I hate the left. I'm exasperated with the right, but I really hate these liberal, hypocritical idiots.
God, I hate the left.
Right Wing Hate in Full-On Mode Here.
Because of their blind partisanship they are actually going to confirm a person who has no business being on the Supreme Court (and really had no business being on the Court of Appeals either for that matter)...
Pot, Meet Kettle. It's funny that the previous generation of Republicans (Reaganites, Bush I) has little or no problem with Sotomayor. It's just the retard-cons who have a problem.
Where was the outrage in 06 with Alito's comments?
Anon-bat 7:19: Don't make me post the zillions of hateful quotes, articles and cartoons the left has produced over the last 8 years. You'll just look like a bigger jack-off than you already are.
I'd be fine if the Republicans voted against her en masse as a show of defiance. If the Democrats can largely vote against any GOP nominee, then the GOP should do the same and raise them one because of their arrogant threats. Playing nice and voting for someone who is a consequentialist and not a constitutionallist is non-productive, a waste of time and is gutless.
The more GOP that vote against her, the more respect I will have for them.
I hope Republicans will not cast a protest vote against Judge Sotomayor. Frankly, Obama could have done a lost worse. She actually has a pretty good record on criminal issues (probably because she's a former prosecutor) and Ricci aside, has not been a knee-jerk vote on employment or discrimination issues.
We should not mirror the blind partisanship of so many Democrats on Supreme Court appointments. To do so forfeits the high ground we have held since Ginsburg and Breyer received large bipartisan majorities in the Clinton years.
-- Jack Roberts
This President has a twisted view of our Constitution and constitutionalism in general. The hearings are an opportunity for Republicans to draw this out. If the GOP fails to do so, we deserve to be led into the thuggish, post-Constitutional Era where might makes right and limited government is a mere relic -- where islands of liberty can rarely be found in a vast sea of gov't authority -- just the the Progs have always wanted it.
However the right wing hate is percieved, cast or embellished it comes no where near the hate machine of the left. From left wing radio to left wing blogs to MSNBC there's no distance to travel in imagining the left would silence and incarcerate conservatives if they could get enough power. All for the public good.
The left is waging civil war on the American public and their attacks will soon reach levels of insanity with global warming and health care policies that will lead to severe trouble and a blowback not seen in any previous era.
"there's no distance to travel in imagining the left would silence and incarcerate conservatives if they could get enough power."
They already are trying to do that now with former Bush administration officials.
It is the left attempting to "criminalize" legitimate policy, differences.
You all are incredibly delusional. I fear for our country. Please go galt immediately.
'The One' is at -8 again per Rasmussen. That matches his low. Also, 49% now oppose ObamaCare, while only 46% support it.
Here are Sheldon Whitehouse's opening remarks from Sotomayor's hearings.
"In the last two and a half months and today, my Republican colleagues have talked a great deal about judicial modesty and restraint. Fair enough to a point, but that point comes when these words become slogans, not real critiques of your record. Indeed, these calls for restraint and modesty, and complaints about "activist" judges, are often codewords, seeking a particular kind of judge who will deliver a particular set of political outcomes.
"It is fair to inquire into a nominee's judicial philosophy, and we will here have a serious and fair inquiry. But the pretence that Republican nominees embody modesty and restraint, or that Democratic nominees must be activists, runs starkly counter to recent history.
"I particularly reject the analogy of a judge to an 'umpire' who merely calls 'balls and strikes.' If judging were that mechanical, we would not need nine Supreme Court Justices. The task of an appellate judge, particularly on a court of final appeal, is often to define the strike zone, within a matrix of Constitutional principle, legislative intent, and statutory construction.
"The 'umpire' analogy is belied by Chief Justice Roberts, though he cast himself as an 'umpire' during his confirmation hearings. Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that '[i]n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.' Some umpire. And is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue Toobin's quote, 'has served the interests, and reflected the values of the contemporary Republican party'? Some coincidence.
"For all the talk of 'modesty' and 'restraint,' the right wing Justices of the Court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections, and discovering new constitutional rights: the infamous Ledbetter decision, for instance; the Louisville and Seattle integration cases; the first limitation on Roe v. Wade that outright disregards the woman's health and safety; and the DC Heller decision, discovering a constitutional right to own guns that the Court had not previously noticed in 220 years. Some 'balls and strikes.' Over and over, news reporting discusses 'fundamental changes in the law' wrought by the Roberts Court's right wing flank. The Roberts Court has not kept the promises of modesty or humility made when President Bush nominated Justices Roberts and Alito."
"Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported"
That statement alone should be enough to give anyone pause. Toobin is a liberal through and through. So anything he says must be viewed with the knowledge of his liberalism.
The rest of your entire comment is solely based on a point of reference that is to the left.
So Chief Justice Roberts has sided with "so and so?" So what? What were the FACTS of those cases?
You (and Toobin) seem to believe that regardless of the facts Roberts should be ruling the other way just to show some preconceived policy, balance. Facts be damned! Since I have called 4 "balls" in a row, just to be fair I need to make a "strike" call even if the next pitch is in the dirt.
Thanks anon 10:01, you have made our point. You seem to believe, as Sotomayor does, that there needs to be some "activism" on the court in spite of the facts so that policies of "fairness" can be created.
Don't like the DC Heller decision? Well, then the District of Columbia (and the Bush administration) probably should not have attempted to run a shoddy case that challenged the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution.
Don't blame the umpire if your pitcher can't find the strike zone.
That case is a clear cut definition of 'modesty' and 'restraint.'
Roadbat,
Your deliberate and dishonest mischaracterizations are not going to be entertained here any longer.
You want to discuss the complicity of the Democrats in Congress with regard to illegal activity? Fine.
But we've seen you attempt to play out your tired act of misdirection here before.
buh bye
Judge Sotomayor answering Senator Hatch [almost a quote]: All decisions of the Supreme Court I consider "settled law" to the extent that the doctrine of stare decisis (respect for precedent) applies.
In other words, all law is settled . . . except when it isn't.
anonybat 10:49,
Actually that was a quote from Andy McCarthy.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzJmNDM4ODkxM2U1YWM1MjRlNWFmODI2MmM2OThlZjE=
As a former Assistant United States Attorney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy
I'll assume that he probably knows more than an anonymous commenter on a blog.
Unless you want to post your credentials here I'll let you take it up with him.
My bad for not providing the source of that comment. But I thought that having it in italics would be enough for most folks to understand.
In confirmation hearings, the nominee for the supreme court told of how the nominee's family suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. The nominee went on to claim that the nominee did take that into account when making decisions from the bench.
Last week that nominee, italian american Samuel Alito, who now sits on the supreme court, cast the deciding vote in a closely watched case. The beneficiary of that vote was an italian american named Ricci.
Whatever.
Post a Comment