|
14 Jul 09 - 02:47 PM (#2680170) Subject: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce Two Wrongs . . . President Obama's high court pick deserves the deference that Sen. Obama failed to show. Tuesday, July 14, 2009 THE GHOSTS of confirmations past loomed over the proceedings yesterday as Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor sat for her first day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. There was the specter of then-judge, now chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., who in 2005 was unable to secure the vote of the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. There was Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George W. Bush's nominee to the next opening on the high court, who likewise got a no vote from Mr. Obama for ostensibly favoring the powerful and wealthy. There was Janice Rogers Brown, a Bush nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; while he praised the African American jurist for her accomplishments and compelling life story, Mr. Obama declined to endorse her judicial appointment, saying "she is a political activist who happens to be a judge." And there was Miguel A. Estrada, the well-regarded Harvard law graduate and Honduran immigrant who was blocked from a seat on the D.C. Circuit by a Democratic filibuster. Various GOP senators on the committee, including ranking Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Utah's Orrin G. Hatch, cited Mr. Obama's votes against these Bush nominees. They are right to be critical; they would be wrong to imitate Mr. Obama's mistakes in the matter of the Sotomayor nomination. We agreed with Mr. Obama's assessment of Judge Brown and urged her defeat because of her unambiguous and unapologetic use of the bench to suit her political vision. We supported confirmation of Mr. Bush's well-qualified Supreme Court nominees and strongly urged Democrats to drop their unjustified filibuster of Mr. Estrada. We believe elections have consequences, and presidents are entitled to some deference in their appointment of judges, if those presidents show enough respect for the bench to name men and women of quality. Mr. Bush was owed better than then-Sen. Obama gave him; despite that record, Mr. Obama is owed deference now. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) yesterday offered an attractive alternative to partisan score-settling. In his opening statement, Mr. Graham outlined his concerns with Judge Sotomayor's statements about the role that gender and ethnicity should play in judicial decision-making, at one point remarking, probably accurately, that his political career would have ended had he asserted that white men would make better decisions than Hispanic women. Yet he rightly noted that Judge Sotomayor's lengthy track record may be more moderate than some critics have suggested. Most important, he acknowledged that elections do, indeed, have consequences. Mr. Graham may yet vote against confirmation for Judge Sotomayor. But if he does, it seems likely to be on the merits as he views them and not as a ploy for political gain. Senators don't owe presidents favorable votes on their nominees. But they do owe the president, the nominee and the American people a vote based on an honest assessment of the nominee's qualities and qualifications. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 02:49 PM (#2680171) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071302814.html |
|
14 Jul 09 - 02:59 PM (#2680181) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Ebbie Wow. A rookie Senator, such as Mr. Obama was then, had a lot more power than I had realized. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 03:20 PM (#2680199) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos WaPo is skewing the story--is there any evidence Obama as senator was discourteous or unthoughtful in his votes? Some people will do anything to stir up controversy. A |
|
14 Jul 09 - 03:22 PM (#2680205) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Bill D "..the deference that Sen. Obama failed to show." Deference? Senators should show deference? I thought they should show intelligent reasoning and make their best case for or against the qualifications of a nominee....like the last line of the ??quotation??...(those quotation marks need to BE there to clarify the line between your comments and the text.) If Obama was convinced a Bush appointee would not be a fair & unbiased judge, he SHOULD vote against him/her. (I am listening to the hearings right now, and I just heard Sen. Grassley trying to get Sotomayor to 'admit' that 'justice was not done' in a "takings" case, and suggesting that the judicial panel should have 'done something' to stop a community from "taking" a citizens property. She patiently explained that the case was not ABOUT 'fair'...it was about whether the law was followed and whether the citizen was 'informed' and timely with his complaint.) Recent rulings suggest that Obama was correct in his assessment of John Roberts' tendency to use his **undoubted** legal expertise to do as Grassley suggests and 'do something', rather than just apply the law. Sotomayor will, I think, NOT please the more...ummm... 'insistent' folks on the left who want her to 'do something' about THEIR perceived causes. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 03:48 PM (#2680232) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: PoppaGator Anyone who would contend that corporate apologist John Roberts is in any way more "objective" than Ms Sotomayor is kidding themselves. Every individual, unavoidably, brings his or her own background and values to the job, any job. The most we can ask of any potential jurist is that he/she have the intellectual capability to (a) know and understand the law, and (b) know and understand their own predilections, and develop a capacity to stand back and exercie as much objectivity as possible. I think Sotomayor was correct, if somewhat less than careful, when she made her infamous statement that a "wise Latina" would be capable of deeper understanding and better decision-making than a "white male." I think it's undeniably true, throughout history, that the less-privileged members of every society have much greater insight into social reality than their more comfortable "superiors." Her mistake was to lump all "white males" together ~ I'm a white male, but am most definitely NOT one of those "Fortunate Sons" with whom Ms Sotomayor would uusually find herself in disagreement. Perhaps her life experience has predisposed her to see all white folks as rich, overprivileged, comparatively clueless, and unjustly predisposed to favor established and corporate power over the individual citizen. After all, she went directly from the overwhelmingly Black-and-Hispanic South Bronx to the Ivy League, then law school, and then directly to high-level prosecutorial positions and judicial clerkships and the federal bench. She probably has very limited experience of rubbing elbows with salt-of-the-earth white folks who are living from paycheck to paycheck. And ~ to change the subject just a bit ~ all this neoconservative nonsense to the effect that "activist judges" are somehow wrong to "make law rather than to interpret the law" is a bunch of horse-hockey. Cases only GET to the Superme Courth because there is some ambiguity about how existing law should be applied. Any ruling, one way or the other, establishes precedent and therefore creates "new law" ~ new meanings or aspects of existing laws. That much is true whether the impact of a decision is progressive or reactionary or anything in between. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM (#2680234) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amergin Typical Bearded Bruce...he has no original thought in his head, save for what he is told to believe.... Me I couldn't care less if she gets in or not....it will not change anything. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 04:26 PM (#2680254) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos That sort of apathy is scarcely original, either, Nathan!!!!!! :d a |
|
14 Jul 09 - 04:28 PM (#2680255) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce BillD, The entire post was a quote. Sorry if you did not see that. Amerigin: You seem to be attacking me for bringing up what others think- perhaps that is because YOU are not capable of thinking about the topic yourself? I thought it was an interesting and fair viewpoint: Others may not agree, but at least have a reason other than that ** I ** posted it. Amos, "is there any evidence Obama as senator was discourteous or unthoughtful in his votes?" Is there any evidence that the Republicans are discourteous or unthoughtful in their votes?. "We believe elections have consequences, and presidents are entitled to some deference in their appointment of judges, if those presidents show enough respect for the bench to name men and women of quality. Mr. Bush was owed better than then-Sen. Obama gave him; despite that record, Mr. Obama is owed deference now. " I have NOT objected to the present nomonee- as the above statement reflects what I think. A pity that the Democrats have not, in the past, acted accordingly. And a pity the the Republicans may not, in this case: But they may try to show that they will at least voice their concerns, even if they cannot in any case block it. They are taliking to their base, as the Democrats have in the past, regardless of the impact on national politics and the courts. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 04:45 PM (#2680267) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos It strikes me you are showing an insensitivity to the specific bases of rejection on which past Democratic concerns were formed, versus those raised on Ms. Sotomayor's candidacy. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 04:47 PM (#2680270) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce You mean that to object to a candidate because he/she might not rule ( bsed on past rulings and speeches) as one wishes is OK for Democrats, but wrong for Republicans??? |
|
14 Jul 09 - 05:30 PM (#2680296) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Uncle_DaveO Poppagator said, in part: After all, she went directly from the overwhelmingly Black-and-Hispanic South Bronx to the Ivy League, then law school, and then directly to high-level prosecutorial positions and judicial clerkships and the federal bench. I think you have--I hope merely mistakenly--misstated her history, as I have understood it. After law school she did not go to either high-level prosecutorial positions or judicial clerkships, and the federal bench was quite a ways down the road. She did, as I understand, go from law school to prosecutorial functions, yes. But as an Assistant United States Attorney, which for a recent law graduate is hardly "high level", especially in prosecuting misdemeanors, which was her first field of assignment. That's entry level, not high level. She certainly, with her academic standing, could have gone the judicial clerkship route, which is the way ambitious and brilliant young lawyers very often desire to go; instead, she chose to go the low road, to fight in the trenches, so to speak. If my understanding of her history is wrong, I stand to be corrected. Dave Oesterreich |
|
14 Jul 09 - 05:37 PM (#2680305) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Bill D "The entire post was a quote. Sorry if you did not see that." Really? Even the first lines? Why should I 'see' it? That's why I say what I said...there should never be any doubt. (they drummed that into my head as a freshman in HS) |
|
14 Jul 09 - 06:26 PM (#2680333) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: McGrath of Harlow When we use quotes, it is surely elementary common sense (and courtesy to those reading it and to the source of the quote) to identify that it is a quote, and to include an indication of the source of the quote in the same post. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 07:55 PM (#2680390) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce Billd, Even the first lines- they are the title. Didn't you bother to check the clicky? If you had, you would have known. You too, McG. Sorry if it took me another two minutes to get it in. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 08:28 PM (#2680413) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic I was able to watch about an hour and a half of the confirmation hearings this morning. I found them dignified and impressive, the style as well as the substance of elective governments performing as they ought. One of the main antagonists, Sen. Sessions, charming but pulling no punches in throwing at Judge Sotomayor her own words for her to parse in front of the nation. She was deliberative and paced every word, looking as if she will be a very creditable judge. The accent didn't hurt, either, she sounded like a lot of my relatives! I'm interested in finding out if there is any truth to the internet story that she chased a counterfeitor from a motorcycle during a seizure operation! It was theater and more, it brought out the very items that the AM radio jockeys have been lambasting the airwaves with, was she a bigot for her quote that a Latina might be able to judge as well as or even better than a white male counterpart? So even Sen. Sessions has improved the situation by bringing it to the foreground. Everyone is getting heard. She appears to be an excellent choice on the part of our new President. And she may yet prove to be quite conservative in her judgments, in fact, that is what her past performance indicates. These are tough times, but as much as possible I'm enjoying the new faces our President has found to put into our government. I'm getting a positive kick from him and his people. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 08:54 PM (#2680427) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: kendall It's all about politics and nothing else. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 09:00 PM (#2680433) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic shoot kendall, you done busted my bubble! popcorn, anyone? |
|
14 Jul 09 - 09:18 PM (#2680436) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: heric I've been told that prosecuting misdemeanors is a lot harder than felonies, given that it's harder to get jurors exercised about a misdemeanor, whereas felonies often are more clearly offensive. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 10:00 PM (#2680444) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Arkie Frankly, I do not see the Supreme Court appointments being about Obama or Bush, except for people trying to stir up confusion and malice or possibly because they enjoy the art of politics. The appointments are about selecting the best people to fill a position that is serving the American people. The votes for or against should be about whether the person is likely to give wise and objective service. Anyone who votes for any other reason is not doing justice to the office they hold. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 10:52 PM (#2680456) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Riginslinger Yeah, well, that's the way it is in the big city. |
|
14 Jul 09 - 11:36 PM (#2680471) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos As for the thread title, Obama deserves better than Bush in any respect. A |
|
15 Jul 09 - 03:04 AM (#2680512) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Joe Offer Beardedbruce says:
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. So, anyhow, what was it that Obama did against the Bush judicial appointees that was so horrible? Simply vote against them? -Joe Offer- |
|
15 Jul 09 - 07:59 AM (#2680623) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Bobert Those of us on the left were very suspect of both Roberts and Alito as being the corporate puppets they have turned out to be... Had I been a senator I would have voted aginst them, as well... Where exactly, however, did Obama show either dis-respect??? I don't recall that occurinf... B~ |
|
15 Jul 09 - 10:59 AM (#2680762) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Arkie Bruce brought up an interesting point. When Bush was in office it was considered disrespectful to oppose anything the President wanted. Actually "unpatriotic" might be more appropriate. Funny how a little thing like an election can change the rules. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 11:56 AM (#2680801) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Lonesome EJ Nobody owes anybody any deference in these hearings. The Senate stands at 60 Dems and 40 Republicans and Sotomayor will get in. Is Sotomayor too liberal for Sessions, Connor and the rest of her conservative assailants? No doubt about it. Obama is not going to nominate anyone who reflects their narrow point of view. Bottom line is this...the Republicans lost the election, and its our turn to pick a justice. Get used to it Bruce, there will be more coming. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 01:06 PM (#2680860) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Stringsinger I would discount anything the racist Jeff Sessions has to say. He is a real dinosaur. Republicans have not shown that they show much respect for any Democrats. This is a red herring. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 01:28 PM (#2680874) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos The difference between a free communication of ideas back and forth and obsequious compliance of goers-along is the essence of the difference between the two. Obana has demonstrated frequently that he can tolerate and think about multiple viewpoints; Bush was hard-pressed to even find his own. A |
|
15 Jul 09 - 02:24 PM (#2680901) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: GUEST,beardedbruce Since it seems that others here can't read, and insist I said things I did not, since that would match THEIR view of what they don't like, let me repeat from 14 Jul 09 - 04:28 PM "We believe elections have consequences, and presidents are entitled to some deference in their appointment of judges, if those presidents show enough respect for the bench to name men and women of quality. Mr. Bush was owed better than then-Sen. Obama gave him; despite that record, Mr. Obama is owed deference now. " I have NOT objected to the present nomonee- as the above statement reflects what I think. A pity that the Democrats have not, in the past, acted accordingly. And a pity the the Republicans may not, in this case: ---------------------------------------------------------------- Any other comments are just about what someone else is thinking I must have said because in the opast I have expressed a certain political bent- I would call this at least bias, if not predjudice. From the following http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071402891.html QUOTE: :"The question concerns the degree of deference that senators should show to a president's choice for the Supreme Court. More specifically, why should Republican senators weighing President Obama's nominee give him more leeway to name justices to his liking than then-Sen. Obama was willing to accord President Bush when he voted against both Bush nominees? As the hearings got under way, Republican senator after Republican senator raised this question. Democrat after Democrat ignored it. South Carolina Republican Lindsey O. Graham put it best: "You're probably going to decide cases differently than I would," he told Sotomayor. "So that brings me back to, what am I supposed to do, knowing that?" The Constitution provides that the president appoint justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." So there is constitutional space, and, indeed, a duty, for the Senate to consider not only technical qualifications but judicial philosophy and the overall balance of the high court. The fact that senators are weighing a lifetime appointment rather than a Cabinet post dials up the intensity with which the Senate should scrutinize and judge a nominee. In short, advice and consent doesn't mean roll over and play dead. At the same time, as Graham put it, "elections matter." If the test for confirmation were simply whether the senator would have chosen the same nominee if he or she were president, the answer would be a preordained, partisan vote. This would be merely a nuisance in the case of a Senate controlled by the same party as the president. It would be a recipe for gridlock in situations of divided government. Add to this constitutional muddle the fact that the current president -- the first senator to reach that office in nearly half a century -- is in the unusual position of having voted against confirming two Supreme Court nominees. The sweeping phrases of the Constitution provide scant guidance about the degree of deference that presidential nominees should be accorded, but senators considering President Obama's choice have Sen. Obama's example to guide them. In 2005, Obama said he was "sorely tempted" to vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, saying that "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind" that Roberts was intellectually and temperamentally qualified for the job. .... You don't have to be cynical to think politics was at play, too; in fact, you just have to read The Post, which reported that Obama's Senate chief of staff, Pete Rouse, warned him that a vote for Roberts could cripple his presidential ambitions. .... But it's also true that Obama's reported remarks to Rouse -- that if he were president, he wouldn't want his nominees turned down on purely ideological grounds -- were prescient. As Graham told Sotomayor, "I can assure you that if I applied Sen. Obama's standard to your nomination, I wouldn't vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background when it comes to lawyering and judging." .... Judging from the tone so far, the more likely outcome is a near party-line vote. In that case, the president won't have only himself to blame -- but he will have himself to blame in part. " END QUOTE I think that the comments made here are worth thinking about. Sorry if you don't agree, but that does not control what ** I ** think. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 04:15 PM (#2680979) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic I think Obama was entitled to vote as he did against Alito and Roberts. They definitely represent a way of thinking that does not match his. He is entitled to select whom he wishes as a justice, and Sessions et. al. can render their votes as they see fit. So I disagree with the import of the Thread title, other than it could be interpreted to mean that the original poster supports Judge Sotomayor and is afraid she will lose votes by Republicans voting in some kind of "tit for tat" response to Sen. Obama's votes. I was entranced by the Sotomayor hearings this morning. The Senators brought up causes they cared about and cases they wanted to critique, with or without Sotomayor. I took it as a real plug for our democratic ways. The viewers witnessed intelligence, mutual respect, and powerful figures expressing concern over powerful issues in society. Al Franken (junior Senator from Minnesota!) tried to look intelligent, which was a marvelous sight indeed! |
|
15 Jul 09 - 06:04 PM (#2681041) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Donuel Kennedy: Its not what the country does for you... LBJ: Its with a heavy hort... Nixon: Its not illegal if the President does it Ford: Carter: THe country is mired in a malaise and greed Reagan: ITs morning in America Bush: I will kick Saddam's ass Clinton: I feel your pain GWB: If you are not with us you are against us. Obama: We welcome every person and every country of peace to join with us. We are ready to lead again. Alito made only two appelate decisions and they were both overturned. Roberts has made 9 precedent reversals of accepted Supreme Court opinions. These guys are only slightly better than Harriet Meyers would have been. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 06:44 PM (#2681067) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: gnu Gosh.... that is sad indded. Apparently, ignorance of the law is no excuse even for judges (in the US). |
|
15 Jul 09 - 07:36 PM (#2681092) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic Hakman: Nice Post! |
|
15 Jul 09 - 07:53 PM (#2681103) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Bobert And let's keep this entire appointment in some perspective... The current Supreme Court is made up of 7 justices appointed by Republicans to just 2 by Dems... So any weepin' on the right, as far as I am concerned, is just a bonus... Tough beans... I didn't hear ya'll complainin' too much during yer 30 year stangle hold on the governemnt... So weep away!!! B~ |
|
15 Jul 09 - 08:29 PM (#2681118) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: beardedbruce Bobert, You have missed the point. 1. I support the present appointment 2. What I brought up was the opinion that Obama had not given Bush the same consideration that he wants ( but probably will not get, although IMO he should) in having his nominees considered. WHat I see here is a lot of sour grapes from Democrats, that only their president should get the nominees he wants considered fairly. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 08:52 PM (#2681127) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Uncle_DaveO BB, I think the principle involved has been mistakenly characterized. A President should normally be given the benefit of the doubt in his nominations. That is not to say that a Senator on the other side is wrong if he decides not to vote for a particular nomination. Yes, elections mean something, but it's not "winner take all"; never has been, and should not be so. Obama clearly gave serious (perhaps even friendly) consideration to the candidacy of Roberts, since Obama said he was tempted to vote for him. That "serious consideration" is all Bush was entitled to from Obama under the principle involved here. Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Jul 09 - 09:52 PM (#2681144) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: beardedbruce ANd all that Obama is entitled to, from the present Republicans. Not that it matters. |
|
15 Jul 09 - 11:16 PM (#2681171) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Amos Clearly, you are leaving out of your assessment the differences between the two gentlemen, and the various merits on which they may or may not be deserving of deference, support, and consideration. One could argue that Bush burned up his political capital in an egregious and dishonest and wastteful manner... A |
|
16 Jul 09 - 11:45 AM (#2681476) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: beardedbruce One might argue that Obama has burned up HIS political capital in his ineffective handling of the economy- Although I have to admit he paid off his union backers quite well. But the consideration due a standing president is the same: BOTH of them deserve(d) TO HAVE THE NOMINEES THEY WANTED LOOKED AT FAIRLY. |
|
16 Jul 09 - 12:14 PM (#2681500) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Bobert Tsk, tsk, bruce... This ain't worth SCREAMING over, for gosh sakes... Save yer blood pressure fir something more important than a confirmation hearing that really isn't much more than a huge waste of time... It was a waste of time for Alito and Roberts, also... As fir your opinion that Obama's handling of the economy is "ineffective", that is your opinion... It isn't as if he was handed a healthy economy... No, he was handed one that was on life support and days or weeks away from flat lining... B~ |
|
16 Jul 09 - 03:50 PM (#2681694) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Arkie What I care most about is what the American people are entitled to. In this case it would be the nomination of a judge who is likely to judge fairly on the merits of a case rather than cater to special interests. The people are also entitled to a confirmation hearing based upon the merits of the nominee. Those who use the hearings to make grandstand plays, strut their egos, and attempt to embarrass or harass a political opponent are not serving the public and not deserving of their feed at the public trough. |
|
16 Jul 09 - 04:49 PM (#2681717) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic I've been watching the Senate Judiciary hearings and they seem to have gone very smoothly. Both political 'sides' have been fair and forthright. I wouldn't be surprised if Sonia Sotomayor nets several Republican votes because her judicial record is quite middle of the road and she is obviously well versed in the subject. The stuff the Reps have to hammer her with is, when you come down to it, very trivial. They have every right to bring it up, but it is clear that it's minor stuff. I've been impressed with the hearings, it makes me feel better about my government and it makes the United States look good. |
|
17 Jul 09 - 10:34 AM (#2682192) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: Stringsinger BB every supreme court nominee is a political activist to some degree. Why does Obama deserve any better? It's all political manipulation. The idea that the Supremes are immune from political decision making on the law is ludicrous. That's why we have "checks and balances". Estrada impartial? Any of the Bush appointees impartial? Ridiculous. Jeff Sessions criticism was racist, pure and simple. Graham was more honey-tongued about it. |
|
17 Jul 09 - 11:52 AM (#2682238) Subject: RE: BS: Obama deserves better than he gave Bush From: robomatic String- I do not believe Sessions was on the record as a racist. I believe it could be stated that he was placing on the record, his concerns that Judge Sotomayor not be a racist. In so doing, he was contributing to the public nature of these hearings, that the national process be subjected to inquiry, that these hearings and questions be aired publicly and be addressed. Calling 'em racist is to contribute to the narrowing of our public discourse and our perceptions. I think the nature of the issue (Judge Sotomayor's oft quoted 'wise Latina' remark and a few other remarks) is pettiness in the extreme, however, words matter and it's a good idea to get it open and hopefully done with. Looks matter to people, and Judge Sotomayor along with a host of other folks stepping into American government these days, looks different. To say this is not racist, it's simply fact. Many people in American welcome the difference (me included). But not everyone. People have concerns with their perceptions that people who look different may think different, and may have other agendas which are not publicly aired. I think having folks like Sessions and Graham out there publicly is necessary. Seeing Democratic and Republican leaders relate to each other with respect and decorum is also a good thing. The 'changing of shades' of the United States has been an ongoing process throughout its history. What is going on now is a continuation of a basic theme of our national experience. But it has undergone a perceptual change that is necessary to acknowledge and for some of us, celebrate. But let's try to bring the others along and allay their concerns. The selection of Judge Sotomayor was outstanding. This entire procedure makes Obama and his staff look good, look strong. And this is good for America. |