Subscribe by RSS
Flashback a few years ago to the Justice Alito and Justice Roberts confirmation discussions and you’ll see where this is going. Seems that way back when, then-Senator Obama argued that though Justice Alito has impeccable credentials, he’s voting against him anyway, the same with Justice Roberts. Furthermore, Senator Obama supported blocking Justice Alito from confirmation.
The Associated Report highlighted this hypocrisy:
With the Senate returning next week from recess, Obama said he hopes it begins the confirmation process without delay and he expects his nominee to be on the bench when the Supreme Court begins its new term in October.
In the interim, Obama said he expects “rigorous evaluation” of his nominee but added: “What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.”
Funny, Obama didn’t have a problem with the “ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process” back when he supported blocking Justice Alito:
As a senator, Obama supported a failed attempt by Democrats to stall President George W. Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court.
Chicago Tribune also reported from 2006:
Jan. 30–WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court’s changing ideological face.
Then again, this is what we should come to expect from the left. Their terribly extreme, activist Judges are “mainstream” while constructionist judges who believe in the rule of law, like Roberts and Alito, are “extremists.” I thought the law was supposed to judge cases based on the written law, not based on the justice’s upbringing and Latino heritage.
Come to think about it, I don’t remember Alito or Roberts stating that they, as white men, would make better decisions than a Latina woman due to their upbringing.
In fact, what disgusts me about Justice Sotomayor is not her politics, nor is it even her racially motivated statements. What disgusts me about Sotomayor is her blatant disregard for the role of the federal judiciary. She doesn’t believe the legislature makes the laws, she believes the courts should. She is the very type of judicial activism we should keep off the court, at any level. Many judges will not admit it, they will just practice it when given the opportunity.
Then comes Sotomayor who not only practices it, she declares it as fact.
That is particularly troubling to me that she believes the law derives from the unelected courts. I will await the real “explanation” of these statements as I’m sure she was just drunk at the time or was misquoted, taken out of context or we just don’t understand what she means. She couldn’t possibly be mean exactly what she said, now could she?
So tell me, President Obama, why was it OK to use “ideological brinksmanship” trying to block Justice Alito, who made no racially-motivated statements, but now we’re supposed to ask no questions and simply accept your flawed nominee?
Update
Seems that Sotomayor’s chip on her shoulder wasn’t a one time deal, as Greg Sargent reports:
I’ve just obtained a speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave in 1994, in which she made a comment virtually identical to the “wise Latina” one from 2001 that has generated so much controversy.
And though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.
The revelation raises fresh questions as to why the 2001 comments generated the controversy they did, and suggests that the comments are not as controversial as her critics claim.
A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me.
Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”
That’s virtually identical to the comments from 2001 that have generated days and days of controversy.
Hmmm… Seems Sotomayor has a history of poorly choosing her words to put forth the notion that she, as a woman and/or a Latina woman, will inevitably make “wiser” decisions than a man and/or white man.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
I listened to CBS news tonight. Not one word of her OVERTURN RECORD. No wonder Fox news prospers.
She has a 60% rate of being overturned. Apparently Democrats have blocked nominations in the past solely on the basis of a 58% overturn rate.
Again, it’s what we’ve come to expect. To liberals, principles only matter when they are convenient. If they’re in the way of a judicial nomination, then forget it!
“Justice Alito, who made no racially-motivated statements”
Really?
Dreadsen
Her speasch was published. So it is well documented.
We will see
Dreadsen,
Will you share with us any statements from Justice Alito where he states that he, as a white man, will make better judgments than any minority?
Beyond that, will you share any statements from Alito that are even remotely as racially-charged as the statements from Sotomayor.
I have a feel we’ll be waiting a while.
Liberals are obsolete, they are bad people, they are ignorant, lack knowledge, soon liberals will be ugly, dogs, less than human, 3/4th’s of a man, heck lets enslave them. lol
Rush Limbaugh is excellent! He speaks well and his intentions are clear. He does not come off to me as a Obama Basher, he comes across as a man that disagree with Obama’s ideas.
Kendale Sturdivent
Your last statement is so true. Rush is the greatest. Silly liberal proclaim him the leader of my party. How absurd liberals are.
Sar·casm rid·i·cules that which most fears the small mind.
Rush is at his highest ratings. Poor old Liberals in radio are falling by the wayside
Kendale Sturdivent Jun 3rd, 2009 at 8:38 pm
“Liberals are obsolete, they are bad people, they are ignorant, lack knowledge, soon liberals will be ugly, dogs, less than human, 3/4th’s of a man, heck lets enslave them. lol”
LOL
Why do some liberals go to extremes when faced with their political short-comings on this site. I know it is rare for them to win a logical discussion. So some go to implying, adding material, demeaning, vulgarity, personal insult, or sarcasm. An example I site above. In a way, Kendale recognized SOME of his kind failings. Liberals..LOL
Another example of liberal failings is Teddy Kennedy. All for alternative energy unless he can see the windmill with his binoculars. Then he strongly against. Had he come to this site he too would insult and cuss when faced with his politcal beliefs ignored to satisfy his personal preferences. You see, truth angers some liberals.. LOL
Another example is Al the Gore. He goes to Congress on saving the planet and must face the facts of his heavy carbon use at his personal house when a Republican provides the facts. How sad it must be for many who are liberals. LOL
Another sad example fails on Al again. The world is not getting hotter and the ice is thicker than stated. Poor, poor liberals. LOL
In a way, Kendale recognized SOME of his kind failings. Liberals..LOL
What did I fail at? Did I proclaim a political affiliation? Two assumptions of yours.
1. I was not in any competition of any sort.
2. I think it’s stupid to be a part of either political affiliation. Why? Well Anyone who “ONLY” believes in the ideals of “ONLY” one political affiliation would be absurd. Surely I agree with believes of multiple political ideals.
Again, um, how on earth did I fail one this website, or what are my short-comings on this site? For you to think there are wins and loses on a site where people discuss their “OPINIONS”? Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, for you to think someone wins or loses based on opinions is silly and sounds to me like you feel the need to gain victories on this website through your beliefs/opinions.
How sad that would be if that were true. I do not come to this website to win or lose anything. Heck I don’t even come here to debate. I read the articles, ponder the comments left by you all, and periodically post my opinions, nothing more.
“Poor, poor liberals. LOL ” <—- how bizarre. It’s as if you are feeling sad for a losing team of a sports event. If government fails, we are all affected equally, so honestly you should be rooting for a successful government that YOU vote for. To think that government can both lose and win at the same time is the idea of, well, I’ll refrain from insults.
Now that is something to LOL about.
Toodles
I made my call. You can disagree and say you are not a liberal. I presented my case..LOL
……….
So you seriously meant__
“Liberals are obsolete, they are bad people, they are ignorant, lack knowledge, soon liberals will be ugly, dogs, less than human, 3/4th’s of a man, heck lets enslave them. lol”
If so, then you have a problem
Hello Nate
I thought you all were aware of this. I would like to hear your opinions on this.
http://www.youtube.com/wa.....M9lNL09y5c
and in case you can’t stand listening to the above person here is the text of what she is referring to.
U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Judge Samuel Alito’s Nomination to the Supreme Court
U.S. SENATOR TOM COBURN (R-OK): Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point.
ALITO: I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.
And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.
But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.
And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.
And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”
When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.
So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.
COBURN: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I think I’ll yield back the balance of my time at this time, and if I have additional questions, get them in the next round.
SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Coburn.
Isn’t the Above statement the same or very similar in a sense? That he is going to use his background as an Italian to help him make decision?
I replied about this racist thing. Just waiting for my comment to come out of moderation.
“Bishop Gets Probation for Ringing Church Bells”
“Posted on Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:49:38 PM by CedarDave”
“The leader of a Valley church gets three years probation and a ten day suspended jail sentence for ringing church bells.”
“Last month, Bishop Richard Painter of Cathedral of Christ the King Church was convicted of violating noise ordinances.”
“A Phoenix judge convicted the Bishop without any set standard or noise dosimeter readings, instead relying on testimony from four neighbors who said the bells were a problem.”
“The bells chimed every hour between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. The judge will allow the bells to ring once once Sundays and once during religious holidays. With help from the Alliance Defense Fund, Bishop Painter will appeael the conviction.”
Fox news, Pastor’s lawyer said sound level was equal to ice cream truck.
http://209.157.64.200/foc.....5072/posts