Senate Judiciary Committee approves Sonia Sotomayor
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: Senate Judiciary Committee approves Sonia Sotomayor

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    4,668

    Senate Judiciary Committee approves Sonia Sotomayor

    As much as it turns my stomach to say so, by next week, the Supreme Court will be welcoming its newest justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

    Sonia Sotomayor wins backing of Senate committee - Los Angeles Times

    Judge Sonia Sotomayor, poised to become the first Latino member of the U.S. Supreme Court, won the support of the Senate Judiciary Committee today in a lopsided vote cast largely along party lines for President Barack Obama's first nominee for the nation's highest court.

    The committee voted 13-6 to send its recommendation to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm Sotomayor's appointment next week.


    With all of the committee's Democrats supporting Sotomayor, Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin called the president's nominee "a thoughtful, careful and intelligent judge" with "a perspective that the court sorely needs. ... Not only will Judge Sotomayor be the first Latina to serve on the court, and the third woman, but also the first with experience as a trial judge."

    With six of the Judiciary Committee's seven Republicans opposing Sotomayor's confirmation, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R- Utah) said he had found "too many controversies and too many unresolved conflicts" in Sotomayor's long record as a federal judge in New York. (An earlier version of this story incorrectly said "five" of the "six" Judiciary Committee's Republicans opposed Sotomayor's confirmation.)

    Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa also said that Sotomayor's testimony before the committee had left him "with more questions than answers. ... I am not sure that Judge Sotomayor is capable of wearing the judicial blindfold," he said. "Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that Judge Sotomayor will be able to set aside her personal preferences and prejudices."


    The Democratic-controlled committee voted overwhelmingly to forward Sotomayor's nomination to the full, Democratic-run Senate, which is expected to confirm her with the support of several Republicans on the Senate floor.

    The Senate is expected to set a debate and a final vote for next week.

    If confirmed, Sotomayor is unlikely to change the ideological balance of the high court, since she will replace moderately liberal Justice David H. Souter.

    Sen. Lindsey Graham, the sole Republican on the Judiciary Committee who supported the new president's first nominee to the high court today, had complained that her record was "left of center." Yet Graham also maintained that a president deserves deference on well-qualified candidates.

    "I didn't feel good about the election, but we lost," said Graham (R-S.C.), who supported Republican Sen. John McCain in the presidential election.

    "I feel good about Judge Sotomayor," Graham told the Judiciary Committee today. "What she will do as a judge I think will be based on what she thinks is right," he said, speaking of her record on the federal bench. "I haven't seen this activism that we should all dread and reject."

    He has noted, however, that then-Sen. Barack Obama and most of his Democratic colleagues had not followed that principle with President George W. Bush's two Supreme Court nominees. In 2006, when Republicans held a slim majority, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s nomination was passed out of the Judiciary Committee on a 10-8 vote.

    He was confirmed by the Senate on a 58-42 vote, with only four Democrats in favor. In 2005, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. won a 13-5 vote from the committee, with only three of eight Democrats supporting him. He was confirmed in the Senate by a 78-22 margin, with half the Democrats voting for him and half against. Obama voted against Roberts and Alito. Two veteran Republicans -- Grassley and Hatch -- said their votes against Sotomayor represented their first "no" votes for a Supreme Court nominee, and they pointed to changed standards in the Senate.

    "I think it's a whole new ballgame, a lot different than I approached it with" Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer," Grassley said in a recent interview. He was referring to President Clinton's two Supreme Court picks, who were confirmed by 96-3 and 87-9 margins, respectively. As expected, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the panel's ranking Republican, voted against Sotomayor.

    He was her sharpest questioner during her confirmation hearings. Despite Sotomayor's pledge to follow the law closely, Sessions said, he believed she would not "resist the siren call of judicial activism." The National Rifle Assn. and the anti-abortion group Americans United for Life have urged senators to vote "no" on Sotomayor. Grassley cited his concerns about Sotomayor's support for 2nd Amendment rights today.

    Prior to this decade, Supreme Court justices who won confirmation usually had the backing of most of the Senate. Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia and Anthony M. Kennedy all won confirmation by unanimous votes.

    Sotomayor would replace retired Justice David H. Souter, who was confirmed by a 90-9 vote in 1990. The one notable exception among the veteran members of the high court was Justice Clarence Thomas, who was confirmed by a 52-48 vote in 1991.
    Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

    Benjamin Franklin

  2.   
  3. #2
    Semper Fi

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934
    Quote Originally Posted by ricbak View Post
    +1 Exactly!
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  5. #4
    Knew it was coming but that does not make it any easier to swallow. Things in this country are going down hill fast.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  6. #5
    Actually it has not happened yet...

    We can still stop it...


    Senate Judiciary Votes "Yes" on Sonia Sotomayor
    -- Full Senate to vote on her nomination soon

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://www.gunowners.org

    Tuesday, July 28, 2009


    It was nearly a party-line vote. While every Democrat on the Senate
    Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor today,
    almost every Republican voted against her... all except for turncoat
    Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.


    Apparently, the flighty Republican did not care that Judge Sotomayor has
    demonstrated an extreme anti-gun bias in her private and public life.
    Not only that, she has expressed racist views in multiple speeches over
    the years, and she has proven -- in her actions and words -- that she is
    committed to IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION!

    The Sotomayor nomination now moves to the U.S. Senate floor, where gun
    owners definitely face an uphill battle.

    Press reports have indicated that Sotomayor is giving Senators private
    assurances that she will follow Supreme Court precedents on the Second
    Amendment. This is ridiculous, of course, but it doesn't help that a
    liberal front group claiming to support the Second Amendment -- the
    American Hunters and Shooters Association -- is supporting Sotomayor,
    giving cover to wavering Democrats.

    Politico.com reports that AHSA "will be highlighted as part of a
    rapid-fire response strategy Democrats plan to launch to respond to GOP
    attacks."

    The fact that AHSA endorsed Obama during the campaign should demonstrate
    that this group is nothing more than a Trojan horse. That's why we need
    Senators to know that gun owners consider a vote for Sotomayor to be one
    of the most ANTI-GUN votes they could ever cast and that front groups
    like AHSA don't speak for you!

    ACTION: Please contact your two Senators and urge them to vote NO on
    Judge Sotomayor. Tell them that the American Hunters and Shooters
    Association doesn't speak for you. Please use the Gun Owners
    Legislative Action Center at http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to
    send your legislators the pre-written e-mail message below.


    ----- Pre-written letter -----

    Dear Senator:

    The confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be a horrible choice for
    Americans -- not to mention the gun owners of this country. Throughout
    her career, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has shown that she opposes the right
    to keep and bear arms, denies there is a constitutional right to
    self-defense, and frequently ignores constitutional and statutory
    precedents.

    However, I understand that a front group called the American Hunters and
    Shooters Association is supporting Sotomayor, giving cover to wavering
    Senators.

    Please understand that AHSA is NOT a pro-gun organization. This
    organization shares many of the same goals as the Brady Campaign, and it
    is nothing more than a Trojan horse in the gun rights community.

    After all, this is a group that according to records from 2005 had fewer
    than 150 dues paying individual members. Its founding president, Ray
    Schoenke, donated money to the radical Handgun Control, Inc. -- a group
    that argued in favor of the DC gun ban (which was struck down by the
    Supreme Court last year). And another of its founding members, John
    Rosenthal, was also the founder of Stop Handgun Violence.

    I am a proud supporter of Gun Owners of America, and they do speak for
    me and the gun rights community when they say that Judge Sonia Sotomayor
    is bad for the Constitution... bad for the Second Amendment... and bad
    for America.

    Sincerely,
    Your Name If You Support The Second Amendment As It Was Written And Intended By Our Founding Fathers...

    YouTube - Senator Graham Votes to Confirm Judge Sotomayor in Committee July 28, 2009

    Send RINO Senator Lindsey Graham a separate reminder that his days are numbered... (implore him to redeem himself in the upcoming confirmation vote)

    Anything less then an unequivocal NO to the confirmation of Sotomayor will be considered a anti-constitution, anti-second amendment vote, that will end his career...

    http://lgraham.senate.gov/public/

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Creswell, Oregon
    Posts
    3,865
    And this surprises who? She was a slam dunk from the start. I hope everyone remembers this come election time. Keep re-electing the same people, don't expect changes.
    "You can get a lot accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit" - Ronald Reagan

  8. #7
    Senator Graham is a turncoat! I am ashamed to call him my senator. I don't understand how he can vote for the Reciprocity Amendment just 2 weeks ago and then vote to confirm Sotomayor. That is two-faced. He will not get my vote next year and I will make it my mission to ensure he does not get re-elected. He is horrible for our state and our nation... and my wife thinks he's a gay.
    SC CWP
    NH non-res CWP
    NRA Member

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Moore County, NC
    Posts
    343

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by GeneralSumter View Post
    Senator Graham is a turncoat! I am ashamed to call him my senator. I don't understand how he can vote for the Reciprocity Amendment just 2 weeks ago and then vote to confirm Sotomayor. That is two-faced.

    I have not investigated; what was his reasoning for his vote to confirm her?

    Reap the Vision...
    ...Mike

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by mbass View Post
    ... what was his reasoning for his vote to confirm her?
    I think the one word answer is... POLITICS! Graham said, "elections matter,” meaning Obama is President, it's his job to select SCOTUS Justices. Graham apparently feels it would be inappropriate for him to stand in the way of Obama’s agenda since he is the duly elected President?!

    I suppose, since “elections matter,” Graham intends to respect the will of the people who elected Obama by allowing the Obama agenda to be pushed right on through, no matter how detrimental those policies might be for America. Hello Cap and Trade, Obamacare and anything else Obama decides is best for our nation.

    Apparently Graham has forgotten he swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. That’s the problem with a great many politicians in Washington today—they don’t recognize the threats and attacks against the Constitution of the United States.

    Which is worse, an activist judge bent on rewriting the Constitution—or, the Senators sworn to defend that Constitution unable to recognize the threat?
    Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well! Psalm 144 (msg)
    ...follow me at twitter.com/matthewaynelson

  11. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Bohemian View Post
    ... Actually it has not happened yet... we can still stop it...
    I agree, until the fat lady sings, we still have a responsibility to fight hard against the Sotomayor confirmation! Write, call and email Senators and urge them to reject Sotomayor!

    I have written my Texas and Florida Senators no less than five times now regarding this matter. I even contacted Senator Graham via his website today. My email attached below...

    Senator Graham,

    I wanted to drop a note to express my disappointment in your decision to vote YES for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I would like to focus on one thing you said during the confirmation vote. You said, “… the speeches did bug the hell out of me. Not because of what she was saying, but because she was a judge when she was giving these speeches. She embraced some ideas that were really unnerving.”

    You went on to explain that you were sure some of the speeches you have made might have people on the opposition side uncomfortable at times as well.

    Sir, there is a major difference between you, an elected Senator, and a lifetime appointed Justice of the SCOTUS. If you give a bad speech, or begin to take positions that WE THE PEOPLE do not like, we can fire you at the next election. If a Justice rules poorly due to bias, WE THE PEOPLE are stuck with that Justice until they die or retire. And, sadly… the American people will be stuck with those bad judicial decisions far past the lifetime of a bad judge.

    Sotomayor’s belief that "the Court is the best place for making policy" is extremely alarming. This belief is at odds with our system of government. Policy is made by the legislative branch. The job of the judicial branch is to explain the laws of this country under the Constitution. The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to decide if laws are Constitutional (that they DO NOT go against the Constitution). There is NO policy making as a Supreme Court Justice. The fact that Judge Sotomayor believes it is her job to make policy not only disqualifies her for the highest court in the land, it should also disqualify her to be allowed to remain as a US Appellate Court Judge.

    In addition, there should be equal concern that Sotomayor believes her opinions would be better (or more valid) based on her race and gender. Personal experience, race or gender should not have any bearing on how a Justice deliberates matters. Decisions should be based solely on whether a matter is Constitutional or not. Her attitude is in complete odds with the oath she would take to become a Supreme Court Justice (to solemnly swear to administer justice without respect to persons and to equal right to poor and rich).

    Her words leave me discouraged and disappointed in this nomination that would appoint her to the highest court in the land.

    I'm asking that you and your colleagues do everything in your power to STOP the affirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Further, I ask that you and the rest of your colleagues be diligent in stopping any nomination that would allow any person to be confirmed who demonstrates an inability to uphold the oath they would take to become a Supreme Court Justice.

    Please make it clear to President Obama that you will not allow anything less than the very best to sit as a Supreme Court Justice. This is not a matter of playing politics. It’s about honoring the oath you took as a Senator, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. An activist judge ruling from bias is a real and present danger to the Constitution!

    Further, this is not a racial or sexist matter. I would be very happy to see a Latino female confirmed—but, that appointee needs to be a person who is committed to upholding the Constitution of the United States of America and a person who will administer justice without respect to persons or in any way influenced by their own personal experiences.

    There is also great concern for the gun owners of this country. Throughout her career, Sotomayor has shown that she opposes the right to keep and bear arms, denies there is a constitutional right to self-defense, and has frequently ignored constitutional and statutory precedents.

    Senator Sessions said Sotomayor's writings and speeches amount to "dramatic expressions of an activist view of judging," and added that a few of her rulings sidestepped key constitutional issues and ignored bedrock principles. He said he believed Sotomayor would be a vote for a "new kind of ideological judging."

    Senator Grassley said he's not sure Sotomayor understands the rights Americans have under the Constitution, or that she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences. He has grave concerns about Sotomayor.

    Many agree Sotomayor's stance on gun rights is a key reason for voting against her. She refused to weigh in during her confirmation hearings on whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to states as well as the federal government, a question on which the high court has yet to rule. Sotomayor was part of an appeals court panel that said this year that the amendment doesn't restrict state laws, citing previous Supreme Court precedent.

    The National Rifle Association has announced that it would "score" her confirmation vote, calling her "hostile" to the Second Amendment. That means the NRA will include the vote on Sotomayor in its annual candidate ratings, which heavily influence voters in key battleground states.

    Additionally, the anti-abortion rights group Americans United for Life has also weighed in against Sotomayor, writing to senators urging a "no" vote and announcing that it, too, would include her confirmation vote in its annual scorecard.

    The group said it was concerned Sotomayor would "undermine any efforts by our elected representatives to pass even the most widely accepted regulations on abortion and circumvent the will of the people."

    If "elections matter" as you have said, it is of utmost import that activist judges not be allowed to serve lifetime appointments where they can circumvent the will of the people.

    I do not live in your fine State and you do not represent me as a Senator. BUT, your decisions on the Judiciary Committee to approve Sotomayor did impact me as an American. Further, if you vote to affirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor when the full Senate looks at this matter, that too will impact me as an American.

    I strongly urge you to reconsider this matter. I strongly urge you to vote NO on affirming Judge Sonia Sotomayor when the full Senate weighs in on this matter.
    Blessed be my God, my mountain, who trains me to fight fair and well! Psalm 144 (msg)
    ...follow me at twitter.com/matthewaynelson

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast