Except only one Republican voted for the endorsement.
That is quite frankly embarassing. Sotomayor is a moderate judge with a whole lot of judicial experience. It speaks volumes about the GOP’s general arrogance and stubbornness that all but one Republican on the committee chose not to endorse her.
Republican critics of the judge expressed displeasure with her rulings as a member of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, as well as with some of her public comments. The rulings and comments show that she is a judge is too “activist” and liberal and has too little commitment to the rights of gun owners, the critics complained.
Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s leading Republican, said just before the vote that he was compelled to oppose the nomination because of the judge’s “liberal, pro-government ideology.”
In an Op-Ed article in USA Today on Monday, Mr. Sessions wrote: “I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism. She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent.”
Sotomayor is anything but an “activist” judge. I’m skeptical of that term generally, but I would think that an “activist” judge is one who often fails to defer to precedent; Sotomayor is precisely the opposite.
These senators voted against her endorsement because they don’t like her views. They could at least be honest about that.
Is anyone fooled by their posturing? (This is not a hypothetical question. Are there people who agree with them?)
You know, despite how irritating and condescending he was, I somehow KNEW that Lindsay Graham would vote for her. Did anyone else get that feeling?
What in the fuck does “pro-government” mean? Coming from a damn agent of the government? Seriously?
Honestly. That’s the worst bit of politicized propaganda language I’ve heard in a while. What the hell is “anti-government”? Anarchy?
speaking of gun control, here’s a look at what the media have been talking about concerning the Senator’s recent proposal. A lot of people think it violates their rights, but many others are pleased. http://www.newsy.com/videos/concealed_weapons_debate_heats_up
If Senator Sessions complains that Justice Sotomayor is “pro-government”, it stands to reason that he is not pro-goverment. This raises the question of why, if he is not pro-government, he is working for the government.
It’s ridiculous. Sotomayor is an able judge with experience under her belt. If they didn’t agree with her views, they should have stated that clearly, and it would have been understandable, and more agreeable than BS like [Sotomayor's]decisions were “unacceptably short.”
can Obama and anyone else who aims for “bipartisanship” just drop that whole thing now, please. How many more examples do we need that the vast majority of republicans have NO GOOD FAITH INTEREST IN GOVERNING (or in government) IF THEY CAN’T HAVE IT ALL THEIR WAY ENTIRELY. these clowns would vote against anything if a democrat was involved.
[...] Senate panel endorses Sotomayor - Feministe [...]
[...] Senate panel endorses Sotomayor - Feministe [...]