Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 4: Will Any GOP'er Vote For Sotomayor?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:28:22 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I won't be around to blog about this past 5 pm. But I think there is an interesting political discussion going on about whether any Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will vote for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation. I think Graham and Hatch probably will. Maybe Grassley too.

As a political matter, I would be thrilled as a Democrat if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor. Indeed, a party line vote in the entire Senate would be the best political result for Democrats.

As it is, having Jeff Sessions being the leading voice for the GOP on this nomination is an unmitigated political disaster for Republicans. Top it off with no GOP votes for Sotomayor in the Judiciary committee and no GOP votes for her in the Senate would be political manna from heaven for the Democratic Party. the Latino vote will be 75% Democratic for the foreseeable future.

So go ahead Republicans, make the Democrats' day - unanimously vote no on Sotomayor. More . . .

Lindsey Graham is talking gibberish about "judicial activism." If he mentions concern about the activist Roberts Court then I will care what he says.

The Almanac? What a clown. I am guessing he is doing this to cover for his yes vote on Sotomayor.

Gotta go now. One last thing - Lindsey Graham expresses the white male fear - they are losing control - "there will be more of them" than of us. That is the whole problem for the GOP.

Speaking for me only

< Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 3 | House May Probe CIA al-Qaida Hit Program >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 4: Will Any GOP'er Vote For Sotomayor? | 84 comments (84 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Graham being short, nasty (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:30:37 PM EST

I'm surprised. Cutting her off....He will not vote for her...

Nor should he (none / 0) (#4)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:31:07 PM EST

if they actually disagree about this stuff.


he said (none / 0) (#6)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:31:48 PM EST

he might


: Whatever. . . (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:32:30 PM EST

Graham doesn't appear to like (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:35:08 PM EST

women much, contrary to his statement that he likes Sotomayor.

Really cannot stand his "gotcha" style, or the passive-aggressive way he approaches a lot of these things.

Really not a fan - pretty much makes my teeth ache.

did you forget the snark tag? (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by dws3665 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:55:30 PM EST

or the "rimshot"?

"Graham doesn't appear to like women much."

This has been rumored throughout SC for many, many years. /s

Not that this has to do with anything other than his hypocritical politics, but your phraseology made me laugh out loud.


Oh, gosh - I didn't even think about (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:32:24 PM EST

how that was going to sound - I for sure did not mean it to sound like I was opining about which team he might play for, lol.

I guess it was just something about how he said, "I like you," and then went on to ask snide questions about her temperment, and try to explain women to her.


lol!~ (none / 0) (#39)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:05:24 PM EST

he perchance wouldn't have any designs on running for higher office, now would he?


yes (none / 0) (#58)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:40:54 PM EST

it has long been posited that Huck in more interested in Tom than Becky


: I did not see it. (none / 0) (#67)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:01:32 PM EST

I thought that's just what southern senators looked like (see:John Edwards)

Lol (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:38:31 PM EST

So much for redefining the GOP:

In a major political-strategy statement, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky - one of the country's highest-ranking Republicans - will warn his party leadership later this afternoon that the GOP is rapidly turning into a regional party that can't compete with Democrats at the national level. He adds that the party needs to explain itself more effectively to ordinary voters, particularly on kitchen-table concerns, and become more tolerant of disparate viewpoints.
"We're all concerned about the fact that the very wealthy and the very poor, the most and least educated, and a majority of minority voters, seem to have more or less stopped paying attention to us," McConnell will say, according to excerpts. "And we should be concerned that, as a result of all this, the Republican Party seems to be slipping into a position of being more of a regional party than a national one."
"In politics, there's a name for a regional party: it's called a minority party," he says. "And I didn't sign up to be a member of a regional party. I know no one in this room did either. As Republicans, we know that commonsense conservative principles aren't regional. But I think we have to admit that our sales job has been. And in my view, that needs to change."

WSJ

Looks like they are doomed to stay regional.. If only they listened to McConnel and let Sotomayer fly through the nomination...

Mitchs moment of clarity (none / 0) (#35)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:02:47 PM EST

oddly pretty much everything else he says and does tends to reinforce the regionality.


This is (none / 0) (#42)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:08:30 PM EST

pretty old, right? ["Are you old?"]


: What are you, the purity police or (none / 0) (#47)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:18:51 PM EST

somethin'?

: Not Old (none / 0) (#48)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:19:20 PM EST

From, January 29, 2009 relatively new. I am relatively old.

omg (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:38:41 PM EST

like he sees the world as it "really is"

And now he is trying to school her?! (5.00 / 2) (#21)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:40:21 PM EST

O.M.F.G.


: just a little friendly advice (5.00 / 4) (#26)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:47:23 PM EST

patronizing putz

Lindsey Graham fancies himself (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by Anne on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:40:03 PM EST

quite an expert on what makes women tick, but he'd be better off figuring out what ticks women off.

: the idea (none / 0) (#25)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:46:32 PM EST

that Huck "knows what makes women tick" is right out of Twain.
it makes me laugh out loud.

Re this point: (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:48:07 PM EST

Lindsey Graham expresses the white male fear - they are losing control - "there will be more of them" than of us. That is the whole problem for the GOP.

Exactly right.

: it is (5.00 / 4) (#30)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:52:41 PM EST

ironically both their biggest problem and the only thing they have going for them.
talk about a rock and a hard place.

Perhaps the GOP (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by Buckeye on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:52:19 PM EST

and the Democratic party should treat the confirmation hearings as confirmation hearings. That way, they can determine whether or not she is fit for the Supreme Court and vote accordingly not worrying about whether voting blocks will recoil or be attracted to your party. Silly thought...I know.

you are (5.00 / 0) (#31)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:54:26 PM EST

like, a newly naturalized citizen or something, right?

no one else could possibly be so naive.

/snark


Compare the number of (none / 0) (#62)
by Cards In 4 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:54:44 PM EST

Repub votes for Ginsburg and Breyer to the number of Dems that voted for Roberts and Alito. Not to mention Bork, Douglas Ginsburg and Thomas.

These hearings are always a show with the party of the president doing what they can to make the nominee look good and the opposite party dong what they can to make them look bad. Put a R behind Obama's name and all senators would be reading from different scripts.

It seems there is a difference in how the two parties have approached SC nominations at least when it comes down to voting which makes this post seem peculiar. Unlike Obama, none of the Republicans want to filibuster the nomination and I would peg her total votes to be >85.


: Ah yes (5.00 / 0) (#84)
by Steve M on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:54:44 PM EST

The number of Dems who voted for Douglas Ginsburg is a real disgrace!

: Did I miss (none / 0) (#82)
by Democratic Cat on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:13:18 PM EST

where Obama, while a Senator, filibustered a Republican SC nominee? Gee, I would have thought that would have been made the papers.
Put an R behind Obama's name, and the nominee would be someone other than Sotomayor, to which Dems would likely have legitimate objections. Where Republicans have objections to Sotomayor, they should voice those. It's their job. (It would be helpful to their cause, however, if they didn't behave like ham-handed boobs while doing so.)
Dems and Repubs can vote for or against a nominee based on ideology, Judicial philosophy, whatever they want. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. They should do their jobs to advise and consent--or not consent, as they see fit--to serve the people that elected them and the country.

My apologies, my sarcasm font is not operational. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
by Buckeye on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:57:00 PM EST

: That is SUCH a good idea. (none / 0) (#60)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:53:07 PM EST

That Graham (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by shoulin4 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:02:09 PM EST

is some piece of work, huh? I haven't foamed at the mouth this much in so long, I forgot how much of a junkie I was.

when (5.00 / 1) (#37)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:03:59 PM EST

does Al get a turn?

We've got (none / 0) (#41)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:07:59 PM EST

Durbin to finish, the Cornyn, then Whitehouse, then Coburn, then Klobuchar, then Kaufman, then Specter, THEN Franken


: so (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:14:41 PM EST

tomorrow?

I cant even imagine how (3.66 / 3) (#46)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:18:06 PM EST

exhausting this must be for her. when I interviewed for this company I flew in the night before and had back to back interviews with different people for a solid 8 hours.

it was absolutely the most exhausting thing I had ever done.
something about having to be "on" non stop for that long.

she has my respect for not falling right out of the chair.

She's doing an amazing job for . . . (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:23:07 PM EST

someone who perhaps has a "temperament problem" ;)


: seriously n/t (none / 0) (#51)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:27:03 PM EST

heh (none / 0) (#56)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:25:39 PM EST

ratings are funny things.
1, why?


: I thought the same thing... (none / 0) (#69)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:08:05 PM EST

but, if you choose a radial button, and then try to move through the comments using your arrow keys, you'll change the rating you just gave and you might not notice. (I learned that by making the mistake a few times.)
I'm assuming it was a mistake because your comment was the kind that generally earns itself a few high ratings.

I interviewed to be a college professor (none / 0) (#63)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:55:04 PM EST

2 straight days....including breakfasts and dinners.

Exhausting.


I'm sure it is exhausting ... (none / 0) (#75)
by Robot Porter on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:30:21 PM EST

but given that she already has the job, and that this will be the last "job interview" she'll ever go through, probably helps a lot.

Things which I bet didn't exist in your interview.


oh boy (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:30:29 PM EST

Huckleberry Graham

Abortion (none / 0) (#5)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:31:37 PM EST

C'mon Judge - point out that many things that are constitutional are not written in the Constitution!


WTF (none / 0) (#14)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:35:29 PM EST

do you think you have a temperament problem?


I've been accused of that (none / 0) (#22)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:40:43 PM EST

Actually, my (non-white?) Italian temperament would a)make me get up and punch him in the nose, and /or b)call my Uncle Tony to take care of him for me.


Well, he sure know's how to get my (none / 0) (#24)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:46:16 PM EST

Italian/Scot and Russian up! Guess I have a "temperament problem" also.


heh (5.00 / 0) (#27)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:47:40 PM EST

I got yer temperament problem right here Huckleberry.


If you'e gonna quote Bronx, (none / 0) (#54)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:16:39 PM EST

Say it right

I got yer temperament problem.... right here!!!!

SchmuckFace.


I think we need a new Bronx cheer . . . (none / 0) (#55)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:24:13 PM EST

"Who's yer Momma?"

But I think I'll use yours for my next t-shirt. I just won't walk the Dot while wearing it, lol!~


Being from the Bronx (none / 0) (#71)
by NYShooter on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:10:42 PM EST

gives you automatic exemption from any and all forms of norms; kinda like a Yiddish 007.

And, if you're over 50, you get an extra bonus: You can stop anyone on the street, anyone at all, and administer a street beating for any reason at all, or no reason; just for the fun of it. And they can't touch you. Just flash your license, flip'm the bird, and keep on strollin.

I'm not kidding; you can look it up.


: I must say (none / 0) (#76)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:38:21 PM EST

I do like the boroughs here for their straight forward attitude. One of my dear friends (also from CA) and I sometimes just bust a gut with the realness. It just suits us ;)
I've been here 20yrs, she a couple yrs less. We're going to have a bit of a culture shock when we move back west, I suspect, lol!~

Graham is being honest again (none / 0) (#3)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:30:45 PM EST

: Now he's quoting that stupid almanac (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:31:58 PM EST

Demeanor question from Graham (none / 0) (#9)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:33:40 PM EST

quoting nasty, anonymous comments....

"You stand out like a sore thumb [with regard] to your temperament."

It's important (5.00 / 6) (#10)
by jbindc on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:34:45 PM EST

That we have all likeable judges on the SC with sunny dispositions - in the manner of Scalia and Thomas.


: heh (none / 0) (#12)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:35:07 PM EST

He learned that from Katie Couric (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:10:51 PM EST

"many people say you are a ...., how does that make you feel"


I would love to reply (none / 0) (#74)
by BackFromOhio on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:27:53 PM EST

I'm only difficult in the eyes of misogynists who don't like any woman in a position of authority


: I'm sure she had many replies (none / 0) (#77)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:42:54 PM EST

on the tip of her tongue. As have many of the other women who have had to go through similar processes. Sometimes a head duck and smile convey just the right message ;)
Lordy, could you imagine if these were a more speak freely/free for all? Talk about popcorn!!

I am really getting angry at Graham. (none / 0) (#11)
by Tony on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:35:03 PM EST

Ugh. This ticks me off.


: try (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:36:57 PM EST

imagining him in a straw hat.
works for me every time.

Graham wants to talk about wise "latino" (none / 0) (#15)
by MKS on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:36:38 PM EST

comment. dumb*ss


: He tried to make her repeat it for (none / 0) (#23)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:40:50 PM EST

the cameras - but she didn't give him his sound bite.

Ha! (none / 0) (#20)
by Rashomon66 on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 03:40:16 PM EST

Graham seems to think that being a tough judge with a reputation is a bad thing.

CNN's panel is giving Graham gushing (none / 0) (#36)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:03:04 PM EST

reviews.

These folks must really love passive aggression!

John King loves John King (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by byteb on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:06:37 PM EST

to quote Gomer (none / 0) (#38)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:04:30 PM EST

surprise surprise surprise


He was "good" but still really annoying (none / 0) (#44)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:12:00 PM EST

Part of it was on form, but part of this (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:22:11 PM EST

rave review was on content. Some lady who I've never seen before thought his exchange on the "wise Latina" subject was just wonnndeerrrfulll(!) because he said people needed a second chance. Personally, I thought it was a trap in which he failed to ensare Sotomayor as he had intended; and I think this "second chance" he is so "graciously" offering her is way overblown. He was acting like she had done something really aggregious; and while her comment revealed some level of egotism - as pretty much all driven and accomplished people tend to have - I do not think it rose to the level of requiring a "second chance".


I found his 2nd chance remarks offensive (5.00 / 3) (#52)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:32:38 PM EST

along with a lot of what he said.


: Patronizing would be the word (5.00 / 2) (#53)
by inclusiveheart on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 04:41:28 PM EST

that I would use.
Its like when a cop gives someone a big lecture for j-walking or something. Actually, it is a lot like this cop in Alabama who stopped me because he'd never seen DC tags. He lectured me about how registration is shown on a DC vehicle like a) I had any say in it; and b) like I was going to think it was acceptable for him to be stopping me just because he's not well versed in how cars are identified in states other than his own - in a university town no less. I have to give it to her for not rolling her eyes - I don't think I could have pulled that off.

: me too because (5.00 / 2) (#61)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:53:53 PM EST

they were predicated on the assumption that what Sotomayer said was akin to a white man saying the same thing about other white men.
Maybe he doesn't see color, like Stephen Colbert.

Graham- (none / 0) (#59)
by Carolyn in Baltimore on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:51:12 PM EST

and here I thought Bruno was going to be the months worst gay stereotype. Lindsay is a nasty piece of work. He says he likes you and then the claws come out.....

AP characterizes Judge Sotomayor (none / 0) (#64)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:55:42 PM EST

as aggressive in today's hrgs. link

I don't read it that way (5.00 / 0) (#65)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 05:59:12 PM EST

"pushing back" is different than "being defensive" or aggressive.


"Pushing back hard": not very (none / 0) (#78)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:44:04 PM EST

feminine.


lol! (none / 0) (#80)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:03:31 PM EST

no but it does imply that she has a backbone of steel.


She needs it listening to (none / 0) (#81)
by oculus on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:06:01 PM EST

some of the questions/statements.


: true, dat. (none / 0) (#83)
by coigue on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 07:41:03 PM EST

The military commissions question by Lindsay made the hairs on the back of my neck stand on end.

They didn't watch what I did (none / 0) (#66)
by andgarden on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:00:01 PM EST

huh? (none / 0) (#68)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:02:15 PM EST

Vigorous and aggressive are quite different characteristics, imo. But clearly the AP report seems to be right oriented.

Seems that you putting a spin on the AP report, not sure why?


The writer must have meant (none / 0) (#70)
by Inspector Gadget on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:10:03 PM EST

assertive....many people don't realize the difference between those words.

I found her to be assertive. Defended herself without getting defensive.


: So very true (none / 0) (#73)
by nycstray on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:27:50 PM EST

but with one adjustment, they realize the dif when it's a white male.

: Writer (none / 0) (#79)
by squeaky on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:46:52 PM EST

Never said aggressive, that was oculus', um, synonym for vigorous.

I Would Guess (none / 0) (#72)
by bob h on Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 06:11:40 PM EST

Hatch, Grassley, and Miss Lindsey. Beauregard has probably cost the GOP a couple of more points among Latinos all by himself. But then he has his constituency- Southern white bigots.