Sotomayor

Well, Bam's made his nomination and we all "No" how the GOP will vote. Honestly I'm beginning to think this is a train and that there is not much way to avoid this train wreck. Of course I'm talking about the minority trying to "shut the Senate down in every way" if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's judicial nominees.

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Republican leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

What say you, ladies and gentlemen?

Sounds like you object to the opposition opposing.
Didn't hear much of this complaint as Robert Bork and Justice Thomas were being ripped apart.
What asset is there for the GOP to vote "yea" on?

I am beginning to think it is a train and that there is not much way to avoid a train wreck. The train wreck I am talking about is a threat by the minority to 'shut the Senate down in every way' if the majority adopts rules that will do what the Senate has done for 200 years, which is to vote up or down the President's appellate judicial nominees.

We must put an end to this mockery of our system before it becomes impossible to undo the damage. I am sure a lot of Americans believe this is politics as usual. It is not. Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges. We have a constitutional obligation of advise and consent when it comes to judicial nominees. While there has always been debate about nominees, the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block an up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of a majority of the Senate.

History has proven the wisdom of having the President place judges with the support of the majority of the Senate. That process ensures balance on the court between judges placed by Republican Presidents and those placed by Democrat Presidents. The current obstruction led by Senate Democratic leaders threatens that balance. It's time to make sure all judges receive a fair vote on the Senate floor.

I doubt you have a serious concern. The republican party has no one who is courageous enough to subject him or herself to the media attacks and barrage of personal attacks that would certainly follow any serious criticism of Sotomayor. Besides, Harry Reid has issued his warning to anyone who dare vote against or speak ill of Cinderella.
A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men. But those will quickly be silenced.
This woman has been selected based on bigotry. The short list consisted of 5 women. No men were even considered. The fact that 80% of her decisions have been reversed by the supreme court is disregarded.
She is chosen due to her ethnicity and her interesting "life experiences". Nothing to do with her qualifications.
Qualifications matter in this job. "Interpretation of law".
Sympathy nor empathy have any place in the function.
The justice statue has a blindfold for a reason.

Valedictorian of her high school. Went to Princeton on a full scholarship. Then Yale law school on scholarship. Assistant district attorney from 1976 to 1984. In 1984- entered the private practice as a civil litigation lawyer. 1991- nominated by the first George Bush to be a judge on a US District Court. 1997- nominated by Clinton to a Court of Appeals.

So that's 15 years as a lawyer and 18 years as a judge. 33 years in the legal system total, in a number of different roles.

By contrast, Thomas had 17 years experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court and just 2 as a judge. Alito had 30 years of experiance when he was nominated and 16 as a judge. Anthony Kennedy had 27 years of experience

Sotomeyor has more experience than any of them. She's perfectly qualified.

"This woman has been selected based on bigotry."

She's been chosen in part because she's a woman and hispanic. But (unlike Thomas), she was also chosen because she's qualified and has a pretty moderate record.

"A few comments will be made concerning her bigotry toward white men."

You've been watching too much Fox News or listening to too much Limbaugh. They don't give the news. They spin it. Get your head out of your ass.

Bush Jr. Nominated the first Hispanic so this bull**** that she is important because of that is just garbage coming from the Dems.

She's already proven to be both a sexist, racist and have apparently little care for the actual role of a judge (hint, its not to make policy). While her credentials are great, her actions prove her to be unfit. Out side of settle the baseball strike in 95 she has made no name for herself, and many of her peers are already questioning her abilities and behavior behind the bench.

But Obama has the government in his hand, and has already eluded to the press that it would not be a good idea to try and disrupt or dispute he confirmation.

Its as partisan of a choice as has ever been made, it is not one based on merit or outstanding work.

I actually wouldn't have a problem with Obama chosing someone partisan. After all, the Republicans choose someone partisan whenever they can; Alito, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas. Every Republican president faces pressure from the religious right to choose someone way out of the mainstream. Democratic presidents don't face similar pressure from liberals when it comes to the supreme court. And that's why both Clinton and Obama choose moderates. It's in the political interests of Democrats to nominate left of center moderates, and the political interests of Republicans to nominate far right wingers.

Actually, in some cases it IS the responsibility of a judge to make policy. Roe v. Wade? Excellent example. Whenever you have two disputing parties at that level, you're gonna wind up setting policy one way or another.

The sexist and racist schpeel is nonstop banter from the Right. Remember... Jones was "one of theirs" (their own words) before denounced as an activist who received death threats all because of one little bit of "policy" setting in Dover.

Don't believe the hype.

Because Roe vs Wade was decided by a court and became law, does not make it the "correct" manner to have handled it.
Law, concerning the destruction of living beings should have been put up for referendum.
The court should have decided only on that case and then had the policy set by the people via vote.
But, they knew where that would have led.
Cowards on the right, fearing the press, knees shaking have cost a lot of lives. Makes one hope for the existence of hell.

Actually, in some cases it IS the responsibility of a judge to make policy. Roe v. Wade? Excellent example. Whenever you have two disputing parties at that level, you're gonna wind up setting policy one way or another.

The sexist and racist schpeel is nonstop banter from the Right. Remember... Jones was "one of theirs" (their own words) before denounced as an activist who received death threats all because of one little bit of "policy" setting in Dover.

Don't believe the hype.

Doesn't sound that "partisan" to me. The Republicans would be spinning almost anyone Obama had chosen as "the most partisan of a choice as has ever been made".

"See you're not providing any reason why she is good choice. all you're doing is trying to down play why she sucks."

She's more qualified than most of the judges on the Supreme Court were when they were nominated. She has a moderate record. She has experience in many different areas of the legal system. She was an overachieving, top level, ivy league grad. What more do you want?