No Sotomayor Threads? Guess I'll start.

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,778
Likes
62,409
#1
Here we go - confirmation time. A few opening observations:

1. If she's qualified professionally, I don't think she should be blocked. It's okay to vote against her but she should get to the floor. I think it's the perogative of the POTUS provided the candidate is qualified professionally.

2. Some of her comments bug me - especially the one about Hispanic women judges making "better" rulings than white males. No room for racial statements in this job.

3. It will be interesting to see how BO reacts to any that oppose her. His opposition of Roberts and Alito (especially Roberts) puts him in a tough place to be overly critical of someone that opposes her.
 
#2
#2
volinbham said:
Here we go - confirmation time. A few opening observations:

1. If she's qualified professionally, I don't think she should be blocked. It's okay to vote against her but she should get to the floor. I think it's the perogative of the POTUS provided the candidate is qualified professionally.

2. Some of her comments bug me - especially the one about Hispanic women judges making "better" rulings than white males. No room for racial statements in this job.

3. It will be interesting to see how BO reacts to any that oppose her. His opposition of Roberts and Alito (especially Roberts) puts him in a tough place to be overly critical of someone that opposes her.
Click to expand...
I know it's utter laziness for me to ask the question, but when did she say the bolded portion and what was the context?
 
#3
#3
BigPapaVol said:
I know it's utter laziness for me to ask the question, but when did she say the bolded portion and what was the context?
Click to expand...

I've just seen the soundbyte so I can't tell. I can't imagine a context where I'd not have a problem with a statement like this though. I can't imagine a white male making a similar statement in any context without being crucified for it.
 
#4
#4
I don't know enough about her to have a point of view. I am aware of one decision in the area in which I practice that has me a little concerned about her, but I haven't studied her or the opinion in that case. Am just aware that it exists.

Driving in Ingraham sounded like she was having a seizure over it. Even if the lady is not confirmed, that was worth it right there.
 
#5
#5
volinbham said:
I've just seen the soundbyte so I can't tell. I can't imagine a context where I'd not have a problem with a statement like this though. I can't imagine a white male making a similar statement in any context without being crucified for it.
Click to expand...
I'm just asking if it was jokingly said or in some dispute about immigration and border closing.
 
#7
#7
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
 
#9
#9
lawgator1 said:
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
Click to expand...
her experience precludes the "qualified" comment.
 
#10
#10
lawgator1 said:
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
Click to expand...

Best course of action for Republicans - point out where she indicates she decides based on something other than complete impartiality. Use her record and let the chips fall where they may. I have no doubt she'll be confirmed (and should be) unless there's something they missed during vetting and/or she does/says something dumb during the confirmation hearings.
 
#11
#11
lawgator1 said:
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
Click to expand...

I wager that instead Dems will accuse any R criticism of being racist in nature, of favoring rich over poor, etc.
 
#12
#12
volinbham said:
Best course of action for Republicans - point out where she indicates she decides based on something other than complete impartiality. Use her record and let the chips fall where they may. I have no doubt she'll be confirmed (and should be) unless there's something they missed during vetting and/or she does/says something dumb during the confirmation hearings.
Click to expand...
and that's where this should go. She's replacing another liberal, so the damage she can do is extremely limited.

Show her inherent racism and bigotry to be what it is, highlight her proclivity for judicial activism and move on.
 
#13
#13
BigPapaVol said:
given that article, she's exactly the POS I would have expected from our Head POS.
Click to expand...

the little bit I've read this morning shows that is spot-on. From her 'courts are where policy is made' to the Ricci v. DeStefano case it seems she feels the bench is a good place to right some wrongs
 
#14
#14
utvolpj said:
the little bit I've read this morning shows that is spot-on. From her 'courts are where policy is made' to the Ricci v. DeStefano case it seems she feels the bench is a good place to right some wrongs
Click to expand...


This one is bothersome to be sure.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
Click to expand...

the current argument from the left seems to be that bush appointed her. apparently bush is only an idiot when it serves their agenda.
 
#16
#16
droski said:
the current argument from the left seems to be that bush appointed her. apparently bush isonly an idiot when it serves their purpose.
Click to expand...
however, if they need some backing on the Bush is a full time idiot front, I've got their back.
 
#20
#20
lawgator1 said:
Republicans were ready for this. Best course of action for the Dems, if you ask me, is to let RL, Hannity, and the rest of them just talk themselves out about her for the next two weeks. Don't even respond. Just reiterate her experience and she's qualified and good integrity and it will fade.
Click to expand...

Roberts and Alito both have good integrity and highly qualified. That's never stopped the left from frothing at the mouth every time their names are mentioned. A big difference here is that neither Roberts nor Alito are judicial activists.
 
#21
#21
droski said:
the current argument from the left seems to be that bush appointed her. apparently bush is only an idiot when it serves their agenda.
Click to expand...


I think that's an argument just to show that in the past she was viewed as a-political. Suugests that Republican hurdles to her now would be purely so.
 
#22
#22
MG1968 said:
Roberts and Alito both have good integrity and highly qualified. That's never stopped the left from frothing at the mouth every time their names are mentioned. A big difference here is that neither Roberts nor Alito are judicial activists.
Click to expand...


I really don't remember them getting a ton of opposition. Roberts in particular went rather quickly.
 
#23
#23
the R didn't have the nuts to do anything while they were the majority.. why would they do anything now?
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
I think that's an argument just to show that in the past she was viewed as a-political. Suugests that Republican hurdles to her now would be purely so.
Click to expand...

It was Bush 41. There was a Dem Congress and the appointment was not an appellate appointment. It's absurd to use that appointment to suggest she is or was viewed as apolitical.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top