• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Senate Confirms Sotomayor, 68-31

A

Anonymous

Guest
August 6, 2009, 3:16 pm
Senate Confirms Sotomayor, 68-31
By Kate Phillips
Updated It’s official — the Senate voted 68 to 31 to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Just before the vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the anticipated confirmation “truly is history for our nation.” He noted that less than six weeks after the landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, Judge Sotomayor was born in the Bronx. Her elevation to the Supreme Court, he said, would provide great inspiration for young Latinos and for women.

Once seated on the bench, she would be the third woman to reach the Supreme Court, after Sandra Day O’Connor (who retired in 2006) and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. “America’s grateful that O’Connor and Ginsburg didn’t give up,” Mr. Reid said.

Afterward the vote, which included just nine Republicans in favor of confirmation, President Obama emerged at the White House and said he was “very happy” that she received the approval of 68 senators.
--------
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
As an outsider looking in I somehow have the feeling that if Bush had tried to appoint her it would not have been as easy a ride.

There seems to be something fishy about this and I am not so sure this person will be a good addition to the top law board

Regards

BC
 

Mike

Well-known member
All agree that she is well qualified.

Ted Bundy was intellectual and qualified to be his own lawyer too. :roll:

We'll see if Soto legislates from the bench, as she has said she has in the past.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think I heard Kit Bond of Missouri explain it best today when he said he was voting for Judge Sotomayor-- saying that she was fully qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice - and he wasn't going to oppose her because his beliefs and hers weren't exactly the same...
That the voters put Obama and Dems in control because they did not like the previous direction- and wanted a new one-- and that he realizes that we still need to move forward with whats best for the country- and that he/we (Repubs) aren't in control anymore- or going to be able to get everything exactly as we want it....

But like you say Reader-- she was an appointee of both a Dem and a Repub President- and confirmed by both Repub and Dem controlled Congress's....
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
This is the best thing that could have happened. NRA members are outraged. Some were Dems who expressed regret.

They covered it up with minority rhetoric too. As one Hispanic Democrat pointed out they could have appointed a different minority who respected the bill of rights.

One bite at a time. Obama needs to just keep on digging and he needs all of you folks to keep on helping him.

Surely you can pull a few more folks to outrage.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating
 

Soapweed

Well-known member
I have been a member of both the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses). Both are fairly worthy organizations, with the best interests of gun lovers and small businesses as their main focuses. Most of the time they back Republican candidates. Back during the election of 2006, both of these outfits endorsed Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat running for re-election to the Senate. This ticked me off at the time, because I had a hunch ol' Ben would stick with the Democrats when the chips were down. He did, when it came to voting for the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. There isn't a gun-loving bone in her body, and this confirmation will come back to haunt us.

All of these "independents" sound so worldly and knowledgeable by saying, "don't vote for the party, vote for the person." It is all hooey. A citizen of the USA is much better off deciding if they are basically a conservative (Republican) or a liberal (Democrat). When push comes to shove, any of our illustrious elected officials will 99 percent of the time vote right down the party line when they get to Washington. Ben Nelson is a decent man, but he betrayed the NRA who endorsed him. If they had endorsed Pete Ricketts, who was the Republican candidate running against Ben Nelson, and if Ricketts had won the seat, I'd bet anything that Pete Ricketts would have voted against the confirmation of Sotomayor.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating

Well thats kind of what Kit Bonds said today-- you wouldn't expect a Democrat President to nominate a right wing SCOTUS nominee...Elections have repercussions , whether you like them or not-- and they were not the party that won...

But just because she didn't think politically exactly the way he did was no reason to vote against her- as in all other ways she was totally qualified...

I wonder now- as more and more of these repercussions start being seen- how many Repubs out there now wish they'd have jerked old GW up by the short hairs- and not just backslapped him- into not only bankrupting the country - but also running the Repub party into a state of wrack and ruin :???: :wink:

But nobody believed me 3-4 years ago when I told you what was going to happen- both with the economy- and the direction the nation would take in its running away from GW type politics.....

But unlike most of you- I'm not going to sit around and shiver in fear over this appointment- as I don't think she's going to be as bad as your tinfoil hat and Depends wearing fearspouters say she is....
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating

Now this was one of the craziest things you have ever said. Totally unsubstantiated and shows how out of touch and foolish you have become. Or were you always this way?

Feel free to attempt to prove anything that I said incorrect.

The floor is yours.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating

Now this was one of the craziest things you have ever said. Totally unsubstantiated and shows how out of touch and foolish you have become. Or were you always this way?

Feel free to attempt to prove anything that I said incorrect.

The floor is yours.

Sandhusker,

I hate to say you're wrong on this one, but you are. You should be celebrating. This is another one in the dubya column for the R's. Dem NRA members didn't jump the fence, they tore the sucker down.

Don't buy in to the racist rhetoric either. There are thousands of minorities out there who are conservatives. Some are sounding off big time.

Look at this thing globally.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
Sandhusker said:
reader (the Second) said:
Now this was one of the craziest things you have ever said. Totally unsubstantiated and shows how out of touch and foolish you have become. Or were you always this way?

Feel free to attempt to prove anything that I said incorrect.

The floor is yours.

Sandhusker,

I hate to say you're wrong on this one, but you are. You should be celebrating. This is another one in the dubya column for the R's. Dem NRA members didn't jump the fence, they tore the sucker down.

Don't buy in to the racist rhetoric either. There are thousands of minorities out there who are conservatives. Some are sounding off big time.

Look at this thing globally.

I'm not buying into any rhetoric, I'm looking at her rulings and her comments. She's a racist.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
The woman believes that the Second Amendment is a regional option and you think the NRA is misguided? I guess I can understand that coming from somebody that only recently was taught about it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
NRA lives by and profits from FEARMONGERING....The more they can fearmonger, the more they can profit...Same as Rush....

Anytime any bill is introduced that has anything to do with guns- even if it can't get more than 1 vote in Congress-- NRA is on the phonelines calling- and sending out mailings for money to fight "this evil bill that will take all our guns away"....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating

Well thats kind of what Kit Bonds said today-- you wouldn't expect a Democrat President to nominate a right wing SCOTUS nominee...Elections have repercussions , whether you like them or not-- and they were not the party that won...

But just because she didn't think politically exactly the way he did was no reason to vote against her- as in all other ways she was totally qualified...

I wonder now- as more and more of these repercussions start being seen- how many Repubs out there now wish they'd have jerked old GW up by the short hairs- and not just backslapped him- into not only bankrupting the country - but also running the Repub party into a state of wrack and ruin :???: :wink:

But nobody believed me 3-4 years ago when I told you what was going to happen- both with the economy- and the direction the nation would take in its running away from GW type politics.....
But unlike most of you- I'm not going to sit around and shiver in fear over this appointment- as I don't think she's going to be as bad as your tinfoil hat and Depends wearing fearspouters say she is....


No matter what there is always someone who will say or claim they knew it would happen and MISS CLEO (oldtimer) stakes his claim :wink: :wink:

Great job oldtimer, guess that is why you now have more
money than BUFFET or PICKENS or BILL GATES EH!!!!!!
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Sandhusker said:
The woman believes that the Second Amendment is a regional option and you think the NRA is misguided? I guess I can understand that coming from somebody that only recently was taught about it.

I know plenty of conservative NRA members and enjoy their company and their ideas.

This was misguided. You are twisting my words, taking them out of context. They took a wrong turn here with respect to this candidate.

I'm guessing they need money from the anti-Sotomayor elements and were afraid to remain neutral as they have with other nominees.

Twisting what words?
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Soapweed said:
I have been a member of both the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the NFIB (National Federation of Independent Businesses). Both are fairly worthy organizations, with the best interests of gun lovers and small businesses as their main focuses. Most of the time they back Republican candidates. Back during the election of 2006, both of these outfits endorsed Ben Nelson, Nebraska Democrat running for re-election to the Senate. This ticked me off at the time, because I had a hunch ol' Ben would stick with the Democrats when the chips were down. He did, when it came to voting for the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. There isn't a gun-loving bone in her body, and this confirmation will come back to haunt us.

All of these "independents" sound so worldly and knowledgeable by saying, "don't vote for the party, vote for the person." It is all hooey. A citizen of the USA is much better off deciding if they are basically a conservative (Republican) or a liberal (Democrat). When push comes to shove, any of our illustrious elected officials will 99 percent of the time vote right down the party line when they get to Washington. Ben Nelson is a decent man, but he betrayed the NRA who endorsed him. If they had endorsed Pete Ricketts, who was the Republican candidate running against Ben Nelson, and if Ricketts had won the seat, I'd bet anything that Pete Ricketts would have voted against the confirmation of Sotomayor.

Lesson learned? We can only hope. I've been reading similar stories from other groups and from the NRA supporters most of the day.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hopalong said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
"Fully qualified" means not a damn thing for a supreme court justice. Any of you libs care to post the qualifications?

We just got a racist left-wing nutjob on the bench, exactly what one would expect from a racist socialist nutjob "president". Toss back a few cold ones for me, I won't be celebrating

Well thats kind of what Kit Bonds said today-- you wouldn't expect a Democrat President to nominate a right wing SCOTUS nominee...Elections have repercussions , whether you like them or not-- and they were not the party that won...

But just because she didn't think politically exactly the way he did was no reason to vote against her- as in all other ways she was totally qualified...

I wonder now- as more and more of these repercussions start being seen- how many Repubs out there now wish they'd have jerked old GW up by the short hairs- and not just backslapped him- into not only bankrupting the country - but also running the Repub party into a state of wrack and ruin :???: :wink:

But nobody believed me 3-4 years ago when I told you what was going to happen- both with the economy- and the direction the nation would take in its running away from GW type politics.....
But unlike most of you- I'm not going to sit around and shiver in fear over this appointment- as I don't think she's going to be as bad as your tinfoil hat and Depends wearing fearspouters say she is....


No matter what there is always someone who will say or claim they knew it would happen and MISS CLEO (oldtimer) stakes his claim :wink: :wink:

Great job oldtimer, guess that is why you now have more
money than BUFFET or PICKENS or BILL GATES EH!!!!!!

hopalong/etal--I saw this bumpersticker in an e-mail tonight-- and thought it would be so fitting for you and your minivan....Didn't want you to miss it :wink:

Code:
I may be schizophrenic,
but at least I have each other.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sotomayor Confirmed for the Supreme Court 68-31

The Senate voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday by a vote of 68 to 31. All 59 Democrats and independents who voted said aye (Ted Kennedy, who is being treated for brain cancer, was not present). Nine Republicans voted yes. Here is the list of Republicans who voted yes:

Senator State
Lamar Alexander Tennessee
Kit Bond Missouri
Susan Collins Maine
Lindsey Graham South Carolina
Judd Gregg New Hampshire
Richard Lugar Indiana
Mel Martinez Florida
Olympia Snowe Maine
George Voinovich Ohio


What can we conclude from the list? First, the two moderate women from Maine voted yes. This was to be expected as they are pro-women's rights and rarely take their marching orders from the party's central command. The two conservative Republican women in the Senate, Kay Bailey Hutchison and Lisa Murkowski, both of whom are facing the voters next year--Murkowski for the Senate and Hutchison for governor--voted no.

Four Republican senators who are retiring from politics (Bond, Gregg, Martinez, and Voinovich) were free to vote in the country's interest rather than in the party interest and voted yes. This leaves three senators unaccounted for. Alexander is a mystery. It is not clear why he broke with the leadership although he is not up for reelection in 2010. Graham was formerly in the Judge Advocate General Corps and has a finer tuned feeling for the law than most senators. He might have felt that there was no good legal basis for opposing the President's pick.

Finally, there is Lugar, who is more of an old-fashioned small-town conservative than a Bush-Cheney-type conservative. He has something of a tendency to pay attention to the national interest, but usually in matters of foreign policy.

Some very interesting postulations on why each of the Repubs voted for the confirmation...

I thought Lugars was especially interesting....
Finally, there is Lugar, who is more of an old-fashioned small-town conservative than a Bush-Cheney-type conservative. He has something of a tendency to pay attention to the national interest, but usually in matters of foreign policy.

It fits what I've been saying for years-- that the current rightwingernuts and social extremists that the Repub party now caters to as their "base"- and the partisanship- and direction GW took the country neither fits the mold of the old conservative or the Republican party of old that I grew up with...
Tho I have to admit- I don't think I ever previously saw partisanship so bad coming from both parties- as I did during Bush's Administration...
 
Top