The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Republican Senators Are Pitiful

Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Republican Senators Are Pitiful

By Quin Hillyer on 7.14.09 @ 5:02PM

Sen. Jeff Sessions really had Judge Sotomayor “rocked back on her heels,” according to a Fox News analyst (I think it was Chris Wallace). His performance was magnificent. But while she has been VERY unimpressive throughout, the other GOP senators have utterly failed to make their points or issue their questions in concise, memorable, understandable ways. I missed Orrin Hatch, but heard that his performance was only so-so. Sen. Grassley, bless his heart, did not adequately explain her awful property rights decision in Didden v. Port Chester and let her get away with the dodge that it was just a statute of limitations claim. Sen. Kyl started okay but then took WAY WAY WAY too long to get to his point, and lost his advantage. Lindsey Graham sort of rambled, perhaps setting himself up like a good lawyer for a later strong case, but so far he hasn’t closed the deal on any of the issues he raised.

And nobody has yet brought up (unless I missed it) the sleeper case of all sleepers, the one where she ruled that currently incarcerated murderers and rapists might have a constitutional right to vote.

In short, I think only Sessions has fully done his homework. Kyl might have, too, but he didn’t practice enough at getting his questions and statements concise. And Graham — well, you never know what he’s gonna do. He’s plenty smart, but he’s so darn squirrelly.

All in all, a disappointment, even though I think she has not helped her own case one bit today, and probably has hurt it, mostly based on Sessions’ bravura performance.

Siegfried X| 7.14.09 @ 5:20PM

Yes, the fix is in. Orrin Hatch was quoted today saying how much he misses Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden at the hearings, as everyone reminisced about "Borking". The Post also said Hatch is likely to vote for Soto.

Really the only real question is whether 50% of the Republicans will vote for Soto or not. My prediction was always 75 to 85 votes for her.

Grzmlyk| 7.14.09 @ 8:02PM

And the king of fecklessness, Lindsey Graham, started off (I believe) by telling her he "likes" her and that he may vote for her. Then of course he made his comment that the hearings were essentially a pro forma exercise barring a "meltdown" on her part.

With friends like these, we don't need enemies. Why is it that Republicans show up with bouquets, eager to lie prostrate before Democrats' Supreme Court nominees while Dems show up with pitchforks, torches and a length of rope for Republicans' nominees?

And this is NOT just a symbolic fight - she will make Ginsberg look like a John Bircher, for chrissakes. We may lose, but do we have to bend over?

What the hell is wrong with these people? When are they going to figure out that you don't bring a water pistol to a gunfight?

Solo| 7.14.09 @ 9:19PM

If you're wondering why it is that republicans are constantly fighting these bouts by the Marquis Of Queensbury Rules while the dems are fighting with brass knuckles and a straight razor, then all you have to do is consider who it is that referees the bout: The media! And both sides know it!

The republicans could (and rightly so) go completely hysterical over this nomination but it won't do them one ioda of good. They don't have the votes to stop it. All that would happen is that the media would spin it as the republicans being "radicals" in mindless opposition to an "exceptional" nominee.

When the democrats go hysterical, the media spins it as a perfectly reasonable reaction to the republicans trying to plant a "radical" on the bench.

We all know how the game is rigged. We've been watching it all our lives!

The day is coming when the media will lose its advantage in this matter. In the meantime...it makes no sense to replace these "spineless" republicans with just more democrats, now does it?

After all....many here would celebrate the defeat of the republicans in the last two elections and either sat home or voted for some anachronistic crack pot in frustration.

How's that working out for ya' so far?

Siegfried X| 7.14.09 @ 9:39PM

They don't have the votes to stop it.

Many Republicans won't even vote against it. As someone else said here today, given the number of RINOs in the Senate we'd need 70 Republicans to block a nomination or do anything conservative.

voted for some anachronistic crack pot

I vote third party if the Republican is someone who votes like a Democrat, like a Republican senator who would vote to confirm Sotomayor. It is consistency: I vote against any politician who votes like a Democrat, regardless of whether (D) or (R) is in his title.

Bobbie Gegax | 7.14.09 @ 10:41PM

If the Republicans don't change the way they are handling all the situations coming up for vote this may be the time a third party will be successful-I am so disappointed that only a few Republicans are speaking out against the issues facing us-

Crusader| 7.15.09 @ 11:23AM

Speaking out is one thing, voting against her is another. None of them have the balls to do it.

Buchanan had a good article. If repubs would focus on shoring up 10-15% more of the White vote and forget about the minority perpetual victims they would be in power in perpetuity. For some reason repubs have a problem with their party being the party of White people, but Dems relish the fact that theirs is the party of blacks, hispanics, gays, freaks, thugs, and criminals.

Oldefarte| 7.15.09 @ 11:42AM

Providing votes to criminals is a typical liberal political tactic------if they [liberals/Democrats] could open our southern borders to a sunami of illegals (and motor-voter/register them) and have Acorn provide polling place survelliance with AK-47's, they would be IN SEVENTH HEAVEN!!!!!!