The American Spectator

Bob NT| 7.27.09 @ 1:38PM

My guess is that all or most energy is being focused on the health rationing bill.....

Our stalwarts in the Senate figure this is a done deal and besides the cameras are largely focused elsewhere....

First order of business for NRSC; see what kind of discounts are offered fro group backbone transplants.

Bert| 7.27.09 @ 2:27PM

Quinn, Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV requires that at least one minority member join in the motion to bring Sotomayor's nomination to a vote; i.e, if all seven GOP members would "hang tough," her nomination would never be voted out of committee.

Perennial squish Lindsay Graham is on record as supporting her. So far, he is the only one, though Cornyn stated at the hearings that, "If I have anything to say about it," Sotomayor would receive an up-or-down vote by the full Senate. By implication, he too would vote her out of the committee.

But pressure can still be put on these Senators to "just say no" by refusing to join in the motion to bring her to a vote in the committee. This "mini-fillibuster" would be completely effective in side-lining her nomination. The Dems have done the "die in committee" maneuver to GOP presidents on judicial nominations more than once (though not sure if ever for a SCOTUS nominee).

Pressure from voters can bottle her up in committee, but you have to publicize this rule. Cornyn wants to have it both ways; i.e., appear to his conservative base to be against her, but appear to hispanic voters in his state that he treated her with respect and made sure she got a vote (which means, made sure she got confirmed).

Force these guys to explain why, under Rule IV, they could stop her, but won't. Hit them where they live, in the voter roles.

Liberal Reader| 7.27.09 @ 5:21PM

I don't know what the problem is.

There are no good grounds for not confirming Sotomayor.

She's been confirmed twice before for federal judgeships: she's competent; and, what's more, she's the president's choice.

"Advice and consent" does not represent constitutional permission for senators to veto a presidential nominee based on something the nominee said in a speech.

I am consistent, as well, in my opinion on this: I believe it was wrong to vote against Justice Roberts and Alito for the reasons some Democrats -- including Obama -- gave. Obama's gut sense that Roberts didn't have enough "heart" was not good grounds go vote against him.

But this really is no different. Sotomayor has heard thousands of cases. She's written opinions at the highest level -- except the Supreme Court -- in the justice system. She's obviously qualified. (No one denies her qualification, by the way.)

Bob NT| 7.27.09 @ 8:45PM

It is precisely her qualifications that I question.
I have no confidence what so ever that she will make her decisions according to the law.

Her Law is made her remarks and her wise Latina remarks call into question obedience to the rule of law. Courts do not in our system make law or policy.

I do not want 9 robed clowns either liberal or conservative deciding which of my rights I will and will not retain. That was not how the system was designed and regardless of how bastardized it has become it is not how it should run going forward!