The only suspense about today’s Senate vote on the U.S. Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor was how many Republicans might join the Democratic majority in supporting her. In the final 68-31 vote, nine Republicans did so — not including Kansas Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback. Some acknowledged her unprecedented 17 years of experience as a federal judge, that her decisions have been within the legal mainstream, and that the power to pick justices comes with winning a presidential election. In replacing retiring Justice David Souter, Sotomayor brings needed ethnic and gender diversity to the bench. Seeing her confirmed already puts Obama ahead of President Carter, whose presidency didn’t see a high court opening. If Obama has additional seats to fill, the ideological fight is sure to be even more fierce.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- outlander on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
37 Comments
Way to go, girl!
DOne. Time to move on. TO bad the vote was that partisan
But by golly, Pat, ex-gyrene as he keeps telling us, and Sam, oh so religious, made their dad-gummed views known. Yee-ha!!
And Kansas keeps electing these clowns.
Dennis
Sotomayer probably received a strong start from U.S. Senate confirmation hearings in her learning curve for U.S. Supreme Court justice.
However, I think its time for the people of the U.S. to pass a change in the U.S. constitution limiting the term of supreme court justices. Appointment for life doesn’t fit our democratic principles. It’s a hangover from some old customs.
Was there ever any doubt, except from the tinfoil brigade?
“JWink” chimes –
“…its time for the people of the U.S. to pass a change in the U.S. constitution….”
I wonder how many constitutional amendments there’d be if CONs who advocate “original intent” had their way.
I wonder how many constitutional amendments there’d be if CONs who advocate “original intent” had their way.
That’s easy: 27. The only thing that comment reflects is that MH doesn’t understand “original intent” as most of those who advocate same intend it. Then again, MH will probably tell me it’s some secret code for something else, conveniently asserting his ability to define what others believe.
BTW, Congrats to Justice Sotomayer. I sincerely wish her well, and hope that her opponents are wrong. Democrats may hate this kind of ideological/partisan fight, but they set that precedent, so in a real sense they have reaped exactly what they have sown.
Hopefully if Obama has the opportunity to replace another Justice he’ll put a liberal in the seat. So far, there is only one liberal on the bench and it isn’t Sotomayor.
Ya got that pegged, “GMC70″ –
“Original Intent” means whatever the mood du jour is among CONs.
“Original Intent” means whatever the mood du jour is among CONs.
BZZZZZZ. Wrong again, MH. I’m not particularly an original intent advocate, for reasons that are probably too complex for this blog, though you would probably describe (incorrectly) my position as that.
But what you’ve described in the above quip – perfectly – is in fact the “living constitution” model; the idea that the constitution means whatever we want it to mean, words be d***ed.
That’s your ballpark, not mine. Personally, I’d like limited gov’t to stay limited.
If Obama has additional seats to fill, the ideological fight is sure to be even more fierce.
You da** right. This one’s a wash. The next one may actually matter.
and the party is on…celebrating that a FEMALE LATINA has been placed on the court. Qualifications? who cares….it is all about gender and ethinicity.
sad. very sad indeed. She might be an excellent jurist–but that doesn’t appear to be an issue…just gender and ethnicity.
Well at least now the SC has someone who can finally make a decent enchilada.
The ’soda mayor’ is no doubt celebrating in wise Latina fashion by reminding herself that every word she makes now will be etched in stone.
“celebrating that a FEMALE LATINA has been placed on the court. Qualifications? who cares”
What qualifications is she lacking, Raptor?
BTW: “FEMALE LATINA” is redundant – Latina means female of Hispanic origins. Latino is the male descriptor.
And the racist pig calling itself “Regular” continues to show its true colors by butchering Sotomayor’s name.
thomaswitt,
I thought my comment was far more offensive than Regulars. Oh well, to each his own.
Why does race and gender have anything to do with it?
“Why does race and gender have anything to do with it?”
What qualifications is she lacking?
#
ANTI
Posted August 6, 2009 at 5:44 pm | Permalink
thomaswitt,
I thought my comment was far more offensive than Regulars. Oh well, to each his own.
————————
Mr. Witt and I have a history, he always gets his pink tights in a twist on anything I write. :)
#
ANTI
Posted August 6, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
Well at least now the SC has someone who can finally make a decent enchilada.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
The key to decent enchiladas is in picking the best chile anchos for the enchilada sauce.
Daniel,
Don’t you dare tell me how to make Mexican food, I am damn good at it!
I am half Mexican via osmosis.
P.C. ALERT!!!!
Replace ‘Mexican’ with ‘Latino’.
This is why Roberts and Brownback have to go. They’re boneheads.
Roberts, I used to not have any beef with him until BushCo, and boy did he turn partisan con of the worst kind. Brownback, he’s always been a goober.
I think it’s a shame when we feel that we have to elect someone because of their color, sex or race instead of their experience and character. Oh, btw, this is only true if the person is a far left leaning radical. Remember Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Michael Steele and so on. They say that they aren’t really black but what they mean is they are not radical socialist.
Her experiece, speeches and character clearly show that she is a racist. Just hope you don’t have to be tried in her court someday and especially be a white person. She is probably prejudice against blacks too. Remember they were born in the USA just like us but a lot of hispanics weren’t.
… Sotomayor brings needed ethnic and gender diversity to the bench.
I just don’t understand why this diversity is so badly “needed.” It seems to me that the SCOTUS has been functioning as it should have been for some generations now regardless of the ethic/gender composition of the Justices. The only reason that anyone wants a person seated on the SCOTUS of a particular ethnicity or gender is to promote a narrow poltical agenda rather than interpretation and application of constitutional elements of law.
Right on war. Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Regular
Posted August 6, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
The ’soda mayor’ is no doubt celebrating in wise Latina fashion by reminding herself that every word she makes now will be etched in stone.
___________________________________
Words of wisdom from the blog’s resident racist.
“Just hope you don’t have to be tried in her court someday and especially be a white person.”
Oh, those poor, mistreated white people. Damn, how have they ever survived such mistreatment and prejudice for all these years? Locked in chains, forced to come to America under extreme conditions, yanked from their homes – oh, how did they ever survive?
Someone should take up a collection for all these white people that have been so horribly abused.
#
WAR
Posted August 6, 2009 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
… Sotomayor brings needed ethnic and gender diversity to the bench.
I just don’t understand why this diversity is so badly “needed.” It seems to me that the SCOTUS has been functioning as it should have been for some generations now regardless of the ethic/gender composition of the Justices. The only reason that anyone wants a person seated on the SCOTUS of a particular ethnicity or gender is to promote a narrow poltical agenda rather than interpretation and application of constitutional elements of law.
=============================================
Gee, ever stop to think the SCOTUS is benched by people not quite representing the actual makeup of this country? Wouldn’t an across the board representation serve the country better? Or does that qualify me as a ‘white apologist’? LOL
JMWalker
Posted August 6, 2009 at 7:01 pm | Permalink
Gee, ever stop to think the SCOTUS is benched by people not quite representing the actual makeup of this country? Wouldn’t an across the board representation serve the country better? Or does that qualify me as a ‘white apologist’? LOL
———————————–
There are only nine Supreme Court Justice seats. What ethnic group do you want to leave out?
Native Americans
Chinese
Korean
Japanese
Iraqi
Lebanese
Pacific Islander
Jew
East Indian
Caucasian
Hispanic
Black
etc.
———
I thought the Supreme Court wasn’t a place of affirmative action, but a place of Justice, where decisions are made IAW the Constitution, not the current politically correct mood.
Well said, Regular.
Regular
Posted August 6, 2009 at 7:42 pm | Permalink
There are only nine Supreme Court Justice seats. What ethnic group do you want to leave out?
===============================================
# White alone: 74% or 221.3 million
* Not including the 23.2 million White Hispanic and Latino Americans: 66% or 198.1 million
# Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, of any race: 14.8% or about 44.3 million
# Black or African American alone: 13.4% or 40.9 million
# Some other race alone: 6.5% or 19 million
# Asian alone: 4.4% or 13.1 million
# Two or more races: 2.0% or 6.1 million
# Native Americans in the United States or Alaska Native alone: 0.68% or 2.0 million
# Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander alone: 0.14% or 0.43 million
Pretty much says it there. And who said anything about affirmative action?
Nice numbers Walker – Who are you going to leave out from Supreme Court nominations?
There are only nine slots.
JMWalker:
And who said anything about affirmative action?
————–
You did. Read below…
————–
Gee, ever stop to think the SCOTUS is benched by people not quite representing the actual makeup of this country? Wouldn’t an across the board representation serve the country better?
——————————–
What you described is a quota system by balancing race to fill a job/position in equitable terms with race as the criteria – That’s what Affirmative action does.
Lets hope she can figure out what the 2nd. Amendment really means, as it was written and fully intended to mean.
A universal right, not subject to individual locality control…..just like all the other Amendments.
What a dunce on her past decision to say otherwise.
GMC70: I read your comments above to try to determine if you favor or oppose lifetime appointments of Supreme Court justices. So please say in a few words.
I suspect lifetime appointment of justices sprang from the attempt to limit the power of Monarchs/Kings back in England and France. Then was put in the U.S. Constitution section III, the section that deals succinctly with the judicial branch.
The idea was to limit influence of the President and Congress on decisions of the Supreme Court justices.
Of course in those days, people didn’t live as long so the framers of the U.S. Constitution probably didn’t conceive of nine elderly Supreme Court justices in their 90’s. Of course, that hasn’t happened yet but I suppose it could.
Over the years, I have read articles that questions whether lifetime appointments give the results expected.
In my opinion, its time to adopt a Constitutional amendment to do away with lifetime appointments. Perhaps require retirement at age 70 to suggest a logical age.
I don’t believe this is a liberal or conservative issue.
So I suggest this as a project of WE Bloggers if a majority agree.