If Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, were a U.S. senator — instead of just a candidate for the U.S. Senate — he would have voted “no” on confirming Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. His statement: “Confirming the first Hispanic-American to the Supreme Court is a historic moment for this country. Race, sex or biography alone, however, does not deem one fit to sit on the highest court in the land — rather a person’s ability and willingness to faithfully apply the Constitution to all cases before the court. Unfortunately, the Democrat majority in the Senate does not believe the latter to be true and has agreed to confirm an activist judge who believes it is acceptable to legislate from the bench and inject her personal background as a filter in deciding cases. I cannot support the confirmation of a judge who has a proven track record of neglect and disregard for our governing document. As such, I strongly support Sens. Brownback and Roberts in their opposition of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation. We need justices who will be faithful to the Constitution and offer impartial judgment — not empathy, richness of personal experience, or subjective interpretation of international law.”
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
- Jed on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
29 Comments
Is Sotomayor qualified or isn’t she? Our 100 U.S. Senators have the responsibility to find out and vote. Out here in the hinterland, its difficult for the public to make that determination.
Hence the reason Tiahrt shouldn’t be allowed to be Senator. All he provides are catch phrases and talking points. He can’t explain why she isn’t qualified. I’m guessing he favors affirmative action and thinks some less qualified white guy deserves the job. I can think of a more qualified white guy who deserves the job of Senator over Tiahrt, that’s Jerry Moran.
Repubs, say goodby to the Hispanic vote.
GOP, the party of old white southern guys.
Tihrt playing to the base for the primary, afterwhich he’ll be lauding her selection if he things he needs the latino voters.
Someone questioned Moran and his C-street residence at a meeting, wonder if it wasn’t a Tiahrt plant.
El ” mare” de la soda; está en la casa y bailará su manera con el traje el balanceo en el viento.
#
Regular
Posted August 10, 2009 at 8:43 am | Permalink
El ” mare” de la soda; está en la casa y bailará su manera con el traje el balanceo en el viento.
=================================================
” Mare” of the soda water; it is in the house and it will dance its way with the suit the balance in the wind.
Con logic at its finest.
Tihrt’s gotta be one of the dumbest the cons have ever foisted off on this country. A pure vote panderer; no substance, no intelligence. What a combo.
“JMWalker” translates “Regular” –
“Mare” of the soda water; it is in the house and it will dance its way with the suit the balance in the wind.”
Who can argue with that?
Sotomayor is an “activist” judge in Todd Tiarht’s shallow, ininterested mind because…well…Barack Obama nominated her.
Tiarht is a willful idiot. Always has been.
“We have a saying in my country – the coyote of the desert likes to eat the heart of the young and the blood drips down to his children for breakfast, lunch and dinner and only the ribs will be broken”
- Tino
“ANTI” –
Maybe it’d sound better of “Regular” translated it into Spanish.
Remember everybody that to cast your vote in the primary where Jerry Moran and Todd Tiahrt face off to become the Republican nominee for the next Kansas Senator, you must be registered as a Republican.
Sadly, it looks likely whichever man wins at this primary level will be the next Senator from Kansas so be sure you participate in this important decision! At the general election where party affiliation doesn’t matter and you can vote for the person you feel most qualified without consideration of party affiliation, this race between Moran and Tiahrt will have already been decided. So don’t put it off, make sure you have a voice in electing the next Senator from Kansas.
The state of Kansas has made this easy! To register or change party affiliation go to:
http://www.kssos.org
This process takes a minute and from the comfort of your own home.
Here’s all the info you need:
Your name
Your address
Your Kansas driver’s license number (or non-driver ID card number)
Congressman is this the first time you have been disingenuous?
“rather a person’s ability and willingness to faithfully apply the Constitution to all cases before the court“. These are your words and if you had chosen to believe your own words you would have the evidence to back them in Sotomayer’s record. Instead you chose to ignore reality and invoke racism. To hold partisanship above common sense, it was not her record or even what she has said that is the basis of your objections it is simply that she is chosen by a president of the other side.
You are not who we the American people need for our elected official. We need those who will hold closely to common sense and reality. Be they Republican or Democratic blind Ideologs need not apply.
Faithfully applying the constitution seems to mean different things to different people. Tiahrt seems to believe that since the Founding Fathers didn’t want women and minorities messing up their system by (gasp) voting(!), we shouldn’t allow it either. Of course his problem is that when he reads the constitution he only gets as far as the second amendment, and that gives him such a stiffie that he can’t concentrate enough to read the rest of it. This dirtbag in the Senate? The state would be better off without a Senator than with him!
An example of the knee-jerk obstructionism we could expect from Toddy if he is elected to the Senate.
Sort of like what Roberts and Brokeback are doing now with the nominee for Secretary of the Army because they don’t think we wussy Kansans could handle having those nasty terrorists in our maximum security prison in Leavenworth.
Losers all three.
Dennis
Triple X–
My thoughts exactly.
It’s as if the RepubliCONs are trying to lose.
They’re going out of their way to alienate the fastest growing minority in the country.
Research 2000 poll taken in April 2009:
LATINO (view of Republican Party)
Favorable: 15%
Unfavorable: 70%
No opinion: 15%
Research 2000 poll taken last week:
LATINO (view of Republican Party)
Favorable: 3%
Unfavorable: 86%
No opinion: 11%
*****
Wow, well played, CONs.
rather a person’s ability and willingness to faithfully apply the Constitution to all cases before the court.
This is why she made the comment that a latin women can make better choices then a white guy. She wants to bring race into the court. But justice should be blind, but with scum like her setting on the bench justice eyes will be wide open
Supreme Court justices are:
** John Roberts, chief justice age 54
** John Paul Stevens age 89
** Antonin Scalia age 73
** Anthony Kennedy age 73
** Clarence Thomas age 61
** Ruth Bader Ginsburg age 76
** Stephen Breyer age 70
** Sam Alito age 59
** Sonia Sotomayor age 55
Add & divide by nine: average age: 68 years old.
Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial powers article, “Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior …” Of course supreme court justices at their superannuated ages are probably not going to drive drunk down Constitution Avenue throwing beer cans on the government’s well manicured lawns. So the justices will generally keep their honored supreme court positions until they are carried out feet first.
Just think, 10 years from now if the same justices continue to sit in their heavily padded chairs, their collective average age will be approaching 80 years old. At that age they will be throwing jars of Gerbers baby food onto the Capitol lawn and gumming their copy of the U.S. Constitution.
My point, nothing good comes from the constitutional rule that allows these old fellows and gals to serve forever. Frankly the Constitution needs to be amended to establish an age of 75 years old to put these folks out to pasture.
True the people of the 18th century England and France wanted to protect their judges from undue influence by their Kings. But the average age of finality was about age 40 in those days of olde.
JWink,
Right here in Wichita, Kansas, we have the Honorable Wesley E. Brown, U.S. District Court Judge who was born June 22, 1907.
Appointed by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, Brown took senior status rather than retire in 1979, at age 72. As a senior judge, he carries a reduced caseload but still reports to his chambers every week day.
they serve — “for life or good behavior, whichever ends first” — Wesley E. Brown
Tiarht is a willful idiot. Always has been.
Gee, ya think?
I met Todd Tiahrt in 1994, during his first run for Congress. He had just given an incredibly vague speech, full of symbolism and code words but no substance. He derided the Democrats’ “cream puff” crime bill but, again, no details.
I talked with him aftwards.
I asked him about what he would do about crime. He responded with rhetoric. I cut to the chase:
“More prisons and more jails?”
“Yes, basically.”
“But America already imprisons more people per capita than any industrialized nation on Earth.”
“Yes, but 7 percent of the criminals commit 80 percent of the crimes.”
“What about the other 93 percent?”
For about 5 seconds, plastic smile and the glassy-eyed look of a dead animal. I grinned back.
“Don’t you think that OJ is guilty?” Huh? For some reason, I let him get away with that. Bigger grin on my part, though–I was highly amused!
“That’s for the jury to decide.”
“But he’s guilty–right?”
At this point, I excused myself, and left.
This, 4th District, is the man you’ve sent to Washington for 13 years, to represent you.
I hope you’re proud. ;)
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/03/tiahrt-lobbied-against-house-ethics-panel/#comment-312955
Your apocryphal story means nothing Rage.
I could go up to any Congress person and ask them about a subject that I had researched before hand and take them off their game.
“Regular” claims –
“I could go up to any Congress person and ask them about a subject that I had researched before hand and take them off their game.”
Yeah, sure you could.
I want you to lecture a congresscritter about how mountaintop removal coal mining is geologically impossible.
I’m sure you could “pull a Cronkite” once again.
Monkeyhawk
Posted August 11, 2009 at 12:58 am | Permalink
“Regular” claims –
“I could go up to any Congress person and ask them about a subject that I had researched before hand and take them off their game.”
Yeah, sure you could.
I want you to lecture a congresscritter about how mountaintop removal coal mining is geologically impossible.
I’m sure you could “pull a Cronkite” once again.
=====================
Sure, right after I explain how you confessed Stephen Douglas didn’t run against Lincoln in the 1860 Presidential election.
When were the Lincoln-Douglas debates, “Regular?”
Too bad, so sad
MonkeyHockMonkeyHawk – you stated Douglas didn’t run against Lincoln in 1860 because the debates were in 1858.So sad you screwed up and can’t admit it.
Uhm, no, “Regular” –
I snarked something about your (or some CON’s) “Lincoln-Douglas Debate” tactics.
You came back and alleged Douglas made the (snarky? obscene? childish? I don’t remember) remark after he lost the election.
The election at hand was the 1858 Illinois senatorial race.
Only then did you introduce the 1860 presidential election.
Nice attempt at diverting the issue at hand.
You “…went all Cronkite” on how mountaintop-removal coal mining was geologically impossible, didn’t you?
Or can’t you admit you screwed up?