Monday, July 13, 2009

Graham to Sotomayor: Elections matter


Leave it to South Carolina's senior senator, Lindsey Graham, to call it like he sees it. During his opening statement at Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing this morning, Graham said what everyone was thinking but wouldn't say:

"Unless you have a complete meltdown, you're going to get confirmed."

Graham, a second-term senator from Oconee County, left open the possibility that he would vote to forward her confirmation to the full Senate, the first Republican at the hearing to suggest that. If he does, he could well be the only Republican on the committee to do so.

Graham made clear that he disagreed with Sotomayor on many issues, and he was troubled by her "wise Latina" remark. But he wisely said that was not a reason to vote against her confirmation. President Obama won the November election, Graham pointed out, and "that ought to matter. It does to me."

In other words, Supreme Court nominations have become too politicized. Senators should be judging her intellect, her honesty and her credentials, not whether they agree with her on every issue. Just as most Democrats did when they voted for George W. Bush's nominee for chief justice, John Roberts (78 yes votes).

- Posted by Taylor Batten

3 comments:

faithplusnothing said...

This is pure Observer liberal logic. Republicans are supposed to shut up and roll over because Obama chose her and he is the president? Why didn't George Bush get that same kind of reverence when he picked. She is a liberal left wing activist. Why is it that Republicans are supposed to roll over and play dead. In no way is Graham a true conservative. All he is concerned with is getting his name out there for a presidental run in the future. You just wait. Another puke worthy opinion piece from the observer.

crystalsbass said...

From Wikipedia:

From June 2001 to January 2003, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the most conservative appellate nominees were stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee and never given hearings or committee votes.[10] However, after the 2002 mid-term elections in which the Republicans regained control of the Senate by a 51-49 margin, these same nominees began to be moved through the now Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee.[11]

With no other way to block confirmation, the Senate Democrats started to filibuster judicial nominees. On February 12 2003, Miguel Estrada, a nominee for the D.C. Circuit, became the first court of appeals nominee ever to be filibustered.[12] Later, nine other conservative court of appeals nominees were also filibustered. These nine were Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.[13] Three of the nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) withdrew their nominations before the end of the 108th Congress."

Then-senator Obama was part of most of this action. Why aren't Republicans allowed to use the same tactics?

C.A. Friend said...

To the earlier points, conservatives are "allowed" to use whatever means within their legal rights to block the appointment of Sotomayor. As a registered independent my concern is purpose or motivation for doing so. If the attempts to block her confirmation are truly founded in the belief that her confirmation will damage the fabric of this nation then they should proceed. If they are doing it to protect their political power as individuals or a party then it is unwarented. This is the choice for each individual to make and I would make the same arguement when there is a conservative president in office.