Republicans: Sotomayor’s Confirmation Could Be a Long Process
EmailIn nominating U.S. Courts of Appeal Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama praised her legal and personal experience and her “wisdom accumulated from an inspiring life struggle.”
The president said Sotomayor, who grew up in a Bronx housing project, would bring "more varied experience on the bench, than anyone currently serving on the United States Supreme Court had when they were appointed."
There was mixed reaction from conservatives on Sotomayor’s nomination.
In describing how he will scrutinize Sotomayor’s record, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, invoked the famous line from John Roberts’ confirmation hearing, that a judge is an umpire “calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.”
Sessions said it is reasonable to have a nominee voted on by the next court session, but added: "We must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process."
"Adequate preparation will take time. I will insist that, consistent with recent confirmation processes, every senator be accorded the opportunity to prepare, ask questions, and receive full and complete answers," he added in a statement.
Former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee decried the “appointment” of “Maria Sotomayor.”
“The appointment of Maria Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama’s campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bi-partisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the ‘Extreme Court’ that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the ‘feelings’ of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice,” the former Arkansas governor said in a statement.
Republican Senators Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, signaled that her confirmation could be a lengthy process.
“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences,” Senate Minority Leader McConnell said.
The president has indicated he would like to see Sotomayor confirmed before Congress’ recess in August.
“Because Judge Sotomayor would serve for life if she is confirmed, it is essential that the Senate conducts this process thoroughly and the president has assured me that we will have ample time to give Ms. Sotomayor’s record a full and fair review,” Cornyn said in a statement.
Critics point to a statement Sotomayor made at a Duke University School of Law panel four years ago where she said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is, court of appeals is where policy is made."
She added, to a laughing audience: "And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that, because we don’t make law, I know. … OK. I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m, you know."
Sotomayor has been confirmed twice by the Senate. Republicans who voted to confirm her in 1998 included Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah and former senators Bill Frist of Tennessee, Jesse Helms of North Carolina and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.
– Jake Tapper, Huma Khan and Z. Byron Wolf
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
I wonder if Obama wishes at this point that he would have voted for Bush’s brilliant nominees, Roberts and Alito.
He could then be pointing to himself as an example of allowing the President to have his choice, as long as that person is qualified.
Personally, I hope we get away from the spectacle of personal destruction in the Senate hearings. Between what was done to Thomas and Alito, we’ve seen some pretty sorry tactics. I don’t wish that on Satomayor, but I can see the temptation for revenge.
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
MSM, stop lying. Cardozo was the first hispanic SC justice. Stop reprinting Dem talking points.
Hispanic definition
His·panic (hi span?ik)
adjective
1. Spanish or Spanish-and-Portuguese
2. of or relating to Hispanics
Nominating Sonja will not make him the first president to nominate a Hispanic justice, contrary to the claims of almost every media outlet that talks about the possibility of a Hispanic justice. That honor belongs to Herbert Hoover, who appointed Benjamin Cardozo to the Supreme Court in 1932. Cardozo served until 1938. Bush may in fact nominate the second Hispanic to the Supreme Court, but it’s simply false that no justice on the court so far has been Hispanic. It’s amazing that people are still reporting it, but no one seems to be calling them on this.
Leftists never let facts get in the way of a false media blitz.
Posted by: the Truth | May 26, 2009, 12:10 pm 12:10 pm
Remember Biden telling Alito he didn’t even like Princeton? Eesh.
Sadly, this the people in the current administration didn’t take the high road when they had the chance.
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 12:11 pm 12:11 pm
Does anyone remember Miguel Estrada? He might have been the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court if democrats hadn’t filibustered him.
Posted by: Axey | May 26, 2009, 12:34 pm 12:34 pm
Oh yeah. The 2nd Hispanic. There’s Hispanic and then there’s Hispanic, just as there is black and then there is black. Thomas isn’t black, apparently. Nor was Rice. And Powell wasn’t until he supported a democrat for president.
Posted by: Axey | May 26, 2009, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
Cardozo was a Jewish-Portuguese American. Portuguese Americans are not considered “Hispanic” by the United States Census Bureau. Not that it should even matter what her racial identity is. Being Hispanic doesn’t make a person any more or less competent than anyone else, contrary to what Sotomayor seems to believe.
Posted by: Brian | May 26, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
obama is a disaster
Posted by: Johnq | May 26, 2009, 12:47 pm 12:47 pm
President Obama will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor
If confirmed by the Democratic-controlled Senate, Judge Sotomayor, 54, would replace Justice David H. Souter to become the second woman on the court and only the third female justice in the history of the Supreme Court. She also would be the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Supreme Court.
See details of her biography:Judge Sonia Sotomayor-news-online
Posted by: Ali | May 26, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
the one good thing about all the crazy and sometimes sane comments in forums everywhere is that people look back and review history and check out what happened…..
they might look at history through whatever political lens they need to but, it’s always a positive to learn something about what’s already happened….
now of course, as the old saying goes: ‘a lil knowledge is dangerous’, but all things being equal, every time an issue comes up people run to Wikipedia or other sites (maybe even ABC ) to sort of gather facts to try and prove whatever point they want to make…..
Too bad this kind of info gathering doesn’t happen on it’s own without a ‘political’ issue to start it.
Posted by: Dewde | May 26, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
Republicans have to be careful. They’ve already become a Southern regional party, so if they start insulting her intellect or personal attributes in front of the TV cameras, the Hispanic community will flee the Repulican party in droves. And, there is no way they can block this nomination. Sooner or later, she’ll be confirmed. Brilliant, brilliant choice.
Posted by: Laura Brown | May 26, 2009, 1:07 pm 1:07 pm
Laura Brown:Republicans have to be careful. They’ve already become a Southern regional party, so if they start insulting her intellect or personal attributes in front of the TV cameras, the Hispanic community will flee the Repulican party in droves
=========
Why? What do criticisms of her personal attributes have to do with the Hispanic community?
Posted by: MayBee | May 26, 2009, 1:22 pm 1:22 pm
Republicans have to be careful. They’ve already become a Southern regional party, so if they start insulting her intellect or personal attributes in front of the TV cameras, the Hispanic community will flee the Repulican party in droves. And, there is no way they can block this nomination. Sooner or later, she’ll be confirmed. Brilliant, brilliant choice.
Posted by: Laura Brown | May 26, 2009 1:07:17 PM
——-
Dem talking points, and no doubt media meme pasted above.
She may well be confirmed, but even Obama had to get out there and lie today and claim that she believed in following the law.
She is a vocal racist and judicial activist, having been chastised by her peers, one a clinton appointee.
We will see if the media is successful in distorting these facts, or covering them up, as they did for Obama during the campaign.
Posted by: MNM | May 26, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
The Republicans would have had a long lengthy confirmation process regardless of whom Obama nominated….They just better be careful in the rhetoric they use in the process…But, being careful with rhetoric and being Republican are two diametrical opposites…
Posted by: indy_voter | May 26, 2009, 1:50 pm 1:50 pm
Since 1981 it has taken on average 2.5 months to go from nomination to a confirmation vote.
John Roberts was nominated for Chief Justice on July 19th 2005, and withdrawn and re-nominated for the Chief Justice position on Sept 9th. He got his vote by September 22nd, just a hair over 2 months after nomination.
Want to judge how obstructionist Republicans are? Lets see if they hate Obama more than the Democrats hated Bush in 2005. I’m betting there is no chance Sotomayor will get her vote in two months like Roberts did. She’ll be lucky to make in 2.5 months, the time frame that the controversial Alito took to go from nomination (Nov 11) to vote (Jan 31, after the Christmas holidays).
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 2:22 pm 2:22 pm
MNM:”We will see if the media is successful in distorting these facts”
Those are not facts you know. And she has a long case record – there are real facts you know. Like she was appointed by Bush, or she graduated summa cum laude from Princeton, or that in Pappas v. Giuliani she supported the right to free speech (in that case, “patently offensive, hateful, and insulting” speech, but still protected).
Lets hope this debate has more facts and less rabid partisanship.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 2:26 pm 2:26 pm
“Slow-walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process.”
These words were spoken by Senator Mitch McConnell at the time John Roberts was nominated in 2005.
Posted by: George | May 26, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
George:”"Slow-walking the process beyond historical norms and engaging in a paper chase simply to delay a timely up-or-down vote are not hallmarks of a fair process.”
These words were spoken by Senator Mitch McConnell at the time John Roberts was nominated in 2005.”
And that in response to a two month, start to finish, process. Lets see how long Sotomayor gets drawn out by the masters.
Posted by: jhw539 | May 26, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
“Does anyone remember Miguel Estrada? He might have been the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court if democrats hadn’t filibustered him.”
From wiki: Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada’s lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level
Posted by: Ryan C | May 26, 2009, 2:53 pm 2:53 pm
Bring it on Republicans……….cover your Graves.
Posted by: tychisum | May 26, 2009, 3:00 pm 3:00 pm
“From wiki: Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada’s lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level”
==============================
Ryan C ,
Interesting arguement that whole “experience” thing isn’t it! Strange how it seemed to NOT be important to you in regards to a President.
Posted by: Mike_C | May 26, 2009, 3:24 pm 3:24 pm
What’s the rush? Palin can’t even name two decisions.. what will this court do to impact our daily lives?
There’s nothing wrong with a 70 day plus examination. How many of us know who she is; let’s hear what she has to say to us.
Posted by: DontGet818OnMeNow | May 26, 2009, 3:26 pm 3:26 pm
“Why? What do criticisms of her personal attributes have to do with the Hispanic community?”
=====================================
MayBee ,
This is the liberal way. ANY criticism if her will be immediately potrayed ax racist and sexist. The ENTIRE discussion should be based on her record and her view ponts as presented in the hearings.
This will not be the case, but it is the right way. Intersting that the same people who have bashing these boards for months about how the inttogation techniques used by us in the past were “UnAmercian”, “Not who we are as a ccountry”…etc. Yet look at he liberal presentations here. Any criticism is met with the usual political nonsense. If liberals REALLY wanted to move beyond these things as they say they do, then they first need to stop harping on the fact of her gender and race.
Lets try to make the arguements here on her record and her beliefs on what a Justice of Supreme Court is.
Posted by: Mike_C | May 26, 2009, 3:42 pm 3:42 pm
Personally,
I have never thought that this process should be rushed – NO MATTER which party was in power!
We have a nationwide political process that takes us now in the neighborhood of over 1 whole year to pick a President who by LAW cannot serve more than 2 elected terms.
WHY do we need to have a process of a month or two to decide on someone who will serve (in pratical terms) for life on the highest court in the land?
There is no intelligent reasoning for EVER rushing the process that places a person on the Supreme Court!
(AND YES, I felt the same when there were Republican presidents making these choices as well.)
Posted by: Mike_C | May 26, 2009, 3:52 pm 3:52 pm
Whine about “Democratic talking points” all you want. The reality is that the GOP has already alienated Hispanics, and — rightly or wrongly — many Hispanic voters will not take kindly to opposition to a qualified Hispanic candidate.
If I were the GOP, I’d also stay away from the issue of Sotomayor’s diabetes. There are a lot of voters with diabetes or with relatives with diabetes who will, rightly, take offense at Sotomayor’s opponents making this an issue. There is no reason to think Sotomayor’s illness is not under control.
Posted by: Katia | May 26, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
Human nature dose not afford us the decentness get away from the spectacle of personal destruction in the Senate hearings. Judge Satomayor has enough inter substance to withstand negative criticism and accusation that are zoomed onto her character. If you are not taking part in the recession, you will most likely have enough time to watch the spectacle.
Posted by: Johnnie M. Ashley | May 26, 2009, 5:37 pm 5:37 pm
Human nature dose not afford us the decentness get away from the spectacle of personal destruction in the Senate hearings. Judge Satomayor has enough inter substance to withstand negative criticism and accusation that are zoomed onto her character. If you are not taking part in the recession, you will most likely have enough time to watch the spectacle.
JM Ashley
Edgewood,MD
Posted by: Johnnie M. Ashley | May 26, 2009, 5:42 pm 5:42 pm
Pick your fights minority party. Pick your fights Southwest/west GOP Senators.
hint hint. Yes McCain. That means you!!
Posted by: Omentum | May 26, 2009, 6:46 pm 6:46 pm
it seems to me that Rush Limbaugh’s theory is already being confirmed. People (namely moderate Republicans) will not dare speak out against Sotomayor, due to the fact that she is a minority, a woman, and due to the status of her health. Many people will not look past those three key points, through which they will identify with Sotomayor and will take personal offense against those who criticize her. The truth of the matter is, those of us who are really informed admire her background. Praise her for being the first latina nominated for the Court. What DISTURBS us is her willingness to put her own bias in front of the Constitution. This was a good strategy on Obama’s part, as he KNEW moderate Republicans wouldn’t dare speak out, for exactly these reasons.
Can we all look past the petty aspects of this issue…this is not about race, this is not about sex, this is not about being a democrat or a republican…this is essentially about the security of our CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS under this cadidate….this is about OUR FREEDOM. I implore you PEOPLE OF THIS NATION to look past the obvious and see this for what it really is, before we rush headlong into the era of a Judge that will impose HER WILL upon us. and in turn, TAKE OUR FREE WILL AWAY.
Posted by: Sixella | May 26, 2009, 7:02 pm 7:02 pm
The conservative judges on the Supreme Court make no apologies when their rulings are clearly supporting conservative interests and big business. This is particularly true of Scalia. And, of course, each member views the Constitution through their own lens, which is shaped by life experiences. If interpreting the Constitution was cut and dry, there would be no debate and rulings would come easily. Most of the judges were born with silver spoons in their mouths. Someone like Sotomayer will be refreshing.
Posted by: DaveM | May 28, 2009, 11:33 am 11:33 am