Wife Tries To Abort And Poison Husband's Lovechild
Man Injured By Tree Limb Files Suit Against City
Charles Barron Will Run For Council Speaker
Alleged Tiger Mistress Is Unrecognizable To Dead Fiancee's Dad
New Jersey State Senate To Vote On Gay Marriage
Photograph of Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings last month by J. Scott Applewhite/AP
The U.S. Senate voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor as an associate Supreme Court justice today, in a 68-31 vote. The NY Times reports, "Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation was never in much doubt, given Democrats’ numerical advantage in the Senate. But the final vote — 68 to 31 — represented a partisan divide. No Democrat voted against her, while all but 9 of the chamber’s 40 Republicans did so. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, is ailing and did not vote." She will be the third female justice on the Supreme Court and (some say) the Court's first Hispanic justic.
The Bronx native weathered criticism over her "wise Latina" remarks (though a Republican-nominated justice admitted to keeping in mind his Italian-American forebears' brushes with inequality). Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, who voted against her, said, "Judge Sotomayor’s speech and article presents something of a perfect judicial storm where her views of judging meet her views of the law. Combine partiality and subjectivity with uncertainty and instability in the law and the result is an activist judicial philosophy that I cannot support... I wish President Obama had chosen a Hispanic nominee whom all senators could support."
However, Juan Hernández who did Hispanic outreach for John McCain's presidential campaign told the Times he was skeptical of the Republican's lack of support, "It’s not good enough to give two or three lines about Hispanics and then say, ‘No, I’m not going to vote for Sotomayor.' We’re just losing Hispanics left and right. It’s amazing, in the Republican Party — we’re doing it to ourselves."
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Caption contest! Gothamist. Please?!?
"This is how I keep the white man down!"
Wax on, wax off Danielsan...
"No, really. It's this big!"
"and if Scalia were to piss me off, I'd do this to him..."
"And this is how we settle cases in my hood."
pulls razor out of hair.
http://www.virginmedia.com/images/snoop_dogg-gal-products.jpg
Great political score for Obama. He gets his person on the Court and he gets 31 Republitards to piss off the Hispanic and female voting populations.
31 votes??? lots of racists misogynists in Capital Hill.
If Obama had nominated a liberal white male the vote outcome would in all likelihood been the same. This is about ideology and politics.
No it about qualifications and Judge Sotomayer is QUALIFIED. Also it is not about the right wanting Obama administration to fail at all cost including the well-being of America and its citizen
A minute ago you seemed to be saying it was about race and gender. But really, it's about politics.
I said those 31 votes against her were based on race and gender since she is most Qualified. It shouldn't be about wanting Obama to fail but choosing what is best for America.
So you're saying that EVERY time there are votes against someone there are always racial and gender bias implications? You are truly an idiot, you don't need everyone here to keep reminding you.
I agree that she's qualified and should have received more votes but to say that all 31 voted against her because of her gender and race is absurd. Twenty two Democratic Senators voted against John Roberts and twenty two voted for him. So is he qualified or not? If half voted for him isn't it possible that he is qualified and the other half simply don't like his ideology? Or are you going to tell me he is unqualified and half of the Senate Democrats voted for him. Anyway, I've seen about a dozen op-eds pieces that argued that these confirmation hearings and vote were mainly to send a signal about how they would receive future nominees. And really, saying they want Obama to fail when the Democrats already have 60 votes defies logic. You need to lay off the Keith Olberman talking points memos.
Given that racism and sexism are two of the main principles of Republican ideology, you are essentially agreeing with each other.
You're so clever! You can tie negative generalizations to a group of people you dislike.
That sounds a lot like...
I've never seen so many people go up and talk about how by being Hispanic would make her biased and unfair, then in the next breath call her racist. Such irony.
While that doesn't mean every vote against her was based on raicsm, there seemed to be much more decision making based on race rather than qualifications or experience. The things Republicans claimed were important.
I don't think anyone actually said that her "being Hispanic would make her biased and unfair". They were saying she was biased.
Again, what is the point of the hearings? The democrats vote down party lines same with republicans. So much for change in Washington.
Change in Washington has to have some cooperation with Washington.
Obama has been rather moderate with appointments like this, yet Republicans tried to make her nomination a lot more divisive than it really was.
It's not amazing.
Open your eyes, Juan Hernandez, and see the typical right wing BS.
"some say" first Hispanic? Is that about Cardozo? Because he was of Portuguese descent, and, thus, by definition, not Hispanic.
cardozo was also a sephardic jew, which is another degree of separation.
Here's the thing about "party lines": if your party as coherent policies that you honestly think are good for the country, then there is nothing wrong with that. But if your party votes on party lines simply in an effort to hold power or hurt the other party, then it's bad.
We see this among Republicans in the health reform debate: one the one hand more government involvement in health care is bad because government is supposedly inefficient and cant' run effective programs. And at the same time, more government involvement in health care is bad because too many people might *choose* public health care because the government could get cheaper pricing on health services.
Those two arguments are fairly contradictory and bely the main reason (beyond insurance company funding of republicans) for the opposition: if it helps, it's a feather in the cap for the reformers. So it has to be stopped.
That's the bad example of party lines.
It's the only kind of party line that exists anymore. All the two parties care about is power, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves. In the real world change happens with compromise and talking. It's all a joke and all the Democrats and Republicans care about is the contents of their wallets and their potential to sit in Obama's seat one day. They make everything into the "us vs them" to get people on their side and they minimize the actual issues facing us, because if people sat down and THOUGHT about any of this for five seconds, it would become apparent that the political system in our country needs to be ... rebooted?
The healthcare is a good example. Health care is a huge problem in this country, mainly because of costs. Instead of addressing the actual issues, we have the douchetard Democrats setting up idiotic bills based on their ideology that will help no one. And then the Republicans, instead of pointing out the genuine flaws in the Democrat's plan, scream "Socialism" and "Obama wants to kill seniors!" None of that actually solves any of the problems, but gee whiz it sure does keep the commoners occupied.
It is valeriob who is the clown here looking for friends since he is pathetic. I will return to ignoring you. Yes 31 nays for Sotomayer was based on her race and gender. Turn off Faux news
I'll ask you a second time. If President Obama had nominated a liberal white male, what do you think the vote would have been?
You're so clever too! You can parrot a mispronounced homophone to make it sound like a cable news channel that you dislike. All while saying nothing substantial, making wild accusations, and calling people names.
This is a landmark day for supporters of affirmative action and unequal rights!
Valeriob? Snoopy? What an ignorant coward when her intelligent and Resume surpasses your miserable trailor existence
In about 10 -15 years when white people become a minority in this country, you will be happy we have affirmative action. It will be the only way for a bigoted idiot such as yourself to get a job.
Even Barack Obama doesn't believe in race based affirmative action, at least in higher education.
I never said All 31 but 31 nays is too high for such a qualified judge
it was a political vote, sure, but the angle the republicans used to attack sotomayor: painting her as a radical, mad latina who was unqualified because she got a leg-up due to affirmative action, who held against the heroic white firefighters of new haven was purely racial and meant to stoke racial animosity towards her.
the g.o.p. will have 'some 'splaining' to do to hispanic voters in the future.
Actually, when nine Republicans cross party lines and vote with the Democrats, by definition that's "bi-partisan."
Good but not great. This still only maintains the status quo. We need one of the conservatives to retire. Take a powder, Scalia. Although I'd be just as happy if Thomas or Roberts left.
I look at Scalia and wonder how long his heart can keep pumping anything through that butcher's apron of fat and bigotry...
It depends on his qualications bur I am sure there wouldn't attack his selection as affirmative action. She was qualified and their faux news attacks on her was racists.
I assume that was a reply to me. You essentially ducked the question. Assume the nominee was a white male with identical educational and professional experience. Do you think he would have received more votes than Sotomayor? The next question is how do you define "qualified"? Alito was unanimously rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. His educational background and professional history is on par with Sotormayor's. His confirmation vote was 58-42 with 4 Democrats voting for and 40 against. And yet you won't even entertain the possibility that these votes are politically motivated? The days of 100-0 votes are over.
"When President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president’s call to make... It is part of the discipline of democracy to respect the roles and responsibilities of each branch of government, and, above all, to respect the verdicts of elections and judgment of the people. Had we forgotten this in the Senate, we would have been guilty of the very thing that many federal judges do when they overreach, and usurp power, and betray their trust."
- John McCain, 2008
In 2009, John McCain said:
"... he'll oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor when the Senate votes on her confirmation this week.
The Arizona senator calls Sotomayor a judicial activist who tried to walk back from that record during her confirmation hearings. He says President Barack Obama's nominee has used her position as a judge to try to change the law."
Petty, and partisan, and disingenuous.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formally opposed Alito's nomination. The ACLU has only taken this step two other times in its entire history. ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero justified the decision saying that "At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties. Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."
I replied to you but it posted below.
anyone who thinks this is bad for republicans in terms of "the hispanic vote" is a retard. i would even go so far as to say that anyone who thinks that is subtly implying that hispanics (or any other minority) are mindless drones who react only to manufactured "race" based controversies. did the "black vote" change for the democrats when they pooped on clarence thomas' face and talked about his pubic hairs? no. it's all politics. hispanic and black people are just like white people. they usually have a political leaning and will stick by it. if they don't, the things that will influence their leaning are issues, not if "one of their own" was asked some embarrassing or presumptive questions in a bullshit hearing.
That may be the case over there in faith based reality land, but over here in reality based reality, the facts paint a different picture:
Favorability of Republican Party among Latinos
May 18-21 (before the Sotomayor nomination)
Favorable 11
Unfavorable 79
No Opinion 10
June 15-18
Favorable 8
Unfavorable 86
No Opinion 6
Aside from the fact that you cut and pasted that directly from Wikipedia, the ACLU has never been the standard on determining "qualified" and in fact does not even use the word "qualified" in their opposition to Alito. Alito was however unanimously rated "well qualified" by the American Bar Association. Seems that if you don't get the rating you like from one group you simply go shopping for a second opinion. If you actually read the ACLU's website you find that they simply didn't like his positions which is certainly within their rights. However, you want it both ways. You want Democrats to be able to vote against a nominee based on their positions but you want the Republicans to vote based on a third party's definition of qualified.
And I also asked you about Roberts. Twenty two Democrats voted for him and twenty two voted against. The ACLU did not oppose that nomination. Using your logic he should have received far more votes. Is he qualified or not?
The American Bar Association is political and I don't use their ratings as the only source but as one of the sources. I won't think any President would chose a candidate that is in bad standing with the ABA. You did mention Alito. I can't state a vote on a hypothetical candidate but lets say that Sotomayor was a white male and everything else remains the same-(her rulings, her birthplace etc) then I know more of the GOP would have voted for her. I need to look up Roberts background. what was unfair was the attacks on Sotomayor's "wise Latino" comment. She has more experience on the bench than any recent nominee and her stellar educational background coupled with her record as a judge leave little room for attack.
Judges are not robots who simply apply the law and facts without any type of intuitive and experienced analysis and thought
the racism is that the GOP did not want a 'WISE LATINA' to apply the law and facts with HER intuitive an experienced analysis and thought. that is the RACISM. If the GOP attack her on relevant matters then their votes wouldn't reek of RACISM
I know more of the GOP would have voted for her.
Sorry but you simply can't prove that. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. It's not fact.
The American Bar Association is political
The ABA is hardly political compared to the ACLU. And the ABA still has a left leaning bias so to imply they said Alito and Roberts were qualified was politically motivated is laughable.
Education:
Roberts: undergrad: Harvard, law school Harvard
Alito: Princeton, Yale
Sotomayor: Princton, Yale
So can we toss out education as a factor?
Judicial experience:
Roberts: 2 years on the DC Circuit
Alito: 16 years on the Third Circuit
Sotomayor: 6 years US District Court judge, 10 years Second Circuit
So tell me why you think Sotomayor is qualified and Alito is not? The only logical conclusion is that that the ACLU doesn't like his positions on the issues. Go to their website and read what they said in 2005.
And sorry but she deserved getting raked for the "wise Latina" remark. If a white guy said “I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina female who hasn’t lived that life” not only would that person not get confirmed, he probably would have been forced from whatever judgeship he currently held.
largely for his death penalty and torture stance. http://www.acslaw.org/pdf/Alito_Death_Penalty.pdf
In his 15-year career on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Judge Samuel
Alito has participated in 10 capital cases. Five were decided unanimously by three-judge panels.
The other five provoked strong disagreement between Judge Alito and his colleagues. In each of
the five contested cases, Judge Alito ruled against the inmate. His opinions, which we examine
in detail, show a disturbing tendency to tolerate serious errors in capital proceedings. They
reveal troubling perspectives on federalism, race, and due process of law, and they have
worrisome implications for the protection of individual liberties in the war on terror.
i never said the ABA qualification for them was political. I said they were political org. However the ABA ratings are not the factor for supreme court nominees. No president would select a candidate with a bad standing with the ABA. The ABA rating is not the bar for supreme court justices, otherwise why even have a confirmation hearing? The ABA board are mostly white corporate male lawyers and they don't represent the makeup of America. Our elective representatives represent their district's makeup. I strongly believe the Nays were too high for such a qualified candidate who was attacked only on her "wise latina" comment. I believe these naysayer will reap what they sow in the next election.
ALL DAY ALL NIGHT
Firstly, looking at the records of Sotomayor and the other Justices, she is just as qualifed, if not more so, yet she only receives a handful of votes from the GOP. I take that to mean that the GOP wants nothing more to be a thorn in Obama's side and hope for his failure. They are content to stand aside, nitpick and add nothing constructive to any debate. In the process, the GOP also alienate an entire portion of the US electorate. The Latino vote has not always been solid for the Democrats and W got lots of Latino votes when he ran in 2000. In the end, the is a win for the Democrats as the GOP continue to dig themselves deeper.
I have no doubts about her qualification but the way she dodged questions during the hearing really bothers me. Makes the whole process meaningless.
Actually I thought she handled some of her tougher critics pretty well. Particularly when she was asked point-blank whether American citizens had the right to defend themselves (in regards to gun ownership/gun control laws). She took what I thought to be a pretty obvious straw man and turned it into a good lesson on how people can find dangerous loopholes in a Constitutional amendment.
Awesome. Another liberal racist on the bench. This ought to make the moonbats happy for a while.