|
Posted on 07/06/2009 12:29:26 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Sen. John McCain touched on a variety of topics with The Daily Courier while visiting Prescott July 4, from single-payer health care to a revived push for a national scenic area designation in the Sedona area.
. . . . .
Other topics with McCain included:
. . . . .
* Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. McCain said he hasn't decided how he will vote on Sotomayor, especially since he still needs to talk to fellow Sen. Jon Kyl about her. Kyl serves on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
(Excerpt) Read more at prescottdailycourier.com ...
|
fyi
McCain is convinced he’s not part an oversight agency of the federal government charged with evaluating judicial appointments to the SCOTUS.
He’s a loony toon when it comes to SCOTUS nomination confirmations.
Based on his past votes, there’s no way he doesn’t vote for her. I don’t think he has ever voted against a SCOTUS nominee.
This figured heavily in my decision not to vote for him.
Its one thing to believe we shouldn’t filibust appointee because you believe its a president’s right
Its a totally different matter that once theres a vote, you VOTE FOR HER, which we know is a activist judge
Heeeeeaaads up!
McCain is very easily the worst despicable piece of Garbage to slither across the political scene in many years. He’s even worse than Spector.
Of course he’ll vote for her. Almost all will vote for her. It’s a done deal.
I wonder if our legislators ever consider voting the way their constituents want them to vote? Wouldn’t that be a novel idea? Who do they think they are??? Really!
I am so sick of their pious attitudes. All of them need to be kicked out!
This figured heavily in my decision not to vote for him.
Agreed.
Oh, come now, rabscuttle, surely by now you know our boyo better than that.
Sadly, I agree. We allow them to screw a scholar like Bork, and then stoop to this. As a party, our leaders sure have backbone don’t they.
Thanks. I figured a guy with his record wasn’t going to nominate someone much better (if any), than Sotomayer anyway.
Thanks. I figured a guy with his record wasn’t going to nominate someone much better (if any), than Sotomayer anyway.
My take, also.
Of course, tell me again who gave us Sandra "Swinging Sandy" Day O'Connor? ;)
That’s true. I believe I am right in saying that O’Connor is recognized as having moved left after her appointment.
Appointments are a tricky wicket. Sometimes you think you’ve gotten one thing, and all of a sudden the pressures and grandeur of the position causes folks to weigh the issues somewhat differently.
We’ve appointed seven of the nine justices. Putting the RINO concept aside for the moment, I doubt the Republicans who appointed the leftists realized what they were getting for their trouble.
Oei Ve! ;-)
I hope I didn’t tell you this before, but a few weeks back I went to the Reagan Library. I went on a Tuesday, and the Magna Carta had left the previous Friday. Missed it by that much! :-(
I would have loved to have seen it.
Yep.
I would have loved to have seen it.
Sorry that you missed it. That would be exciting to see. I don't know if you did tell me or not, but that's ok. I am just glad that someone understands my screen name.
I’m sure most everyone does. It’s a nice one.
:)
What I wrote to the Senator:
If my son were to claim he was better to serve in Congress because he grew up as a poor white dude raised by a single mother and can relate better to the masses, would you be insulted?
If I were to claim that I was better to serve on the Supreme Court because I grew up as a middle class white girl and can better relate to the majority of people living in the USofA, would you be insulted?
Sonia Sotomayor, if just a private citizen, would NOT be able to serve as a Juror if she revealed during ‘voir dire’ that her determination of the “facts” of the case would be influenced by the litigants’ race, gender and national origin! It’s ironic that she can serve as a judge after publicly expressing these biases.
What are you guys thinking?
Sonia Sotomayor has already verbally stated her philosophy in public over the past years, over and over again, and you guys are standing there with your palms over your ears. Remember the way the Democrats treated Robert Bork? Well, Republicans need to use the same hard hitting questions for Sonia Sotomayor. I refer you to: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/09/18/us/bork-hearings-judge-bork-senate-hearing-defense-past-statements-opinions.html
Once on the Supreme Court, there will be no recourse for the litigants of her 80% incorrect/questionable decisions! Sonia Sotomayor says “fidelity to the law” but she has had 80% of her decisions over-ridden by the Supreme Court! There’s usually a divorce if there’s been 80% infidelity!
How can you approve Sonia Sotomayor, knowing that she is not impartial . . . just listen to her talk . . . listen to how she rolls out her words and changes her pitch. She is being deceitful by her affectation of words and the manner in which she inflects her words.
Not only should she NOT serve on the Supreme Court, she shouldn’t serve on the Court of Appeals!
Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials, but Senators who drink the kool-aid and vote for someone so obviously ineligible as Sonia Sotomayor, are. You wouldn’t need to consider being reelected if you’d just repeal the 17th Amendment and return to the US Constitution Article 1, Section 3 as the Founding Fathers chose for Senators to be elected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
