Kabuki and Judge Sotomayor

Boston Globe ^ | July 15, 2009 | Jeff Jacoby

[MartinaMisc]

THE NOMINATION of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court has generated controversy, but its outcome is not in doubt. “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed,’’ South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told the nominee when the Judiciary Committee hearings opened on Monday. It would be hard to find anyone who disagrees.

This week’s hearings are all that stand between Sotomayor and one of the most consequential jobs in American life. As a Supreme Court justice, she will be shaping national policy for years, perhaps decades, to come. Long after the president who nominated her has left the White House, Sotomayor is likely to still be on the bench, wielding an influence on matters ranging from property rights to labor law to free speech to criminal procedure. With the other justices, she will exercise powers nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, yet by now accepted as the high court’s prerogatives: to strike down state and federal laws, to bind other branches of government, to have the last word on the meaning of terms like “due process of law’’ and “establishment of religion’’ - and to do it all without being accountable to the American people or any elected official.

[gov_bean_ counter]

Soto the Dodo is a judicial disgrace who is where she is only because of her sex and ethnic background.

[plsjr]

“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you will be confirmed,’’ South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham told the nominee

This vile piece of colonic offal is an example of why I will seriously reconsider my support of Sarah Palin if she goes with the pubbies. In any case, I will never support the goppies as an organization again. Supporting individual statesmen who demonstrate they're deserving and working to get the current politicians out has become a primary motivator for me.

[Guenevere]

bttt

[BilLies]

Why do you have a problem with someone stating the obvious?

[freekitty]

I agree and the word around the courts is she is a bully; not just because it was said on tv.

[plsjr]

Because:
(1) It's not obvious - I disagree with your implication that it's a done deal
(2) Sotomayor has demonstrated that she's not qualified and
(3) I object to someone who claims the republican label and is supposed to be representing his constituents in consonance with his party weakening the fight for what is right.

But you knew that -

My question to you is:
Why are you trying to ridicule and demoralize someone who stands against the destruction of the Constitution by a pres__ent, representatives, and justices who feel empathy is a basis for jurisprudence?

[BilLies]

Not “trying to ridicule and demoralize someone..”
Do the math, 60 democrats (super majority) plus wobbly republicans. Graham did excellent cross examination yesterday, (as did the other ‘publicans) exposing FOR THE RECORD SS’s inconsistencies (lies). If these exposures can turn some democrats, the wobbly republicans will stay true, if not “you, (SS) will be confirmed.”

[plsjr]

You help me make my point.

It's not simply the uninfluenced decision of ~100 'persons'. If the goppies would stand firm, there are a number of 'blue dog democrats' that could be encouraged to vote against her.

"Doing the math" works well in blackjack, and it helps in Texas Hold'em, but there are a lot more variables in politics and the left is beginning to crack (zero's at -7 and we know congress is courting single digit total approval, or will be if they keep it up). How many are up for election in 2010?

We need to encourage that as much as we can.

(Also, on YouTube, I only saw pansy's 'welcome' statement which, among all that I saw was only exceeded by Feinstein's in fawning factor. It appears I need to see what he said subsequently. I hope I'm pleasantly shocked!)