Top Senate aides: GOP ready to roll over for Sotomayor
posted at 6:30 pm on May 27, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
No surprise. Sessions hinted this morning in an interview that there’ll be no filibuster and Grassley told C-SPAN flatly that she’ll be confirmed. As I said yesterday, what’s the point of starting a nuclear war that you can’t win? Save the ICBMs for next time, when the other side might be weaker.
Top Senate Republican strategists tell POLITICO that, barring unknown facts about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP plans no scorched-earth opposition to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice…
“The sentiment is overwhelming that the Senate should do due diligence but should not make a mountain out of a molehill,” said a top Senate Republican aide. “If there’s no ‘there’ there, we shouldn’t try to create one.”…
GOP officials say they realize the party needs to improve its standing among Hispanic voters in order to have any hope of winning a national election, and they admit that trashing the first Latina nominee to the court could cement stereotypes or further alienate minorities…
Republican officials said they still plan an aggressive investigation of her paper trail, since Supreme Court fights have often taken unpredictable turns…
Radio host Hugh Hewitt was among the leading conservative voices who indicated that no holy war will occur. “I don’t believe in charging up a hill when you’re going to be completely mowed down,” Hewitt said.
It’s worth reading the whole piece, if only for the matter-of-fact acknowledgment of media bias in favor of Democratic nominees near the end. Further to that point, via Greg Hengler, here’s Coulter on GMA fielding dopey questions from Diane Sawyer about whether her heart swelled with pride at the thought of a Latino nominee, a line of inquiry for which AC was well prepared. Note also Carville’s painfully heavy handed attempt to goad her and Rush et al. into freaking out over the Sotomayor pick in order to make life difficult for Senate Republicans with the base. Even a fool like me saw that coming from a mile away.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
There’s no battle to fight here folks… they have the votes-give it a rest…
NRA Lifer on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Senate Republicans “We’d like to congratulate President Obama on his fine choice for SCOTUS and we’d like to thank our good friend the Chairman of this committee for inviting us to these hearings and we’d especially like to thank the nominee whom we have each personally met with. We find her to be honest, hard working and a student of the law who is highly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. We plan to confirm this nominee and hope that President Obama will continue to invite us to White House cocktail parties with the rest of the beautiful people here in DC”…
sabbott on May 28, 2009 at 8:59 AM
even if they don’t have the votes, they should make a principled stand instead of rolling over…
republicans = whigs
right4life on May 28, 2009 at 9:16 AM
NRA Lifer on May 28, 2009 at 8:54 AM
That’s bull.
Let’s not fight the battle and let the public know about her Second Amendment stance then?
The Republican’s shouldn’t air this woman views on race in the context of her remarks?
If you operate from the viewpoint we’ll lose every battle before it’s even begun, then when exactly will be the right time to stand up? We probably would lose this one, but that means we shouldn’t even try?
We don’t know what might stick in the public’s mind if we just fold up our tents, hell if don’t even roll out the tents, and stay home!
catmman on May 28, 2009 at 9:17 AM
Questions the Republicans can ask the Dems:
-How high do you want us to jump?
-How do you like your coffee? Sugar? Cream?
-Want us to scratch that itch?
-Do you mind using the KY?
CynicalOptimist on May 28, 2009 at 9:28 AM
If the Rs give this lefty a free pass they might as well just switch parties. To not fight send an even weaker message.
What happened to standing up for what you believe. exposing all of her flaws publicly and sending a message to the public that “hey, we laid it out there for you, voted against her but the partisan dems had the votes and ramrodded their one-sided agenda through”
If they believe they will curry favor with Hispanics or inspire them to join the conservative movement they are delusional.
Dukehoopsfan on May 28, 2009 at 9:29 AM
In other words, we shouldn’t be concerned with values and should no longer have a spine. Let’s just agree with the liberals on everything and hope they throw us a bone now and then.
jeffn21 on May 28, 2009 at 9:34 AM
I am beyond disgusted with these spineless Republicans. McCain pandered to Hispanics for YEARS (while alienating Republicans) and they crapped all over him in the election. Being weak is a LOSING strategy. You need look no further than the libs for proof.
Bush was extremely popular a few years back and they made a conscious decision to oppose him and bring him down, regardless if they were right on the issues or not. They did that and he did not respond in kind and here we are. We need to be going nuclear on EVERY issue. For the reason that the Conservative position is not on CORRECT, polls show on the ISSUES, the people are with US.
echosyst on May 28, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Having never watched Good Morning America, I have a question: is this host an alcoholic? Seriously. Her facial expressions and language appear to me like she is hitting the bottle pretty early in the day.
Vashta.Nerada on May 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM
No battle huh? Guess what? With the GOP, there never is any battle. Even when we have the numbers, all we want to do is broker deals or share power. Part of the reason why the GOP is in the straits they are right now, is because all they do is F***ING walk away from fights. It’s why nobody knows what they stand for anymore because they won’t commit to anything.
Ever ask yourself if there was battle to be fought on the war on terror? Ever find yourself awake wondering about the civil rights of terrorist detainees and whether they would get a trial in an American Civil court? Because the Democrats did; they fought us on everything; even on things that they should have lost; naturally though, since the GOP modus operandi when confronted with an opponent is to turn tail, drop their pants and bend over, we don’t know if we could have beat them on that or not. Why is it ok for the Democrats to fight us on everything and we’ll stand up for nothing?
Yes, she will be confirmed. But we should make them work for it. We should drag all of those stupid horrible things she’s said into the public square so everyone knows what a nice little black robed dictator we’re having crammed down our throats. If nothing else, give the Dems some payback for all of the hassle we got on our nominees. It’s the way the game is played. Problem is, we don’t have a team anymore. All we’ve got is the team mascot, the towel boy, and a few cheerleaders playing graba** on the sidelines while the GOP team cowers in the locker room congratualting themselves on reaching across the aisle.
If we don’t start fighting for something soon, there’s not going to be anything left to fight for.
austinnelly on May 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM
I am so done with the GOP. I have been forced to a 3rd party, like it or not.
PrincipledPilgrim on May 28, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Anyone noted she is also a proud member of La Raza?
maynila on May 28, 2009 at 10:38 AM
I guess what doesn’t occur to the GOP wimps is that every time they concede to the libs, they are making them STRONGER and us WEAKER. So it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, you don’t take them on because you think you can’t win, but they only get stronger which assures that you can’t win, so you concede on the next issue.
It is like boxing, even if you don’t win the round you have to bloody your opponent. Eventually it adds up and you knock him out. The libs know that and have playing that way for years, it has certainly paid off for them. The reason we are in this mess is because the Republicans *don’t* fight for us, not because they have. Now the libs are even daring us to oppose them, it is all so pathetic I want to puke.
echosyst on May 28, 2009 at 10:54 AM
First, it is our responsibility to contact the GOP senators on the judicial committee to reconsider approving her. If the GOP Senators vote to approve Sotomayor, write their names down, then vote them out of office.
Sxyrzrbck on May 28, 2009 at 11:15 AM
This woman should have been de-frocked years ago. We know she’s going to get confirmed. But take a stand and expose her for the shrill communist she and the “one” who nominated her are.
There is no Republican party. Time to circle the wagons while the RINO’s can circle-jerk.
J.J. Sefton on May 28, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Laura Ingraham,
She (Sotomayer) has the right probably political out look for them, and so her personal story is going to be highlighted, and sold, and resold, and retold, and she is going to be an inspiration to Latinas and Latinos. And yet Justice Thomas, and Justice Miguel Estrada, weren’t any such inspiration so they were fair game for ridicule and disparagement.
Dr Evil on May 28, 2009 at 11:38 AM
In my 35 or so years of being politically aware, never once has “taking the high road” or giving the “benefit of the doubt” to the left, has ever been reciprocated. Not even once.
The idea that republicans are still being browbeaten into playing by the “rules”, as framed by the democrat party and their lickspittals in the MSM, rules that never seem to apply to them, is both amazing and very very sad.
We need to fight each and every outrage, and if it means getting “down and dirty”, so be it. The left has been for a long long time.
Rebar on May 28, 2009 at 11:47 AM
The Republicans should not filibuster this one. They need to save their fire for when it’s time to replace a conservative on the court. If Obama stays in for 8 years that’s a real possiblity. Then it will be all out war and Republicans will need to fight to the death to stop a real tip in the ideological balance of the court.
frank63 on May 28, 2009 at 12:11 PM
If Republicans oppose her then the Democrats will call them racists. If Republicans don’t oppose her then Democrats will still call them racists.
It you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t then you may as well do.
AaronGuzman on May 28, 2009 at 12:27 PM
***
LA RAZA is a Hispanic RACIST ORGANIZATION. Sonia Sotomayor is a La Raza member.
***
How would you like a White Supremist candidate like David Dukes (KKK background) using his “life experiences” in deciding your case before SCOTUS?
***
Call me crazy–but I hope for someone that follows the U.S. Constitution and decides cases based on legal facts–not on personal opinions.
***
John Bibb
***
rocketman on May 28, 2009 at 12:32 PM
As much as I’d love to see that, I think Repubs would just be shooting themselves in the foot if they do it. Unfortunately, the rules are different for Republicans than they are for Democrats because of the overwhelming bias of the media. Fighting the nominee will cost Republicans among Hispanics because the media will create and hype the narrative that Republican opposition to her is based on bigotry toward Hispanics. The Dems don’t have to worry about the media doing that to them when they oppose Republican nominees. That’s why Dems could fight against Clarence Thomas and the media never raised a hint that opposition to him was based on bigotry. It’s just the way it is and Republicans have to take that into account when they make their political calculations.
frank63 on May 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Giving the Democrats a pass on Sotomayor is just like the morons that gave Ruth Bader Ginsberg a pass during her Judicial conformation.
Face it the GOP has no balls anymore and is making a mockery of conservatives. This woman is the perfect person to vet for not only being a far leftist but a racist and a bigot as well.
For those that think the GOP will ever get the Hispanic vote you are having delusions of Grandeur. How did all the pandering to the Hispanics work out in 2008?
Right now, the conservative vote is still the majority in America.
If this fight is not worth the effort just when is it worth the effort. The RNC and Republican make me sick. They are nothing but Liberals calling themselves conservatives like Specter, McCain, and Gramnesty.
Like Rush said yesterday;” But our party, cowering in fear, buys into the notion that opposing her will only alienate potential future voters. So if we oppose the nomination of a woman to be a Supreme Court justice who’s utterly unqualified, who is utterly incompetent, it means our extinction. If we are to not oppose on grounds of competence or a politics or ideology, those that we deem to be harmful to the United States of America, then we already are extinct. I would suggest to you that the Republican Party is already extinct if it’s listening to Mark McKinnon”
“The Republican Party is extinct if it has made the decision that the only way it can reclaim power is via identity politics.”
ScottyDog on May 28, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Unfortunately, the rules are different for Republicans than they are for Democrats because of the overwhelming bias of the media.
frank63 on May 28, 2009 at 12:38 PM
True. So why not fight knowing you’re going to get lambasted anyway?! When a Republican gets back in the WH, are the rules going to change back? Are the Dems or the media going to leave well enough alone?
Of course not so get in your punches now! Make a principled stand and go down fighting.
OMG this kind of thinking from our side is driving me crazy!
Davy Crockett: “Well, we’re outnumbered 100 to 1.”
W. B. Travis: “Yep. Better surrender since we’re gonna lose this fight anyway.”
catmman on May 28, 2009 at 2:36 PM
catmman on May 28, 2009 at 2:36 PM
ScottyDog on May 28, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Sometimes you need to surrender the battle as part of a larger strategy in winning the war. It’s one thing to compromise when it really matters (which Repubs have often done). It’s another to save your ammuntion for a more important fight that lies ahead (replacement of a conservative). I mean even if the Repubs filibustered and somehow succeeded, do you think the next nominee will be any better? I’m not saying the Repubs should vote to confirm her. They shouldn’t. But they should save the filibuster for when it really matters.
frank63 on May 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Uhmm… how about because it is the right thing to do? Sotomayor’s legal reasoning seems to be as sloppy as her hair ’style’. A number of ‘experts’ have spoken to her quixotic judgment. She has no respect for the 2nd Amendment and she believes courts set policy, not withstanding her oh-too-cute revision of her remaeks.
You fight this nomination because it is an affront to generally held American values. And you fight this nomination so that people are shown the difference between Democrat & Republican philosophies.
thegreatbeast on May 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM
You fight this nomination because it is an affront to generally held American values. And you fight this nomination so that people are shown the difference between Democrat & Republican philosophies.
thegreatbeast on May 28, 2009 at 5:34 PM
redfoxbluestate on May 28, 2009 at 5:57 PM
If all the Senate Republicans opposed Sotomayor, the Senate Democrats from conservative states would be forced to oppose her as well. As long as they have fig leafs, these Democrats won’t have to pay the price at election time for confirming a La Raza Aztlanian.
Any Republican who fails to oppose this vile Sotomayor racist must be replaced in their next primary. There is no more important litmus test than this.
Buddahpundit on May 28, 2009 at 6:15 PM
What you’ve just established is the use of ethnicity by the Left for their Leftwing political purposes (also, use of gender, race, “the poor”), WHICH HAS LITTLE TO NOTHING oftenimes TO DO WITH the actual individual, it’s just POLITICAL PLOY by the Left.
As long as this is tolerated by everyone else, the Left will continue to use these emotionally inflammatory and intellectually irrational contexts. Take a look at Hugo Chavez and Castro, who are masters of this nonsense (because it works to drive influence that can’t actaully be explained in acceptable intellectual terms).
The Democratic Party, today, is not a good group. It’s intents are not well meaning. I think there’s abundant proof of that today. And that they’re down in the nonsense garbage rooting around with the tossing of emotionally inflammatory attributes is evidence they’re not up to any good. It’s the only way they can garner support, to incite and upset and confuse people into relenting — same thing done by crazy-man-Chavez and the evil Fidel Castro.
The underside of that is the “or else” retribution factor. Submit or else. The Democrats today are very literally engaged in similar politics.
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 6:46 PM
Another thing, case anyone’s still reading by now:
The ongoing (and strangely non-sequitorial) insert of the phraseology regarding “mother” by Barack Obama and now Sotomayor IS INTENTIONAL EMOTIONAL AGITATION METHOD.
They’re pushing, literally pushing, the phony, irrational and intellectual dishonest perception among impressionable people that the Democratic Party equates with “family” — that somehow you’re one big family by submitting to the Democrats, so many people associate with them without regard for what’s actually taking place.
Hugo does this, Castro does this, Ahmadinajad does this, ethnic supremacists do this, the Democratic Party does this…
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 6:49 PM
intellectually dishonest perception ^^
Lourdes on May 28, 2009 at 6:49 PM
I think that it’s probably better for Obama to put in a questionable woman like her, someone who may be *gasp* catholic and tending towards pro-life, but who, nonetheless, is a bad lawyer and will therefore be unpersuasive and useless as a setter of precedent.
That is, Obama’s got the Souter chair on the court. Why give it to a left wing version of Alito or Scalia?
joeindc44 on May 28, 2009 at 7:06 PM
Moderate means never having to stand up for anything.
As Graham Chapman put it in a Python skit, “There’s nothing an agnostic can’t do when he doesn’t know whether he believes in anything or not.”
mankai on May 28, 2009 at 7:46 PM
“the left must be dealt with the same way terrorists are dealt with” nice job progressoverpeace, what do you mean? You gonna kill us lefties? Is that what you mean? Are you the face of the conservative movement now? What a sickening statement. Have you no shame man?
athensboy on May 28, 2009 at 8:04 PM
athensboy – as if lefties have any idea what “shame” consists of. You people are utterly without standards of honor. It’s all “the end justifies then means” with you people – and then, when your stated objectives fail, you whine that your “intentions were good.”
Bah, humbug!
disa on May 28, 2009 at 8:58 PM
the end justifies THE means
(makes no difference if I preview, I still miss the typos!)
disa on May 28, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Is the principle worth the fight?
PaCadle on May 28, 2009 at 10:07 PM
frank63 on May 28, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Sometimes you need to fight the battle in a larger strategy to win the war as well my friend.
Republicans are on the ropes. The base (the base being the ones who are important to the party btw) need it’s “leaders” to make a stand.
You’re making an assumption that when we try to get a conservative later that the Dems will play fair and pay us back for being good guys – wrong. Dems never do this and haven’t done it.
Why give the Dems what they want just because?
catmman on May 28, 2009 at 10:17 PM
Getting our priciples out is always worth the fight. No, don’t descend into name-calling or spurious challenges – dig in and reveal how she thinks. AND how she feels. Get the feelings out there, libs are marinated in the damned things. Then underscore how her opinions reveal an inherent hostility to the Constitution (as do Barry’s).
I hope the Republicans are studying. Heritage.org, guys.
disa on May 28, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Surely no one can be that naive!
disa on May 28, 2009 at 11:02 PM
The question I have is will the left insist on assurances on abortion.Obama said he would not demand a litmus test and says he didn’t even ask her about the issue. Maybe he just assumed she’s pro-choice? The democrats may have to kill the nomination and try to blame it on the racist right.
mike_NC9 on May 28, 2009 at 11:14 PM
If you have a Republican Congresscritter, call its office. Let them know that if it refuses to fight, if it refuses to expose this racist, statist, anti-constitutionalist, if it concedes its vote for her, you will support ANY primary challenger–with money.
If enough people pledge five hundred dollars to the first primary challenger, they will start to pay attention. If this becomes a blogosphere meme, it will focus that attention very, very clearly.
njcommuter on May 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM
I agree with you that the Dems will never play fair. But they are politicians who need to get reelected so if we can get the general public on our side about any Supreme Court nominee it will help, especially among Red State Dem senators. If the Repubs just filibuster every nominee that comes along then it’s going to be like crying wolf when it’s time to replace a conservative and they say to the public “this one really matter folks”. I think if the Repubs hold their fire to some degree it will be easier to declare all out war later and perhaps get the general public on our side.
frank63 on May 29, 2009 at 7:49 AM
frank63 on May 29, 2009 at 7:49 AM
I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but you aren’t going to get the public on your side if you don’t even make an argument of the nominee.
In the bigger picture, “the public” isn’t who the Repubs should be overly concerned with – the Repub/Conservative base is. If the Repubs in the Senate roll over on this, they will lose ground with those who are important in keeping them elected.
The base has about had it with Republican “squishiness”. If they roll, they will pay the price – for no better reason than they were trying to “play fair” or be able to “fight again later”. In some battles if you wait to long to engage the enemy, you’ll lose the whole war.
There is no reason the Repubs can’t make a prinicpled stand and vet the mominee with her actual stances on stuff. Just her 2nd Amend stuff would be enough to rile up a lot of people. Outside of certain conservative circles, are the people being told this? No, and they won’t find out about it if the Repubs roll over.
catmman on May 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM
I guess it all depends how we define roll over. I do think the Repubs should grill this nominee hard, expose her leftist views to the public, then vote against her…but stop short of the filibuster. I don’t call that rolling over. Rolling over is what they did for Ginsburg who the Repubs voted for almost across the board.
As far as appeasing the base, believe me I’m as hard core conservative as you can get but I also understand we can’t win elections without winning over some independents. That doesn’t mean we should surrender the party to the moderates but it does mean we need to be careful about picking our battles.
frank63 on May 29, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Gee, did you leave any of the Rush punch for anyone else to drink?
Monkei on May 29, 2009 at 10:41 AM
You do know that you can substitute GOP for DEM in your statement? You really think the GOP is not a political party full of politicians?
Monkei on May 29, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I really think the Secret Service should be monitoring you!
Monkei on May 29, 2009 at 10:44 AM
I am pretty sure that Nominee Sotomayor is racially white. If not, then what? Lightly mixed, maybe, mostly Spanish ancestry. Ethnically latino, racially white. Just trying to be precise.
Hispanic is not a race, nor I believe an ethnicity, according to the CIA. They use the term, but it refers to those in the new world whose primary language is Spanish. That includes all sorts of white-euro-afro-indo mixes that really have not much to do with each other.
bbhack on May 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM
He is a rightwinger. Haven’t you heard ? They already are. This is your America loser.
Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Rush or no Rush Progress thinks that way.
For you to assume….well you know the old saying.
Jamson64 on May 29, 2009 at 2:15 PM
That means the word morphed, without a replacement. When the word gay was lost, there were still many other words that would suffice. No so with race.
So, without a word for race, the concept is defunct, and racism can’t exist. Yay!
Not buying it.
bbhack on May 29, 2009 at 2:32 PM
A good point came up on the radio today – if the Wise Latina would not qualify for jury duty – and she would not – then she cannot be qualified for the Supreme Court.
disa on May 29, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Speaking of reforming America, here’s a start:
http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2009/05/29/reform-7/
disa on May 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM
bbhack:
Why, then, the Democrats would have nothing to live for!
disa on May 29, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I think they will question her in hearings and it is fairly likely some one will push her buutons and she will vent.
seven on May 29, 2009 at 6:11 PM
The judiciary committee can stop her confirmation. One member can hold her up for a long time, just as the dems did it to George W.
Also, public reporting of her record will make her a poison pill for the dems. Her “outbursts” in her courtroom would tend to indicate that under serious scrutiny the likelihood of a blowup on camera is pretty high.
Recite her record. Bring in the white firefighter in the Ricci case. Bring in the Judge who sent her a written lambasting for her flagrant bigotry and refusal to rule according to the CONSTITUTION.
dogsoldier on May 29, 2009 at 6:56 PM
This woman should be disqualified for being an idiot, rather than a racist.
Read the actual “wise Latina” speech. Here’s a quote:
“For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach.”
This is indefensible. It’s an insult to the intelligence of anyone above the age of 4. The grammar is abysmal, there is no logic, she’s a complete ditz. This woman belongs on a sitcom with George Lopez, not on the Supreme Court.
NoDonkey on May 29, 2009 at 10:56 PM
If you have been listing to Rush over the last week or so.I think he has made it clear that if the GOP sentors lay down on this one he will leave the party.I think to help start a new Consev. party.One can only hope that we can rid ourselfs from these spineless wimps forever.
thmcbb on May 30, 2009 at 6:56 PM
It would seem that she does not think there are any female people of color who are lawyers. He whole speech is about distinctions based on gender, race, ethnicity in which she levels the most stereotypic “Archie Bunker like” accusations imaginable.
What a racist, sexist and bigoted ditz; she is a Democrat that much is clear.
Geochelone on May 31, 2009 at 8:26 AM
The votes are in and the Roll Call has not even been called yet.
Our representatives do not have the votes to stop the confirmation. But, they must develop the intestinal fortitude to at least insure that the record actually reflects what drives Ms. Sotomayor’s decisions.
This is important because the public must understand the Courts are not supposed to be establishing policy. But when you have justices thinking like Ms. Sotomayor that is what you get. More evidence the left has no respect for the Constitution and that they want to socialize U.S.
Does it not appear noteworthy, the Bankruptcy Court is placing Chrysler into the hands of Fiat by fiat.
Don’t let it happen,
MSGTAS on June 1, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3