Video: Graham on his Sotomayor meeting
posted at 12:55 pm on June 4, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Republicans continued to recalibrate their responses to Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court as she visited Senators on Capitol Hill. Jeff Session yesterday sounded conciliatory while keeping his options open, despite assumptions that he might look to even a few scores with Democrats, especially Joe Biden. Lindsey Graham, usually one of the Republicans keen to work on bipartisan efforts, chose a much more combative tone after his meeting with Sotomayor:
Actually, by the time he got to Shepherd Smith, Graham had mellowed. He told reporters immediately after his meeting that he was still trying to decide whether to use the “Obama standard,” and that he couldn’t vote for her if he did. Graham explains it in more detail in this clip, but doesn’t commit himself quite as much. He said he will demand an explanation of her comments about Latina women making better judges than other ethnicities in the hearings. “I would hope that a lot of Latino men and women would be offended by her comments,” Graham said, and he explained the difference between her statement and the one made by Samuel Alito during his hearings that the Left has trotted out as a false equivalency.
Will Graham’s support of the Amnesty Lite bill give him the authority to get tough on Sotomayor without angering Latino voters? We’ll see, if Graham stays this tough. Like Sessions, he wants the hearings scheduled in the fall for more research — and also to ensure that (a) the Ricci decision is out and (b) to keep it from distracting Republicans from fighting Obama’s health-care plans.
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:
Isn’t it all pointless?
They have their rights to hearings, and to ask questions, but in the end, this woman will more than likely, be seated, as a Justice.
God help us all!
capejasmine on June 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM
Smart politics.
BadgerHawk on June 4, 2009 at 1:01 PM
73 votes minimum and it comes before the next court session begins. Place your bets.
Jazz Shaw on June 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM
September would be before the next court session. I’m betting somewhere between 65-75 votes to approve, unless Graham gets some traction on his “Obama standard”.
Ed Morrissey on June 4, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Wow, for a second I thought Graham got an injection of fetal stem cells and grew a back bone!
Mr. Joe on June 4, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The republicans are getting the message from the base – you’d better fight this nomination.
Keep the pressure up everyone!
Rebar on June 4, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Yes, even if Sotomayor is inevitable, this in itself is abundant reason to fight.
petefrt on June 4, 2009 at 1:15 PM
*sigh* I don’t have much faith in my GOP Senators.
One voted to confirm Geithner, the other voted for the Omnibus spending bill.
Cwap.
ladyingray on June 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I think Limbaugh has it right. We’ll excuse her racism if she, as a true, pro-life Catholic, promises to overturn Roe v. Wade if the opportunity arises. See, right wing nutcases like me can learn to make accommodations. Heck, I’ll even learn how to properly say, God is Great, in Arabic.
mr1216 on June 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM
IF Graham is not worried about her qualifications and is only worried about being re-elected, then I hope he FAILS in his re-election bid!
Or, am I just reacting to the useless thoughts of the author of this post? Hmmmm.
Freddy on June 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM
A Stanford law student posted something at NRO (Bench Memos) about a Sotomayor opinion from 2001 on a NY bar exam applicant. I encourage you to read the blurb. Without tracking down the opinion, the outcome in Sotomayor’s appellate panel makes me wonder, “What kind of an idiot is she?”
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGRmYzM5OWNkMzE5MWEzYTE0MTRiOTEzNDhmZDA4NGY=
BuckeyeSam on June 4, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I can’t recall where I read somewhere that someone who knows her claimed she is pro-life… not militant, but not pro-choice, by any means.
The left is going to blow one !!! BO will pay a price when KOZ discovers this and it will be too late. (LIFETIME appointment, mind you.)
stenwin77 on June 4, 2009 at 1:28 PM
HEY ED! Congratulations on making it into The Limbaugh Letter. Mine arrived in the mail just a few minutes ago and there was your smiling face in the interview section.
Nice interview. Biggest surprise — you’re only 46 (same age as me). With your grandkids and all, I for some reason had you pegged as older than you are. Of course, that probably means I think I’m younger than I am.
BigD on June 4, 2009 at 1:31 PM
61 at best, with the usual suspects stabbing us in the back.
SouthernGent on June 4, 2009 at 1:39 PM
More interested in how identity politics and related issues undermines support for Obama and the Ds than in So-So’s future secret career on the Court.
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It is not a question of whether Graham is a cheap tool or not, its a question of whose lapdog he is at the appropriate moment. He is a closet racist. After seeing his speech to La Raza saying that anyone who is against amnesty is a bigot and a racist, he quaranteed the crowd the bigots will not stop amnesty. He is the epitome of a human chameleon. Saying at the moment what is expected, not what is his conviction.
volsense on June 4, 2009 at 1:44 PM
However, the odds of the nomination failing have gone from 1 in 100 to 1 in 10 or better, a significant improvement, even if the confirmation vote really does turn out to be closer to Jazz Shaw’s guess than SouthernGent’s (or worse).
CK MacLeod on June 4, 2009 at 1:45 PM
I have a serious problem with the Mealey-Mouthed Moderates starting arguments with a disclaimer that Sotomayor is not a racist.
HANG ON!
Instead of that premise, how about a premise that centers on that issue for debate?!
Here’s the premise that they should be operating from..
“Considering Sotomayor’s racist comments and her membership in a racist group, we should attempt to determine if there’s anything to the charges of her being racist.”
Dismissing that charge out of hand is simply premature at best and cowardice at worst.
Maybe Eric Holder was right.
Barrack on June 4, 2009 at 1:46 PM
Memo to Cornyn, Graham, and Sessions….
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial, we have always been, and we, I believe, continue to be, in too many ways, a nation of cowards,” – Eric Holder
Barrack on June 4, 2009 at 1:49 PM
I don’t think Shep is fairly characterizing what Graham is saying (I know – who are you and what have you done with Jaibones?).
Graham has it exactly right, imo. She seems bright, qualified by education and experience, seems to be some question of her judicial temperament, and then there are these comments which call into question her judicial philosophy with respect to gender and race, which have no place in the court.
Also, using the standard vomited up by then-Senator Obama, no one who is to her right, politically, should support her.
Jaibones on June 4, 2009 at 1:54 PM
I can not understand why Fox News has not shit-canned this idiot long ago. Maybe they keep him around so they have a connection to gay marriage.
Wade on June 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM
Pandering to hispanics (and illegals) is just going to improve the GOP’s chances of winning. I’ll have more on this after I finish writing the Republican party’s obituary.
Laura in Maryland on June 4, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I just dislodged a perfectly good lunch by watching shep the dip……urp
bperiwinkle on June 4, 2009 at 2:02 PM
The very sight of the preening Miss Lindsey Graham makes me sick.
Hilts on June 4, 2009 at 2:04 PM
I haven’t seen anyone say outright they know where she stands on life… but she did vote with Bush on not funding them overseas and that is a direct opposite of what Obama wants. That gives me hope.
There is some ground to be gained by vetting all her embarrassing racial biases. We should make her beg for an apology on her racist statements before she gets on the court. She should be publicly shamed for her racial views of superiority.
On the bright side: I think she is dumber than anyone currently on the court now and will not be able to convince any of those great minds to change their minds on any point. Her brain against Scalia, Roberts, Altio? I like those odds.
Apparently her writing is basically unreadable. That fact alone takes the teeth out of her activism! All she can do once on the court is use her writing to convince… if you can’t figure out what she is saying… it is buried in needless legalspeak… That is a real get for us.
petunia on June 4, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Sotomayor will probably be confirmed, due to all the Democrats in the Senate, but the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee can make their points by asking her about judicial fairness, that the law is supposed to be color-blind.
She can also be questioned about her opinions on controversial cases, especially when they were reversed by SCOTUS, as well as what she meant by controversial statements she has made, and how she intends to judge cases on the Supreme Court.
The questions need to be well-phrased so that Republicans appear to be pro-fairness and pro-impartiality, rather than anti-Latina. If so, voters in 2010 may decide they want more Republicans in the Senate, so that future nominations would be evaluated more fairly by the Senate.
Steve Z on June 4, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Drop the ‘racist’ rants. Attack her by agreeing with her. Make her the ‘pro-life’ candidate. Ask all questions concerning whether or not the constitution applies to the unborn.
Force the Democrats to reconcile their vote by voting for a ‘pro-life’ justice. Pin her down on that. Don’t be afraid that she is pro-life and you want her on because that’ll help. Get the Democrats on record rejecting a Latina because of her views on abortion. MOST Latinos are against abortion.
Make Latinos understand which party is pro-life (our chairman notwithstanding). Make Latinos understand that a vote for a Democrat is a vote for abortion on demand.
ThackerAgency on June 4, 2009 at 2:16 PM
by saying ‘our chairman’, I mean the R chairman. I’m no R. But I wish the D’s had some competition from somewhere.
ThackerAgency on June 4, 2009 at 2:17 PM
U.S. courts are suppose to be guardians to the U.S. Constitution, and so far IMO, they’ve ALL miserably let our country down, on this issue because:
Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason. She is not to know of strife. She is not to know of circumstance. She is not to know of wealth or poverty, strength or weakness, education or illiteracy, gifted oratory or bumbling foolishness.
So does Sonia Sotomayor meet this critria???
byteshredder on June 4, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I think it is a good Idea to send the moderates after her with the conservatives playing good cop.
tomas on June 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM
It seems like the one constant you can count on from Republicans is weak knee inconsistency.
Star20 on June 4, 2009 at 3:09 PM
Remember the Bakkee decision and the consequences??
“Feelgood” decisions by misguided judges KILL PEOPLE!
fred5678 on June 4, 2009 at 3:11 PM
To paraprase, “Let Graham be Graham” but be willing to accept his selling out your position.
Mr. Grump on June 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM
Comment pages: