Confirm Sotomayor, says … Pat Toomey

posted at 8:19 pm on August 4, 2009 by Allahpundit

Geraghty’s back-of-the-envelope math shows the final vote shaping up to be 66-32, well below what I predicted. The GOP can’t muster 10 votes for a woman who spent five years as a federal district judge, 11 more as an appellate judge, and had one truly controversial ruling to her credit during that time? I can’t imagine what the litmus test will be if they take back the Senate before Obama leaves office and have to approve any future nominees. Take it away, Toomey:

If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process…

Like many people, I was troubled by Sotomayor’s decision in the Ricci case and her now infamous statement about a “wise Latina.” I wondered whether they revealed a permanent bias and whether she is capable of approaching all cases impartially.

I found reassurance in her long judicial record, which shows no pattern of systematic bias. Of 96 race-related cases on which Sotomayor issued a decision, she found discrimination in only 10, and nine of those decisions were unanimous. Despite some objectionable comments in speeches, when it comes to deciding cases, Sotomayor’s record overwhelmingly shows impartiality on racial issues…

In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president. When a president of one party is elected, the proper role of the opposing party is not to go on politically charged ideological campaigns against judicial nominees. It should be limited to determining whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream

We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide “advice and consent,” not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.

I agree, but mindful of the fact that it’s now un-conservative per se to support anything that helps The One (“Conservative Correctness,” as Ace calls it), I know Toomey’s going to eat loads of “RINO!” crap for having written this. So let’s poll it. I’m curious: Does he get a pass on this in the name of wooing independents and centrist Dems in next year’s Senate race? Specter’s going to paint him as the hardest of hard-right extremists so any “moderate” credibility Toomey can purchase on the cheap is worth purchasing.



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

Turn on Toomey time, take it away!

ThePrez on August 4, 2009 at 8:21 PM

SHEESH GUYS LAY OFF TOOMEY

Palin turned off all those squishy rinos in the philly burbs; why would Toomey try to look “republican” in PA???

ADVICE FOR TOOMEY:

1. Shut up about social issues
2. Only talk about the economy
3. Repeat

battleoflepanto1571 on August 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM

I understand he needs the votes, so is producing rhetoric accordingly.

That being said, I can’t stand this “We elected a president, so he should be able to get anyone he wishes on a court she’ll serve on for life.”

amerpundit on August 4, 2009 at 8:23 PM

In one sense he is right the whole system has become too political.

In another sense he is wrong the democrats have shown no willingness to de politisize the process.

So I give Toomey a pass for being right on the issue but urge other GOPers to hit Sotomayor to teach the dems that hatrid is a lousy way to get a supreme court justice.

William Amos on August 4, 2009 at 8:24 PM

…whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream…

It just sucks that the “mainstream” is chock-full of libs and activists.

And Commies.

And Wise Latinas.

Yours truly,
rosco honkey-assed cracker ghostface honkey pico

roscopico on August 4, 2009 at 8:26 PM

I disagree. There is no downside to voting against her. Even if all 40 (R) Senators voted for her, bought her flowers and then tattooed her face on their butts, the very next time a Republican Pres. nominates a SCOTUS judge the Dems would fillibuster her and oppose her nomination to the very last Senator.
Count on it.

When it come to Democrats, taking the high road is for suckers. Give it all back to them ten fold.

NeoKong on August 4, 2009 at 8:27 PM

In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president.

Except that this is no longer true, given 1) the complete lack of any respect for this by the left and 2) the obvious political reach of the courts today. Toomey’s point is predicated on the idea of a SCOTUS that behaves as a court, not as a legislative router.

spmat on August 4, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Roll over and play dead, ‘pubs. The Jug-eared One won, remember?

hillbillyjim on August 4, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I can’t believe I am saying this, but Toomey needs to read McCain’s explanation for not voting for Sotomayor.

jencab on August 4, 2009 at 8:29 PM

It would be one thing if Sotomayor had actually defended her judicial ideology, but instead she lied through her teeth about it. I don’t think she merits confirmation on that ground alone.

ProfessorMiao on August 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM

At the end of the day, she’s no worse than what she’s replacing.

BigWyo on August 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Remember folks, racism is wrong unless its directed at the Republican voter base.

DwnSouthJukin on August 4, 2009 at 8:37 PM

The idea that she went along with the administration’s assertions that her “wise latina” comments were a one-time thing, and an unfortunate choice of words, rather than a theme which she repeated in speech after speech should raise doubts in any thinking person’s mind about her basic honesty, much less her suitability for the position to which she has been nominated.

hillbillyjim on August 4, 2009 at 8:38 PM

Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
Sotomanure to the highest court, parley-voo?
She has a foul temper and spews such a crock
On her la Raza has a full head lock
She could beg a peso, a degree, a deal
But it certainly wasn’t because of sex appeal
If she would just wash her hair and change her underwear
Frog Lindsey would probably give her the Croix-de-Guerre
She has so many delusions it would make Freud’s knees knock
And her face would stop a cuckoo clock
You might forget her racist chant and sexist yell
But you’ll never forget the nominee from Hell
Hinky, dinky, parley-voo

InkyBinkyBarleyBoo on August 4, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Lets just cut to the chase,and really call this for what
it really is,a promise from Team Obama,for getting the Hi
spanic vote,in the last presidential election!

And speaking of all this Lefty justice talk,Sonia will be
a LIBERAL ACTIVIST on the Supreme Court,

and no different than President Barack Obama,as a LIBERAL
ACTIVIST in the OVAL OFFICE!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM

Just another Repub with zero balls, running in a liberal state. She may be no worse than what she is replacing, but that doesn’t mean she should be on the court. She couldn’t or wouldn’t defend her ideology, so she just lied. Enough for me, not wanting her on the court.

Tanker on August 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM

I can’t imagine what the litmus test will be if they take back the Senate before Obama leaves office and have to approve any future nominees.

HAH HAH HAH HAH! Man, that is classic. Were you watching Food Network again while working?

Even if Obama cruises through 2012 into a second term, best case for this scenario happening is 2014-ish. Which would still mean, every election cycle from now until then, the GOP will have to outgain the Ds 2 to 3 seats in the Senate? No way. The best they can hope is a couple pickups to be able to use the filibuster again.

LastRick on August 4, 2009 at 8:45 PM

If Sotomayer is confirmed,and the Lefty partys are in full
celebration,for their victory,of another piece that has been
put in place for further social engineering,I would love to
hear,what they really are thinking and saying behind closed
doors!!!!!!!!!!!!!

canopfor on August 4, 2009 at 8:50 PM

Go scorched earth.

It worked for Democrats the last two cycles.

Hog Wild on August 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM

What? No thread for the boss on Levin right now?

IrishEi on August 4, 2009 at 8:52 PM

This judge does not believe that the second amendment applies to the states. She should not be promoted to a lifetime appointment on SCOTUS. Even the head RINO McCain is giving her a thumbs down.

farright on August 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM

I’m with Hog: scorched earth. Give ‘em a taste of their own medicine. It’s fun to watch them turn purple with outrage.

IrishEi on August 4, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Yep, the trend needs to stop.

That is, the trend to character assinate, but tellin the truth about Sotomayor and character assinate are two totally different things!

TexasDude on August 4, 2009 at 8:57 PM

Gave Toomey the benefit of the doubt. Can use him in congress on other important issues. one court justices is okay- we need the next two justices seats.

hawkman on August 4, 2009 at 8:59 PM

I can’t imagine what the litmus test will be if they take back the Senate before Obama leaves office and have to approve any future nominees.

Perhaps they will be guided by the Obama Standard.

malclave on August 4, 2009 at 9:00 PM

I know Pat Toomey.

He is as far from RINO as it gets.

He is just arguing for vetting justices based upon objective criteria, rather than ideology.

We screamed – rightly – when Bork was rejected on ideological grounds.

I despise Sotomayor, but Toomey is right.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:02 PM

Sotofinger’s appointment will turn out just as well as the Stimulus Package, Porkulous, Government Motors, Bills that aren’t read before becoming Law, no accountability for Billions of Tax Payer dollars, Congress and Unions being exempt from all new tax laws and regulations, our current Foreign Policy, C4C, Obamacare, Cap and Tax, Amnesty, and the Food Bill heading down the pike…………..

….. What could go wrong?

Seven Percent Solution on August 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM

She’ll get confirmed. Dems have the votes.

She’s just not impressive enough to garner GOP votes.

One or two, ok.

But I listened to her. I would not vote for her, and it’s not because of her remarks about Wise women.

She’s just not all that impressive.

AnninCA on August 4, 2009 at 9:07 PM

Trying to create controversy by posting stupid shite, AP?

How about a poll not intended to insult those who disagree with you?

Hard Right on August 4, 2009 at 9:10 PM

Give the Dems all the cooperation they always give the Republicans; Totally none! Then attack from oblique angles and ideals. In other words, act like Nancy Pelosi with PMS.

Cybergeezer on August 4, 2009 at 9:12 PM

McCain gets a point back for his decision & reasoning for voting against Sotomayor.

Toomey played this one diplomatically but I also agree with amerpundit’s comment as well.

Americannodash on August 4, 2009 at 9:14 PM

Hurry, before she goes a bridge too far in her second career as a gourmet taco taster. Slimfast girl, do you speak it?

PC makes me ill. I’m tired of subjugating my rights for the underprivileged. Last time I looked, the “underprivileged” took over all my universities. One. Big. Clusterfark.

pc on August 4, 2009 at 9:16 PM

I know thjey have to fill the court to look like America now.
Some white, some black, now a Hispanic.
But to hget the female contingent, for the two that they will now have, are they trying for the idiot contingent too?.

Jeff from WI on August 4, 2009 at 9:17 PM

I’m serious. My son wrote a serious dissertation on what it meant to him to experience the Katrina exodus from NO. He was a sophomore in high school when the storm hit and 300 students from one of the worst ghettos in America were dropped in his school’s lap. He was held up at gunpoint before graduating by one of these fools. And yet his Mecha crazy professor gave him a D for trying to be honest. Fucker.

pc on August 4, 2009 at 9:19 PM

Why are you guys so up in arm about confirming her? You think any Obama nominee will be less lefty than she is ? She is not that smart, so is not likely to be a leader or a force in the Supreme Court? You want Obama to get in a young , smart, forceful lefty in perfect health instead? Confirm her quick before Obama realizes he will be getting yet another typical mediocre Obama administration member

bayview on August 4, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Just another Repub with zero balls, running in a liberal state. She may be no worse than what she is replacing, but that doesn’t mean she should be on the court. She couldn’t or wouldn’t defend her ideology, so she just lied. Enough for me, not wanting her on the court.

Tanker on August 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM

This may be true…but she’s in there…elections do have consequences…

BigWyo on August 4, 2009 at 9:26 PM

Why are you guys so up in arm about confirming her? You think any Obama nominee will be less lefty than she is ? She is not that smart, so is not likely to be a leader or a force in the Supreme Court? You want Obama to get in a young , smart, forceful lefty in perfect health instead? Confirm her quick before Obama realizes he will be getting yet another typical mediocre Obama administration member

bayview on August 4, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Plus she’s smoking hot.

Didya hear her story about the one guy who called her for a date three times?

She finally agreed, but his guide dog got sick so he had to cancel.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:27 PM

I’m rather surprised that Toomey would take this stance in that he does believe in a strict constructionist approach to the Constitution.

It looks as if Toomey may have examined Sotomayor’s judicial decisions in some depth to have reached his conclusions though.

That said, I think that those opposed to Sotomayor’s confirmation should vote according to their convictions.

onlineanalyst on August 4, 2009 at 9:29 PM

If there’s one thing Republicans need to know it’s this- acts of kindness and courtesy will never be returned by Democrats. Doing the right thing now is not going to be worth a d*mn years from now when the GOP wants to nominate a judge to the Court- and to think otherwise is frankly astonishingly naive.

Let’s make it clear- Sotomayor’s past utterances render her incapable of even serving jury duty. Her belief that the law is not blind to race, gender or class shows that she cannot even uphold the judicial oath of office. That is not being a part of the legal mainstream.

In short, she is not fit to serve on the Supreme Court. The GOP should vote against her- and be very clear on these simple and precise points when doing so.

Jay Mac on August 4, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Just another Repub with zero balls, running in a liberal state. She may be no worse than what she is replacing, but that doesn’t mean she should be on the court. She couldn’t or wouldn’t defend her ideology, so she just lied. Enough for me, not wanting her on the court.

Tanker on August 4, 2009 at 8:44 PM

Sorry, but you’re wrong about Toomey. He is, after all, a founder of the Club for Growth. He’s as solidly conservative as they come.

Look at his reasoning again. Like it or not, the cow has the proper resume – because the Senate confirmed her twice before, but she has the paper qualifications, nevertheless.

Toomey is making the argument on 3 bases:

1. The original intent of the Constitution.
2. Objective, consistent vetting based upon qualifications.
3. The fact that ideological vetting cuts both ways – as we learned with Bork.

Lesson: if you want judges who share your philosophy, work hard to elect a President who shares your philosophy.

I’m as far right as it gets. I’ve spent time with Pat Toomey and his family. He’s rock solid. He has a lot of other options he could pursue in life; but he chooses public service for all the reasons you would respect.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:33 PM

In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president.

Wrong, moron. If that were true, then the Senate would have no role in confirming nominees.

Aside from that, Sotomayor is as unqualified as they get, unless you like nominees who lie their a$$es off during their confirmation hearings, affirmative action, empathy over the rule of law, and incompetence.

Toomey is off to a good start in the race to be the next member of the Vichy Right who stabs us in the back every chance he gets. Go take your seat next to Lady Lindsey, Pat.

progressoverpeace on August 4, 2009 at 9:34 PM

One more thought: Ginsburg makes Sotomayor look like a thoughtful moderate. And Ginsburg was confirmed 97 to 3.

We lost this one. We were destined to lose this one.

Toomey could have kept his mouth shut. Or just said time to move on.

But he made a principled statement, knowing full well that a lot of you would be incensed.

That’s the kind of guts I admire.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM

It wouldn’t have mattered if all the Republicans voted for her and offered to clean her house. The Dims would still call them racist against Latinos.

Speedwagon82 on August 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Wrong, moron. If that were true, then the Senate would have no role in confirming nominees

You’re completely wrong. Advise and consent was meant to eliminate villains and the utterly unqualified, as well as to prevent nepotism and rank cronyism.

Save your vitriol for the other side. Toomey’s on your side – he just doesn’t happen to agree with you, for reasons he states much more thoughtfully than you state yours.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:38 PM

We lost this one. We were destined to lose this one.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM

Not at all. The GOP could have not let her out of committee, as they should have done. Sotomayor was awful in so many ways and just the fact that The Precedent picked her because of her “empathy” should have been the signal to say she wasn’t getting through, regardless of anything else.

Just watch, his next nominee is going to be even worse, because no one pushed back against this obviously awful nominee.

progressoverpeace on August 4, 2009 at 9:40 PM

The GOP could have not let her out of committee, as they should have done.

How could they have done that?

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Pat Toomey’s rating from the American Conservative Union: 97%

Pat Toomey’s rating from the Americans for Democratic Action: 6%

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:49 PM

How could they have done that?

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:45 PM

She couldn’t get out of committee to a floor vote without one vote from the minority. That’s how the Dems kept nominees bottled up for years.

From the Judiciary Committee rules:

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

I like Toomey, but I find this position to be VERY, VERY disheartening.

progressoverpeace on August 4, 2009 at 9:50 PM

From the Judiciary Committee rules:

IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE

The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
I like Toomey, but I find this position to be VERY, VERY disheartening.

progressoverpeace on August 4, 2009 at 9:50 PM

I understand that. But the GOP would have cut a deal for at least one member to vote for her, because of the Hispanic fall-out.

Just so happened that Lil’ Lindsay was more than happy to volunteer.

No way she wasn’t going to get out of committee.

Them’s politics, like it or not.

guntotinglibertarian on August 4, 2009 at 9:52 PM

It’s time to start acting like Democrats, use their rules of engagement, and defend them like the Dems. They act as if the rules only apply to them. The Dems are taking away America, then label anyone that differs in opinion as extremists. Screw that, YELL! Use the Alinsky model, get in their face, go to town halls, be active, let them know that we are done with their crap.

The Obamites use the down trodden to demand change, per Alinsky. It may be time that the ones PAYING for the down trodden stand up and say ENOUGH!!!!!

Who’s wealth is “The One” looking to redistribute? Answer is easy, any non-union worker from just above poverty level on up. This guy has a plan to deeply stick it to all that do not fit his model of America, namely, US. The powers in Congress agree, take all of the money, as long as they are exempt, and if health-care is any indication, they are.

Stand up, go to town halls, challenge them, get in their faces. They will soon be on recess, when they come home, let them know that you are pissed the F off. Tell them that the only money that you will spend in the next election is to get them un-seated. Since you have more time than money, you will use your time to run them out. Let them know!

I am so pissed off at these clowns, (does it show?)get rid of the slime, and let them know you are doing it! I cannot speak for you, as far as mine go, Hoyer, Cardon, and Mikulski, need to get their walking papers. We need to flush the toilet, it’s full of shit. It may take a few flushes, but if we use a plunger, the turds will go down.

M-14 2go on August 4, 2009 at 9:59 PM

I agree with Toomey that the original intent of the Constitution’s “Advice and Consent” clause was meant to weed out cronies and miscreants.

It sure would be nice if everyone played by those rules, but that is not now and will not ever be the case again.

If the GOP plays a gentleman’s game while the other side lies, cheats, steals, and destroys, they deserve to get destroyed.

I am reminded of the British Redcoats marching in rank while the colonial snipers picked them off from the bushes.

I could also make the case that anyone wishing to be appointed to the highest court in the land that cannot uniquivocally apply the letter of the Constitution to all cases he/she hears without allowing personal bias to cloud the issue is NOT qualified to serve in that capacity.

wv619 on August 4, 2009 at 10:01 PM

McCain is right. Toomey is wrong. It’s that simple.

Phil Byler on August 4, 2009 at 10:05 PM

That’s right, Toomey. Help to brighten the day for the gun grabbers:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/04/gun-foes-see-new-hope-with-sotomayor/?feat=home_headlines

Dave R. on August 4, 2009 at 10:09 PM

The GOP can’t muster 10 votes for a woman who spent five years as a federal district judge, 11 more as an appellate judge, and had one truly controversial ruling to her credit during that time?

Not can’t. Won’t. And rightly so.

I can’t imagine what the litmus test will be if they take back the Senate before Obama leaves office and have to approve any future nominees.

A total bar on ethnic advocates would do for a start.

The “ideology” at stake here is the “opinion” that the Constitution MEANS SOMETHING and has force against political consensus. Eg, racial politics trumping the 14th Amendment. That is not something to roll over on.

Chris_Balsz on August 4, 2009 at 10:12 PM

Sotomayor is an intellectual and legal lightweight. THAT’S why she doesn’t belong on the Court.

n0doz on August 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM

It’s pretty obvious that Toomey is a RINO that hates white people like Sotomayor.

Proud Rino on August 4, 2009 at 10:16 PM

You either have to agree with me 100% or you are a RINO!!/sarc

bayview on August 4, 2009 at 10:23 PM

It’s pretty sad when Iowahawk’s sarcasm becomes reality. If you go into politics a conservative, you’ll come back a “moderate” who “found reassurance” with a briefcase full of dirty money and a mistress or two.

TMK on August 4, 2009 at 10:48 PM

Allah,

There is no person who the Democrats like, who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

No one who believes “the Constitution is a Living Document” has any business being a judge, at any level. And no Democrat is going to appoint to teh Supreme Court someone who doesn’t beleive that it’s the job of left wing “Justices” to imposle left wing politics on the American people.

Greg Q on August 4, 2009 at 10:49 PM

The political class in this country both parties are so corrupt that we must throw all of them out and not elect anyone who has been there before.We also need a constitutional amendment that limits all of these people to 6 years total for all offices.After that they could not run or be appointed to anything. They have become the ruling class and don,t think they have to answer to anyone much less to the people.You look at these congressmen at these town hall meetings.They have no idea why the people are so mad.Most of these people would starve if they had to get a real job.They don,t have any common sense .Could you imagine Barney Franks,Ted Kennedy ,Chuck Grassley or any of the one,s that have been there more than 10 years working a real job in the private sector?The founders NEVER invision career politicians.They talked about citizen politicians who would come to the US capitol for a few years then go home and become a private citizen again.GOD help us.

thmcbb on August 4, 2009 at 10:55 PM

The northeast intellectuals have their vineyard secured. They are doing their dirt god’s work forcing the south to turn over the keys to illegal immigrants and their slick lawyer buddies. It feels good to legislate fairness when you don’t have to worry about being affected by it. I’m going to start voting for the Hispanic for senator. We need to send our reps up there to bump heads with the efete white rulers from the northeast. We need to send about 6 hispanic senators up to to capitol hill from the states under siege. The f’ers won’t believe it until it’s on their mfin’ doorstep. Fuckers.

pc on August 4, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that we had a thread on “wise latina=Harriet Meyers? Now she’s the next best thing to sliced bread.
Where’d I put the barf bag…

chewydog on August 4, 2009 at 11:09 PM

Jay Mac on August 4, 2009 at 9:30 PM

Amen.

The Republicans played it straight during the Clinton years – after the naked partisanship and politics of Bork and Thomas. What reward did they get? Threatened filibusters, the “Gang of 14″, and mostly party-line confirmations (not 97-3) during the Bush administration.

The democrats refuse to play by the rules to which they hold the Republicans. And they get away with it.

No more. Judicial nominees should be held to standards, and the Republican standard is the popular and accepted standard for the High Court. They should be not ashamed in opposing ANY and ALL nominees that do not follow the constitution.

JeffWeimer on August 4, 2009 at 11:16 PM

Go scorched earth.

It worked for Democrats the last two cycles.

Hog Wild on August 4, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Aren’t you guys doing that now with the protests everywhere?

Let me know how the “loud noises” strategy works out.

ckoeber on August 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM

I don’t care if Toomey gets a 100% rating from some conservative union – it doesn’t mean he is infallible. Toomey is wrong this time.

He completely ignores Sotomayor’s activist rulings and her speeches extolling the court as a place where policy is made.

Toomey = RHINO on this one.

HalSandro on August 4, 2009 at 11:59 PM

Aren’t you guys doing that now with the protests everywhere?

Let me know how the “loud noises” strategy works out.

ckoeber on August 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Oh, do tell.

What’s the matter?

Haven’t dissemminated enough propaganda today?

oh, boo hoo

hillbillyjim on August 5, 2009 at 12:06 AM

ckoeber on……………………blah blah blah blah blah

When you decide to debate the issues, well, blah blah blah blah blah blah

hillbillyjim on August 5, 2009 at 12:27 AM

Well, speak up, CheekyBear.

Blah.

hillbillyjim on August 5, 2009 at 12:29 AM

This is the sort of Republican we get these days. Which is why the GOP continues to lose major elections. Toomey should have kept his yap shut. I suspect that Toomey is an open borders globalist in the hip pocket of the U.S. Chamber. Which could be why he wants Sotomayor.

The rallying cry should be: Remember Miguel Estrada – vote no Sotomayor. Simple. Easy. Then go play a round of golf. Darvin Dowdy

Darvin Dowdy on August 5, 2009 at 12:32 AM

Gave Toomey the benefit of the doubt. Can use him in congress on other important issues.

What use will he be on other important issues if he can’t even get the easy ones right?

xblade on August 5, 2009 at 12:38 AM

….. What could go wrong?

Seven Percent Solution on August 4, 2009 at 9:03 PM

With morons and psychopaths in charge nothing that 1,000 years couldn’t fix.

Luka on August 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM

Conservative Principles before personalities. It’s not too much to ask.
Randy

williars on August 5, 2009 at 1:49 AM

Sotomayor still looks like a potential judicial acitivist, and that’s the last thing this country needs. I hope Toomey is a strong fis-con, because he’s weak here.

alliebobbitt on August 5, 2009 at 4:16 AM

Things will be set right when BOTH parties set them right. One party can’t do it unilaterally.

Its an offense NOT to vote her down, since that is the new way.

Lonetown on August 5, 2009 at 5:24 AM

Hey let’s acknowledge that the judge she’s replacing was no prize. Wasn’t souter essentially a lefty? I know he sure revealed his moderate, revisionist philosophy fairly quickly

As you can see, he’s only a tiny bit less liberal than Ginsburg.

so I consider a draw. It’s the NEXT judge (when Ginsburg goes) who I’m concerned about.

jcw46 on August 5, 2009 at 6:29 AM

Can’t wait until the next time his campaign calls for another donation! hehehe damn RINO. The damn Club for Growth is a bunch of Open Border types

bill30097 on August 5, 2009 at 6:38 AM

Elections have consequences. The election of Obama as president has the consequence of him nominating a left-wing judge. Fair enough. However, the election of senators have consequences too. And the election of a Pat Toomey should have the consequence of having a senator able to vote against a judge appointed by a President, even if only on ideological grounds. Supreme Court nominees aren’t like auto czars. There should be some congressional influence on their appointments beyond rubber stamping. Otherwise, what’s the point of Toomey having a vote in this process? Or what’s the point of voting for Toomey?

DarkKnight3565 on August 5, 2009 at 7:28 AM

I agree — Every Supreme Court deserves to have their own racial bigot for all to see. And Dodomayor fits the bill perfectly.

tarpon on August 5, 2009 at 7:33 AM

Placement on the Court of Last Resort requires understanding the Constitution and the law that is allowed by it. Sotomayor’s own admission on not applying the 14th and incorporation of protections is disturbing in the extreme as the 14th also applies Amendment IX and X. That has been my problem with both Liberal and Conservative appointees: they ignore the last two Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The SCOTUS has been seeking permissiveness in the Body of the Constitution since the 1930′s, while the Bill of Rights clearly is restrictive in nature and changes the view from government ‘having’ presumption of power to ‘not having’ presumption of power.

That is why it is a negative rights document, so only those very few things directly granted to government by the people are allowed, and all else reverts to the States and the people. I do not like the SCOTUS missing this on those that raise cattle on their farm and feed themselves from it not being allowed to do so, nor for abortion, nor for those raising plants in their own home or purchasing such within a State in a State allowable method. That pretty much covers all part of the political spectrum and I don’t see the SCOTUS having applied the Constitution and Amendments properly in giving authority to the federal government in those realms.

I see very little discussion by any of the modern Courts on this, and rarely are Amendments IX and X even mentioned. As these are the Guardians of the Constitution and its equal protection to the citizenry, that is highly disturbing. The rights in the Bill of Rights are equal, and the greatest right we have is to NOT have government intrude in our lives and livelihoods. But then that is the Constitution as constructed and amended. I would like to live under that document, but can’t find a Court to enforce it properly. Too many ‘prisms’, too much politics, and too much of the ‘living breathing’ types wanting particular enforcement of one part over another to suit particular biases in rulings… thus making the assured equal protection unequal.

I don’t agree with Mr. Toomey… but then I don’t agree with most anyone on any ‘side’ of the political ‘spectrum’ on this. Strange that a spectrum only has two parts to it, no?

ajacksonian on August 5, 2009 at 7:38 AM

ProfessorMiao on August 4, 2009 at 8:30 PM

The hearings revealed her to be a mediocrity of the first order. The other Justices will bat her around like a cat toy for 10 years; the Ricci opinions made that clear.

The next justice is more important.

DrSteve on August 5, 2009 at 8:07 AM

If, indeed, Toomey did the research that he claims, I cannot refute his research, and he makes a good case.

I wonder how many people have done the research that he (allegedly) has done.

Scott H on August 5, 2009 at 8:34 AM

Toomey if yet another in a long line of Republicans bringing a rubber knife to a gunfight. He knows full well what the Democrats will do again should there ever be another Republican president. That doesn’t matter though. We have to be above that. Stand tall on that deck while the ship sinks beneath the waves. Stand tall, Toomey.

SKYFOX on August 5, 2009 at 9:24 AM

BTW, I’m not saying that Toomey is wrong in his reasoning. I’m saying that he’s playing by a set of rules the other side laughs at. They would never follow his example, so what has he gained; moderate votes? If that’s his play, fine. As a private citizen I’m glad I don’t have to dance with that devil.

SKYFOX on August 5, 2009 at 9:32 AM

We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide “advice and consent,” not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.

This could have been said by Lindsey Graham.

Application of our ideology can’t be ‘thoughtless’. We thought out the ideology.

When did the Republicans commit to imposing radical judges for life, as a “principle”?

Chris_Balsz on August 5, 2009 at 10:37 AM

There is no glossing over her racist inclinations, package it and explain it as you will it still reveals a disturbing worldview. There can be no vote but NO on this. Just as a caucasion judge who has demonstrated racist approaches to decisions should not be confirmed. She is a disgrace and has no place on the Supreme Court. AP picked the wrong one to take a Lindsey Graham – like stand on.

paraff on August 5, 2009 at 12:11 PM

AP picked the wrong one to take a Lindsey Graham – like stand on.

paraff on August 5, 2009

He’s being true to his nature. Would you have him do otherwise?

SKYFOX on August 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM

Let me know how the “loud noises” strategy works out.

ckoeber on August 4, 2009 at 11:45 PM

Ask ACORN and Code Pink how that stuff works out. They seemed to get quite a bit of sympathy in the press back in the day.

Heck, ACORN even “buses in” people for protests and stuff – remember them and the bus tour to point out the homes of certain AIG employees? That’s not a naked threat against a private citizen, no sir. But that’s okay, they’re “grassroots activists”, not “astroturf” like the TEA parties. /sarc

Speaking of astroturf, are YOU going to “attend at least one public discussion” this month, as Obama’s “Organizing for America” is asking? Just to make sure the “real” public is heard instead of these “too well-dressed” shills for the Insurance companies. /sarc

JeffWeimer on August 5, 2009 at 4:40 PM

Judge Sotomayer’s long membership in the Belizean Grove would appear to be a clear violate the Judicial Code of Ethics. If the Belizean Grove were a male only or a whites only organization no one would pretend that it does not practice invidious discrimination or that such membership did not violate the Judicial Code of Ethics. Such a long standing violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics should not only disqualify Judge Sotomayer from the US Supreme Court. It should be grounds for her resignation from the appellate court.

Mike OMalley on August 5, 2009 at 5:13 PM