LikeTheDew.com

The Sotomayor vote was 68 YEA; 31 NAY.

There are plenty of stories today about Sotomayor’s confirmation in the Senate. About this historic jurist. Obama’s choice. The important cases before the court this term. Even Senator Al Franken making the announcement to the Senate. Let’s not let this moment pass without acknowledging those self-serving, anti-justice, anti-competent, anti-any-success-for-President-Obama, anti-women, anti-Hispanic, and anti-anything Senators from the South. Drop them a note and tell them what you think. Drop by their homes during the recess a lob a few eggs*. Drop by a public event and cough on them*. Do something. These men disgrace the South.

Southern NAY sayers:

Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
DeMint (R-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
McConnell (R-KY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

________________
* Strictly metaphorical suggesting. I do not advocate the use of violence. However, perhaps toilet paper could make the point.

1. Keith Graham says:

   August 7, 2009 at 2:05 pm

   These senators do disgrace the South. Principled people can disagree on issues, but it’s awfully hard to make a case that these votes were cast for any reason other than blind partisanship. To their credit, nine Republican senators did rise above petty politics and vote for confirmation, including three from the South: Alexander (Tenn.), Graham (S.C.) and Martinez (Fla.). They deserve to be commended.

   Reply
2. Keith Graham says:

   August 7, 2009 at 11:46 pm

   Georgia Republican Congressman Jack Kingston on Bill Maher’s show tonight said, if he had been a senator, he thinks he would have voted for Sotomayor. (So did another Republican, California’s Rep. Darrell Issa.) Before anyone gets hopes up too high, however, Kingston took a totally obstructionist approach to health care reform.

   Reply
3. Brenden says:

   August 8, 2009 at 11:33 am

   Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, two immanent legal scholars of the highest caliber. When he did this, did you label him “self-serving, anti-justice, anti-competent, anti-any-success-for-President-[Bush], anti-[men], anti-[White], and anti-anything Senators from the [Midwest]“?

   Are senators in opposition not permitted in your world to have principled objections based upon Sotomayor’s statements, affiliations and opinions? She was overturned by the very Supreme Court she aspired to work for during her hearing. She is a member of La Raza, a group that supports succession for southwestern states that used be in Mexico. She is a “wise Latina.”

   I got no problem with Sotomayor making it to the Supremes. But you are trying to turn this into a now familiar “Republicans are Klansmen,” “Southerners who support them are dumb hicks” (eloquently stated by your colleague Moreland) pretense to attack Republicans and your fellow Southerners. Shameful.

   Where is all the elevating rhetoric about “hope and change” that carries us into a post-racial utopia? Republicans are Klansmen, hmm, not very post-racial. Southerners are stupid. I may be from Pennsylvania and I’m well familiar with that stereotype. Not very elavating.

   Again, another example of your simple-minded, scare-mongering, label-baiting method of argumentation that supports the angry left’s position. Please continue to articulate it publicly. I love reading it! Again, risible.

   Reply
4. Mary Lee (aka Bootsie Lucas) says:

   August 8, 2009 at 12:32 pm

   i’m e-mailing martinez. right. now.

   Reply
5. Lee Leslie says:

   August 9, 2009 at 7:26 am

   Brenden:
   Nice to have you back and you raise a good point. No, at the time of the confirmation vote on Alito and Roberts, regrettably, LikeTheDew was not around, nor did I label Obama’s vote as such in other forums.

   In retrospect and using the standards I applied to the Sotomayor vote, I should have labeled Obama and his vote as self-serving, anti-competent and anti-any-success-for-Bush. I don’t feel Obama’s vote was not anti-men in either case, however, pro-female (both Alito and Roberts were originally nominated to fill Sandra Day O’Connors seat), might have been an appropriate label. Further, I don’t consider his vote anti-Italian, anti-European or anti-white as their is was no controversy at the time about there being under-representation on the court or an unfair bias based on ethnic heritage in the consideration of the vote. His vote in both cases were based on their records and the philosophies that were being advanced.

   Of the label litany that I applied in this short piece, your comment gives me more than a tinge of regret that I applied the anti-competent label across the board – in one way or another, most of the nay-sayers did acknowledge the nominee was qualified (Obama did during the Alito and Roberts vote). It now seems unfair.

   On the principled objections. Yes, I encourage it. I do believe that Senate consent should include an examination of a candidate’s “philosophy, ideology, and record” (Obama’s list). In the case you cite that was overturned, Sontomayor’s decision was based on the law at the time – it was the activist Robert’s court that changed the law. Seems to me, this case was publicly washed (primarily in the press) for political reasons and little else. Providing a greater reason for conservatives to embrace her than otherwise. I heard nothing from her testimony or record that suggested there was reason for any of the the Senators to vote against her on grounds of philosophy, ideology or record.

   That said, both Alito and Roberts’ records on the bench at the time of their confirmations included decisions that caused concerns by many on philosophical grounds. Add Roberts former role as White House Council, views on the commerce clause, and it seems easy to cover a nay vote based on philosophy, ideology and/or record.

   Now onto your characterization that “Republicans are Klansmen.” I strongly disagree – not the elected Republicans nor the rank and file. Republicans voters are just like you and me – okay, perhaps, more like you than me, but we all want what is best for America, our families and our neighbors. Republican leaders are just like those on the other side of the aisle – largely principled men and women – most of whom (I’d have a difficult time naming names) have a progressive disease (or character defect) that causes their common sense and principles to be overcome by an appetite for power and vanity. Those who have been there longer, suffer worse (and we suffer worse).

   The pro-slavery/Klan/Southern Democrats who became Dixicrats in the 50’s, found Wallace then Nixon in the 60’s and early 70’s, have largely died out. For their heirs, it is not about race. It is about money and fear of losing it, or having it taken.

   Cut me some slack today. I’m off to see my 104 year old grandmother, but will be back tomorrow.

   Reply
6. Brenden says:

   August 9, 2009 at 11:18 am

   Regarding Obama’s vote against Roberts and Alito, I think Keith’s right: “it’s awfully hard to make a case that these votes were cast for any reason other than blind partisanship.” Obama had the hardest left, partisan voting record in the Senate prior to getting elected president. He was blind, naked, right-down-the-line partisan of the lowest order. Your defense, “His vote in both cases were based on their records and the philosophies that were being advanced” rings hollow when you claim Republicans “have a progressive disease (or character defect) that causes their common sense and principles to be overcome by an appetite for power and vanity.” You try to defend your infantile argumentation with a longer infantile argument and engage in the same petty label-mongering. Love it!

   Also, Sotomayor was wrong on the principles in the firefighters’ case. Your defense, “Sontomayor’s decision was based on the law at the time – it was the activist Robert’s court that changed the law.” You think throwing the word “activist” in there makes you sound like some kind legal/political scholar? Um, no. Sotomayor set aside the results of a professional exam designed to be race-neutral so that an equal distribution of jobs could be allocated to races according to their representation in the population. It was, to quote you, “anti-competent”.

   And then you blame the press! Keith, look out: “Seems to me, this case was publicly washed (primarily in the press) for political reasons and little else.” Lee, is the press in your world anti-Obama, pro-Republican and bent on covering up conservative polemics? What color is the sky in that world?

   Tell your Gramma I said hi and hope she’s well.

   Reply
7. Lee Leslie says:

   August 10, 2009 at 9:05 am

   Brenden:
   ¶1) I owe you an apology. It seems that in my “infantile argumentation,” I naively expected you would read the entire sentence including the phrase offering that “Republican leaders are just like those on the other side of the aisle.” My intent was that my “petty label-mongering” would be extended to Democrats and not exclusive to Republicans. I apologize communicating so poorly and hope you don’t feel foolish. Though, I do hope you still “Love it!”

   ¶2) There I go again, my poor writing. Sorry. My goal was not to impress you by sounding “like some kind legal/political scholar.” Um, no. My goal was simply to provoke thought and comment (code for rhetorical baiting) on judicial activism that might lead to a discussion of the possibility there may be a double standard for conservatives on the court and liberals. Failed again. Thank goodness, you rescued me by writing “like some kind legal/political scholar” with your judgement on the case.

   I mourned for you what must seem the unfairness of it all – that Sotomayor would be nominated to the Federal Bench by that (insert your preferred label here), George H. W. Bush* way back in 1991, could serve for all those years on the bench getting to hear more 3,000 cases and writing so many opinions ripe for second guessing when poor Roberts had so little time to judge, so few cases to hear and so few public opinions to publicly wash. (Note: that was intended as infantile sarcasm and not as an infantile attempt at sarcasm, though it may end up being both.)

   ¶3) The press in my world reject such labels as you use. Their management on the other hand, seems often obsessed with presenting balanced editorial distortion using the model developed by talking “news.”

   The daytime sky is blue up to about 20 miles above the Earth and then it is without perceptual color – even if our view become clouded by arguments otherwise.

   ¶4) My gramma is well, thank you for asking. Though she told me she’d decided to stop driving except for short trips to lunch and to the grocery store. Something about being “too polite to merge on the interstate.”
   _______
   *Same guy who had nominated Alito the year before.

   Reply