Graham Becomes 5th* Republican for Sotomayor
When President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor made her rounds on Capitol Hill, one of her harshest critics was South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham who said after that first meeting that he was “deeply troubled” by her nomination. Something must have happened on the way to the hearings last week because on the first day Graham told Sotomayor that barring a meltdown she'd get confirmed and on the second day he told her he liked her personally.
Today on the Senate floor Graham announced his support for the appellate judge. “I do believe that elections have consequences and it's not like we hid from the American people during the campaign that the Supreme Court selections are at stake,” Graham said. “While I'm not bound to vote against Judge Sotomayor, it would be the path of least political resistance for me. I choose to vote for Judge Sotomayor because I believe she is well qualified. We're talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades.”
Maybe he was just impressed with Sotomayor's questionnaire and credentials. Maybe he thought she hit it out of the park in the hearings. And maybe Graham, who took some heat at home for his support in 2005 and 2006 of immigration reform, heard from Hispanic groups in South Carolina. Although Hispanics made up less than 4% of the state's population in 2007, the demographic is growing faster in the Palmetto State than any other state.
*Apologies, the headline originally said 1st but there's no way to cross out headline words. I'm told by the committee that he is the 1st committee Republican to support Sotomayor but the 5th Republican in the conference. Graham follows Snowe, Collins, Lugar and Martinez.
-
1
"And maybe Grahama"
Grahama Lindsey, why are you on your fainting couch?
-
-
2.1
That's a shame, it was pretty funny as it was.
-
-
3
Meh. Graham started leaking this earlier.
-
-
3.2
re: Hispanic population influencing Sotomayor's nomination...if that's a factor in Graham's decision, why isn't it applying to John Kyl?
-
3.3
ah - John Kyl and 'this event' are linkys. thought that had been corrected....
-
-
4
OT: Any bets on how soon it is before Amy Sullivan blesses us with her insight on this event?
-
5
Jay, I know some people count Collins and Snowe as RINOs, but Mel Martinez and Richard Lugar are still Republicans by any stretch. Grahama is fifth, not first.
-
6
Graham's a buffoon. First of all, he's the one who's going to be responsible for the 4th Circuit getting more liberal. Second of all, I don't see how in the world, as a Republican, you say that this woman is as qualified as Alito or Roberts.
.
Her command of the law, as demonstrated in the hearings, really isn't all that. Her answer to Kohl on SCOTUS term limits was clownish, and she flat-out demonstrated that she doesnt know how to read a Supreme Court opinion by saying that she read Ginsburg's dissent as affirming the Second Circuit.
.
Now you guys can yap all you like about the fact that she's going to be a Justice etc. etc. That's fine. But "Scoreboard; Scoreboard" isn't exactly debate. Any intellectually honest lib has to know that she's not that good. And any intellectually honest lib has to know that her view that Ginsburg's dissent would have affirmed the Second Circuit is just plain wrong.
.
I wouldn't expect JNS to understand that, but it would be nice if a journalist actually pointed out the yawning gap between her erudition and Roberts'.-
6.1
spob,
My my, what sour grapes. With all due respect, the only argument you have made against Sotomayor were her answers to some of the inane questions put forth by members of the Senate panel. Haven't you learned that the whole exercise of the hearings is kubuki theatre? In truth she sounded over coached, giving answers designed to feign the supremacy of congress, not to offend anyone and not to say what she really thinks.
While Roberts has some impressive creditials, what makes Alito so much better? Before his nomination, O'Conner has written an opinion overturning a decision he wrote, which was very critical of his legal thinking, yet you are going to state he is so much more qualified than Sotomayor?
Sotomayor has had more bench experience and appellate experience than any nominee in the past century. She has as much appellate experience as Alito and Roberts put together. Does she have a great legal mind? I wouldn't say she does, but I would say it is the equal of Alito and much better than Clarence Thomas. I would have questioned his nomination on the basis of age (under 50, no one under 50 has lived long enough to be a Supreme Court Justice, IMHO) and the lack of temperment (attacking liberals for the Anita Hill story, which originally came to light from the normal vetting process).
-
6.2
Give it up, Spob, you only embarrass yourself. Maybe your problem is, like Condi, you fail to read footnotes. I guess you're not cracked up for law review.
From the dissent:
Applying what I view as the proper standard to the record thus far made, I would hold that New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity. Judged by that standard, petitioners have not shown that New Haven's failure to certify the exam results violated Title VII's disparate-treatment provision.
A correct reading is that Ginsburg would have applied the standard that the District Court applied and the Circuit Court (i.e. Sotomayor) adopted. One may fairly surmise that the Supreme Court could have crafted a new standard that Ginsburg would have signed on to. In which case, as Ginsburg said, a remand would have been in order.
Sotomayor's response was, at most, a simplistic assessment of Ginsburg's opinion. But compared to the myriad dopey statements that the public has been subjected to at past hearings -- including the ubiquitous and nausea-inducing balls-and-strikes metaphor -- it doesn't raise an eyebrow.
-
-
7
Graham is the 5th Republican to come out for Sotomayor. Full list here.
-
8
grape, because Kyl, actually, you know, has standards. Let's face it--Sotomayor's a hack and dishonest to boot.
-
-
10
So JNS, what's your view of Sotomayor's "Justice Ginsburg's opinion would have affirmed me" comment. It's wrong. Isn't it newsworthy that she made such a mistake?
-
11
So guys? Am I being a troll? Is someone going to tell me to go "f" myself.
.
Come on, guys, defend Sotomayor.-
11.1
Answers: Yes, yes, and yes - eventually.
Sotomayor will be a justice on the Supreme Court, and all the right-whinging you type into the comments box doesn't matter one whit. That's just one of the reasons that debating you on this topic is pointless.
-
-
12
I knew Lindsey had feelings for her. A lot of passions came out during hearings, glad everything's straight now, yes? Jay, I see a book from this – from YOU, yes? Along with Karen's HC expose?
-
-
12.2
Well, for good reasons, she's a historical and fascinating figure. For "others" on the dark side, they've put her on a polarizing pedestal (whether she wishes to be there is another book...). Either way, this means MONEY to be made...why not by you? Besides, if Carrie Prejean and Sarah Palin will write books, so can you ... and do it so much better! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/20/carrie-prejean-book-deal_n_241442.html
-
-
13
yeah, how cares about someone who's going to be the least talented person on the Supreme Court
.
So JNS, what do you think of Sotomayor's inability to comprehend a SCOTUS opinion? -
14
well, grape-crush, that's fine. I suspect, though, the answer is not because debating me is pointless, but rather because you know I am right. Calling me a winger doesn't make Sotomayor's answer to Kohl any less silly, nor does it cover up her inability to figure out what Ginsburg's opinion would have done.
-
15
It's nice to know that Rs can't just ignore voters and keep buying their way into office indefinitely. Maybe it finally sank in that, even though Sotomayor is not the justice that the right wants, she is qualified for the position. On the other hand, I almost want the RW to make a huge stink about this, just so they keep going downhill.
-
16
ohiolib, how is she qualified--can't law students figure out how to read a Supreme Court opinion? She apparently cannot.
-
17
Funny how he believes on this that elections have consequences, when Supreme Court nominations were much less of a pressing issue than Health Care reform or the major economic problems.
I would say that maybe theres some kind of chance that he applies this statement to the major issues, but I wouldn't hold my breath on it because I know i'd pass out long before that happens.
-
18
I seem to recall, too, ohiolib that you were taking the position that four Justices would have affirmed Sotomayor--care to revise that?
-
18.1
Not sure what you're referring to about the "four justices" part. Unless you mean that 4 SC justices concurred with her decision, which I think is pretty settled. Care to elaborate? As for how is she qualified, try going here:http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/politics&id=6831739
However, to give you a quick summary:
Graduated summa cum laude from Princeton
Worked as assistant district attorney in Manhattan from 1979 to 1984 and as associate and then partner in New York law firm Pavia & Harcourt from 1984 to 1992.
Appointed U.S. district court judge in Manhattan in 1992 (by George H.W. Bush) and then U.S. appeals court judge in Manhattan in 1998 (by Bill Clinton).
So, we have someone with 17 years on the bench, and an additional 13 years in law. That's 30 years relevant experience. Yes, spob, that is qualified.
-
-
19
kawoold, there's a difference between the ability of a President to nominate and legislating.
.
Funny, never heard a Dem saying that with a Bush judicial nominee. -
20
OT (sorry), but this is important:
"It's been exactly one year since then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey proposed in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute that Congress pass legislation declaring a new, expanded war with al-Qaeda and the Taliban — thereby granting the president the authority to detain indefinitely members of those groups anywhere in the world where they're found.
That proposal from a lame-duck Attorney General never got very far with the Democratic-controlled Congress. But a year later, the country is still debating that exact same detention authority. And news reports suggest that President Obama may seek precisely the same sort of authority that Mukasey was talking about."
http://washingtonindependent.com/51980/obama-may-seek-authority-outlined-by-mukaseyWe can't have the president (this or in the future) unilaterally decide who is a "threat" and deny due process.
-
21
"We can't have the president (this or in the future) unilaterally decide who is a "threat" and deny due process."
.
So if we went to war with China and captured thousands of prisoners, all of them could challenge their detentions? Hmmmmmmm.-
21.1
Two separate issues. You talk about a conflict between uniformed armies- it is clear-cut and has its own set of regulations. In the case of terrorist suspects, we often capture civilians, not on the battlefield, and accuse them of supporting al Qaeda (or other terrorist orgs). I'm not saying that we shouldn't capture such individuals, just that we need to be right when we do. There is often too much reliance on intelligence and hearsay rather than something definite or that can be proven- that leaves ample room for mistakes/abuse.
-
-
22
I'm aware that no Dem said anything like that during the Bush years. It didn't really matter much though, the Dems in congress were just as spineless then as they are now, so none of them ever really needed to say it when their actions spoke it loudly enough anyway.
-
23
kawoold, tell that to Estrada . . . .
-
24
One time, and to a circuit court position. The Supreme Court's a bigger deal, definitely. Roberts and Alito sailed through with no problems at all. I understand the point about there being a difference between views on a nomination and views on legislation, but in the case of a Supreme Court judge, I would think ideology would prevail more with the judge over legislation. That's not something that can be changed, ever. Legislation can be modified. The fact that Graham approves of her (while opposing every other Dem initiative that passes through congress) tells me that either a) Shes nowhere near as controversial or unqualified as you want to make her out to be, or b) Graham's not opposing the legislation out of ideological concern, but because its a Democratic proposal.
If he has a backbone and wants to stand up for whatever conservative principles he may or may not have, opposing a supreme court nominee would be a big deal to him. As big a deal, maybe bigger, than opposing some Democratic legislation.
-
25
"In the case of terrorist suspects, we often capture civilians, not on the battlefield, and accuse them of supporting al Qaeda (or other terrorist orgs). I'm not saying that we shouldn't capture such individuals, just that we need to be right when we do. There is often too much reliance on intelligence and hearsay rather than something definite or that can be proven- that leaves ample room for mistakes/abuse."
.
so illegal combatants get more process than honorable soldiers . . . .
.
OK. Tell that to Manfred Pernass.-
25.1
Honorable soldiers are held until the end of the conflict and are offered other protections under international law. And you know who they are.
Illegal combatants are not easily defined. We make mistakes, good intentioned or not. If we have reason to suspect an individual, then pick ‘em up, but they should have the ability to challenge those "reasons".
-
- jnsmall Dems are about a psyched to fund the Afghan War as they are to pass global warming: http://tiny.cc/n1SfM - 11 minutes ago
- jnsmall Tonight I finished off the last of the turkey leftovers. As good as it was, I'll happily not eat turkey again for at least a month - 2 hours ago
- jnsmall Obama: Kaar-ah-chi. He's really hitting the native pronunciations. I dunno if this is 2 contrast w/ Bush (I-rahn) or 2 show he's worldly - 4 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Piling On Desirée Rogers--Is The Social Secretary To Blame For Two Ticketless Boobs At The White House?
- Through The 2008 Campaign Looking Glass--John McCain on Medicare Cuts, Now And Then
- Is Walking Away from Your Mortgage the Smartest Thing You Can Do?
- It's a Deal: 25 Days of Free MP3 Holiday Song Downloads
- Health Bill: What Would It Cost Me?
- Five Things The President Will Say Tonight About Afghanistan
- State Dinner, Uh, Fashion
- Video: Touring Tim Burton's Freaky MoMA Exhibit
- On Civility
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Want to Boost Your Memory? Sounds During Sleep Can Help
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- Tiger Woods Car Crash Bad Publicity for Rich Isleworth
- The End of the 2000s: Goodbye to a Decade from Hell
- Dubai's Woes a Blow to Ambitious Ruler Sheik Mohammed
- The Muppets Perform 'Bohemian Rhapsody'
- Italian Town Dreams of a White (No Foreigners) Christmas
- The Women of Islam
- Could White House Party Crashers the Salahis Go to Jail?
- Study: Loneliness Can Be Contagious
Quotes of the Day »
RSS