Republican senators have very interesting during the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Many were against her within hours of the nomination, whereas some on the committee proclaimed being against her in their opening statements. They had a chance to ask questions, and now they are asking for a 1-week extension. In the words of Artie Johnson and Jackie Gleason, “Very interesting you numbskulls!”
As some Republican senators claim rulings through bias, these partisans have yet to provide evidence of biased past rulings by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. They seem to be hanging their hat on the overturning of the New Haven fire fighters case in which the nominee was 1 vote of 13 on the appellate court’s 7-6 vote. Maybe that’s why they wanted a 1-week extension. Gotta dig dig dig … you betcha.
Of course Senator Sessions (R-AL) definitely isn’t biased.
From Jeffrey Toobin
There was something distasteful about Sotomayor’s being lectured on civil rights by the likes of Senator Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, whose own retrograde views on race back in 1986 led to his being rejected for a federal judgeship by the very committee on which he now serves.
Or is Senator Sessions still bitterly biased because of the 1986 hearing?
From Kathleen Parker
Senators also hammered Sotomayor about her ethnic identification and whether she could rule fairly without undue influence from her gender or political preferences. Wait, let me guess, you’re White Guys! Are we to infer that males of European descent are never unduly influenced by their own ethnicity, gender or political preferences? Can anyone affirm this assertion with a straight face?
When your party looks like a Wonder Bread convention during flu season, picking on ethnic identity and sex seems an un-brilliant way to proceed. Yet, these same gentlemen don’t understand how Sotomayor could have expressed the thought that she, as a Latina, might be able to reach a wiser decision than a white male?
From the Hearing
Sen. John Kyl: Do you agree with him (President Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what’s in the judge’s heart?
Sotomayor: No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law.
Of course Sen Kyl (R-AZ) is opposing Sotomayor because “I remain unconvinced that Judge Sotomayor believes judges should set aside biases, including those based on race and gender, and render the law impartially and neutrally.” Once again, he provides no judicial ruling to support his claim.
Senator Kyl goes on to say, “Her answers answered nothing.” Senator, I hate to tell you but nominees have been giving soft answers ever since Justice Bork – including those you support.
Why haven’t we heard concerns about another Roman Catholic justice, thus potentially creating a religious bias on the court? On no, if she doesn’t proceed to overturn Roe v Wade, the church will be threatening to withhold communion and possible excommunication. But certainly voting with preset religious conditions isn’t bias.
As I have said many times, there is a difference between agree v. disagree and right v. wrong. Just because one disagrees, doesn’t mean wrong. Translation into numbskull means, “You’ve done your job, move on and vote.”
A Frank Angle 