Rate Thread
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Sotomayor OK'd for Supreme Court in historic vote
#1
Taken from Yahoo!

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Julie Hirschfeld Davis, Associated Press Writer

[Image: alg_sotomayor.jpg]

WASHINGTON – Sonia Sotomayor won confirmation Thursday as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice in a history-making Senate vote that capped a summer-long debate heavy with ethnic politics. She'll be sworn in Saturday as the court's 111th justice, third woman and first nominee by a Democrat in 15 years. The Senate vote was 68-31 to confirm Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court nominee.
The 55-year-old daughter of Puerto Rican parents was raised in a South Bronx housing project and educated in the Ivy League before rising to the highest legal echelons, spending the past 17 years as a federal judge.
A majority of Republicans lined up against her, arguing she'd bring personal bias and a liberal agenda to the bench. But Democrats praised Sotomayor as an extraordinarily qualified mainstream moderate and touted her elevation to the court as a milestone in the nation's journey toward greater equality and a reaffirmation of the American dream.
Obama, the nation's first black president, praised the Senate's vote as "breaking another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union."
Minutes before the vote, Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the Senate's lone Hispanic Democrat, said, "History awaits, and so does an anxious Hispanic community in this country."
"When she places her hand on the Bible and takes the oath of office, the new portrait of the justices of the Supreme Court will clearly reflect who we are as a nation, what we stand for as a fair, just and hopeful people."
The Senate chamber was heavy with history as senators took the rare step of assembling at their desks on for the vote, rising from their seats to call out "aye" or "nay." The longest-serving senator, 91-year-old Robert Byrd of West Virginia who has been in frail health following a long hospitalization, was brought in in a wheelchair to vote in Sotomayor's favor. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., suffering from brain cancer, was the only senator absent.
Sotomayor replaces retiring Justice David Souter, a liberal named by a Republican president, and she is not expected to alter the court's ideological split.
Still, Republicans and Democrats were deeply at odds over confirming Sotomayor, and the battle over her nomination highlighted profound philosophical disagreements that will shape future fights over the court's makeup as Obama looks to another likely vacancy — perhaps more than one_ while he's in the White House.
The GOP decried Obama's call for "empathy" in a justice, painting Sotomayor as the embodiment of an inappropriate standard that would let a judge bring her personal whims and prejudices to the bench.
Her writings and speeches "reflect a belief not just that impartiality is not possible, but that it's not even worth the effort," said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader. "In Judge Sotomayor's court, groups that didn't make the cut of preferred groups often found that they ended up on the short end of the empathy standard."
Democrats, for their part, hailed the vote as a breakthrough achievement for the country, on par with enactment of civil rights laws. They warned Republicans they risked a backlash from Hispanic voters in the short term and an enduring black mark on their party in history books by opposing Sotomayor's confirmation.
"Those who oppose her for fear of her unique life experience do no justice to her or our nation. Their names will be listed in our nation's annals of elected officials one step behind America's historic march forward," said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat.
A number of GOP senators argued Sotomayor's speeches and record made her unacceptable. They pointed to rulings in which they said she showed disregard for gun rights, property rights and job discrimination claims by white employees. And they repeatedly cited comments she had made about the role that a judge's background and perspective can play, especially a 2001 speech in which she said she hoped a "wise Latina" judge would usually make better decisions than a white man.
"She has bluntly advocated a judicial philosophy where judges ground their decisions not in the objective rule of law, but in the subjective realm of personal 'opinions, sympathies and prejudices,'" said Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee.
Republicans have been particularly critical of Sotomayor's position on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. She was part of a federal appeals court panel in New York that ruled this year that the amendment limits only the federal government — not states — a decision in keeping with previous Supreme Court precedent. Gun rights supporters said her panel shouldn't have called the issue "settled law," and they criticized her for refusing during her confirmation hearings to go beyond what the high court has said and declare that the Second Amendment applies to the states.
The National Rifle Association strongly opposed her and threatened to downgrade its ratings of any senator who voted to confirm Sotomayor. The warning made little impact on Democrats, but it may have influenced some Republicans who were initially considered possible supporters but have since announced their opposition, citing gun rights as a key reason.

In the final tally, nine Republicans joined majority Democrats and the Senate's two independents to support Sotomayor's confirmation. They included the Senate's few GOP moderates and its lone Hispanic Republican, retiring Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, as well as conservative Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the party's third-ranking leader.
The Republicans who voted for her said that they might disagree with some of her rulings, statements or views, but that she was well-qualified to serve on the nation's highest court. "Judge Sotomayor's decisions, while not always the decision I would render, are not outside the legal mainstream and do not indicate an obvious desire to legislate from the bench," said GOP Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio.
Reply

#2
I think I'm glad that she's made it, although I don't really know enough about her - just the little news items that have reached me over the past few months.

Anyone who gets up the noses of the NRA has to be worthwhile, no?
Reply

#3
marshlander Wrote:Anyone who gets up the noses of the NRA has to be worthwhile, no?

Just playing devils advocate, what's wrong with a group of people who stand up for the Bill of Rights?
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply

#4
Sometimes Bill just seems to confer some pretty odd rights Rolleyes
Reply

#5
Better odd than none at all.
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply

#6
marshlander Wrote:Anyone who gets up the noses of the NRA has to be worthwhile, no?

fredv3b Wrote:Just playing devils advocate, what's wrong with a group of people who stand up for the Bill of Rights?

marshlander Wrote:Sometimes Bill just seems to confer some pretty odd rights Rolleyes

fredv3b Wrote:Better odd than none at all.

[COLOR="Purple"]The debate over the right to carry arms is how the constitution was written. Seems you can interpret it in various ways thus it is brought to higher judges to try to come to some definite meaning.

This is why it takes forever to get a new law onto the books as it takes zillion of lawyers to go over every word... This new health bill is gonna be insane![/COLOR]
Reply

#7
fredv3b Wrote:Better odd than none at all.
Of course.

fjp999 Wrote:... it takes forever to get a new law onto the books as it takes zillion of lawyers to go over every word... This new health bill is gonna be insane!
Sounds like a nightmare. Hope it brings some benefits before the present generation passes on.
Reply

#8
marshlander Wrote:Of course.


Sounds like a nightmare. Hope it brings some benefits before the present generation passes on.


The debate has became insane. There is an invasion of retired folks at every town hall conference telling congressmen to keep the government out of their socialized MedicareRofl.
Here is one for all you Brits; the conservatives are using your NHS to scare everyone with. It seems like you all are about to drop dead waiting in line to see a doctor.
It also has became "fact" the Brit Stephen Hawkings would have died had he to endure your horrible health care systemRoflmao
The newest scare tactic is to tell all the seniors that the government is going to put them to death.
The saddest part of all this nonsense is that there are a sizable percentage of Americans who believe all this rubbish.


Which brings me into the gun debate.
There is a huge portion of Americans who think the Earth is only 6000 years old and that the sun revolves around the Earth. These same folks can't point out their own home state on an unlabeled map, can't name the 3 branch of federal government, and can't tell you what is in the bill of rights.
Those people are armed with guns:eek:

The second amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say guns it says arms. As far as I am concerned they should take away everyone's guns and tell them to go buy a sword.
Let's see the same cowards who would shoot at you from a moving vehicle because you are wearing the wrong color clothes do the same if they have to get off their asses and engage in a little sword play to prove their point.
Reply

#9
It is very interesting what is being said about the NHS. For two reasons, first it isn't true or, at least, very selective and misleading and, second, what Obama proposes is nothing like the NHS.

CurtCB Wrote:The second amendment states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say guns it says arms. As far as I am concerned they should take away everyone's guns and tell them to go buy a sword.
Let's see the same cowards who would shoot at you from a moving vehicle because you are wearing the wrong color clothes do the same if they have to get off their asses and engage in a little sword play to prove their point.

To my mind the intent of the authors of the amendment is quite clear, that there be a militia capable, if needs be, of keeping the Federal Government in its place. It is interesting to speculate what armament might be necessary to do this in modern times, a standing Army, etc.
Fred

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
Reply

#10
fredv3b Wrote:It is very interesting what is being said about the NHS. For two reasons, first it isn't true or, at least, very selective and misleading and, second, what Obama proposes is nothing like the NHS.



To my mind the intent of the authors of the amendment is quite clear, that there be a militia capable, if needs be, of keeping the Federal Government in its place. It is interesting to speculate what armament might be necessary to do this in modern times, a standing Army, etc.


What you don't realize is that some of my fellow countrymen interpret the Constitution in the same they interpret the bible. In what ever way suits their own self interest, ideology, or proclaimed morality .
The people who are raising hell at townhall meetings think the fact that Europeans have social Democracy is evil, because it provides for the common good of it's citizens. They can not even define socialism, yet to them it is horror at it's worst.

I am sure of the intent of the founders, however that is not the debate in my country.
Instead of realizing that we are the government, they think the fed is some ominous outside force trying to take away the same liberty they all rushed to throw to the wind after 9/11.
The same thinking is prevalent in the health care debate. Sadly to conservatives in the US, ignorance and fear are political capital.
The US republican party is not the party of Abraham Lincoln. It is today the party of racist George Wallace. It's not even the party of Ronald Reagan anymore, it's the party of Sarah Palin, With a radio commentator as it's unofficial head.
I listen to those people all yelling they want there country back and I wonder what country they are talking about.
Recrimination of homosexuality?
Segregation?
Or is what they are really protesting is that there is an African-American family in the White house?
Reply



Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Last Chance to Register to Vote in UK General Election 2017 Genersis 0 563 05-22-2017, 01:02 PM
Last Post: Genersis
  UK EU Referendum Reminder to Vote Genersis 2 1,250 06-23-2016, 02:47 PM
Last Post: Feathers
  Federal Court Rules that Police Can Obtain Location Data w/o Warrant InbetweenDreams 14 2,884 06-08-2016, 06:39 PM
Last Post: JohnMusic
  Party Bus with Shirtless Male Models to Encourage NC Students to Vote ShiftyNJ 12 1,967 11-05-2014, 12:32 AM
Last Post: ShiftyNJ
  interesting court case? pellaz 1 581 08-15-2013, 10:39 PM
Last Post: Genersis

Forum Jump:


Recently Browsing
1 Guest(s)

© 2002-2024 GaySpeak.com