As the Senate hearings begin for United States Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, it will be interesting to see whether or not the Senate Republicans will be hurling the stones at her in retaliation for the way Democratic Senators went after Samuel Alito and John Roberts, both Bush 43 nominations, a few years ago.
Being an optimist, I would hope not. But also being a realist, that would be asking for too much.
Political theatre they call it on Capitol Hill and it appears from all indications on the Sunday morning gabfests, that once again it will be the case for this judicial confirmation hearing.
Sotomayor is a Latina woman and there has been much said regarding her background and whether she is a racist or not. This blogger isn't buying into any of that.
Barack Obama showed good judgment in his selection of Sotomayor and in spite of the current Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn a ruling that Sotomayor was a part of with two other judges, she should sail through these Senate hearings.
So that being said, congrats are in order to Sonia Sotomayor as she seeks to become the first Latino woman justice of the United States Supreme Court.
The reason for the early congrats and optimism that Senators will get this done in a timely manner is the fact the Democratic party rules the Senate now with 60 votes, which means it is potentially filibuster-proof. The Republicans cannot block this nomination. And that is a good thing for the United States as a country.
The partisan bickering of the past when it comes to Supreme Court justices has been down right embarrassing in some cases.
The classic example was Justice Clarence Thomas in 1991.
Remember that one? George Bush, Sr. nominated him and the event in the Senate practically turned into a carnival as Anita Hill emerged to shoot down Thomas' nomination. No need for the sordid details on that one because it all worked out and Thomas got the job.
In 1987, the late Ronald Reagan saw his nominee go down in flames when Robert Bork was rejected as a Supreme Court nominee and of course George W. Bush also had to withdraw his nomination of Harriet Miers is 2005 because she was simply not qualified for the position.
The Supreme Court is serious business and not to be taken lightly. However, expect the right wing pundits and even some "neutral" political commentators to do the usual hatchet jobs regarding Sotomayor as things get going on this matter.
My prediction is for a swift approval and then Justice Souter can go and enjoy retirement.
We will wait and see if justice prevails.
I hope the approval goes through smoothly. I am tired of the GOP machine trying to fight everything.
ReplyDeleteBTW Thanks for voting for me on the blog award nomination. I have little chance of winning but it is nice to find friends that care enough to take the time to vote. I am not sure how to handle the title blogitizer though. LOL Sounds like someone full of crap. Guess that's me.
I disagree with you on classifying the GOP as fighting everything. Would you call the Democrats fillibuster of Miguel Estrada to the appellate court fighting everyting?
ReplyDeleteI am a big believer in thoroughly debating the issues. Our government is built around debate. Without it, we might as well not have a government. Sotomayor will be confirmed on her experience alone. But, I do expect the GOP to give her tough questions about her record. I would hope the Democrats would do the same. However, I would look at Robert Borjk as the only example of true partisan politics. I hope we do not have to go through another Clarence Thomas issue, but a legitimate issue was brought up about his record and he passed the test. Harriet Myers should have never been nominated. She did not have the experience on the court.
This is a job that is a lifetime appointment. Sotomayor will be making decisions that affect all of our lives without the virtue of directly answering to the voters if we disagree with her decisions.
Look at it from this angle. This is a job interview. In order to make sure the applicant is qualified, they must answer some tough questions.
I hope I can convert you to looking at the Democrats and Republicans as con artists playing with our lives. I like it when both sides debate because we are able to see both sides of the legislation. I remember the Democrats did not go along very much in the 90's. I think I saw Gingrinch with Clinton in a headlock making him sign the welfare reform. I am not pleased with the way Pelosi has been slamming 1000 plus pages of legislation through at a moments notice. That is like saying you have one week to read Gone With The Wind as written by a lawyer. Congress works best when both sides need votes from the other party to pass legislation. I think we will see it with the health care proposal that Grassley and Baucus are writing.
ReplyDeleteAlso, take a look at Ron Paul's proposal to audit the Fed. Pelosi and Frank are probably not happy that around 50 Democrats are supporting it. I hope they question the Constitutionality of the Fed. These are powers set forth for Congress and never intended to be shopped out to other agencies. Of course, without the Fed, Congress would not be allowed to run deficits either.