There's no need for conservatives to hear President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. They object already. The New York Times reports:
"Preparing to oppose the confirmation of Mr. Obama's eventual choice to succeed Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring, conservative groups are working together to stockpile ammunition. Ten memorandums summarizing their research ... dissect possible nominees' records, noting statements the groups find objectionable on issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, the separation of church and state and the propriety of citing foreign law in interpreting the Constitution. While conservatives say they know they have little chance of defeating Mr. Obama's choice because Democrats control the Senate, they say they hope to mount a fight that could help refill depleted coffers and galvanize a movement demoralized by Republican electoral defeats."
I hope the president nominates a very liberal, very young jurist... and I hope whoever s/he is that s/he is open and honest and says something like "I support Roe v Wade as the law of the land and would oppose anything that tries to turn it back." It is high time we stopped the stupidity of pussyfooting around this. Ask the nominee and expect and honest answer!
Posts
8 comments:
What exactly is it about gathering information about potential nominees that is objectionable or "ridiculous" to you?
I think you know the answer to that. And if you don't, shame on you.
I don't. Isn't congress' job to advise and consent? How can they do so effectively without gathering information? I hope you don't expect them (either side) to just bow down to the president and agree, no matter who it is.
And the right wing blowhards are already condemning the actual choice now that Obama has selected . At least now they have someone to vent about. Before it was just puffery (as I'm sure you know, G, regardless of your pro right wing stance) because noone knew who the choice would actually be.
Coming from a housing project in the Bronx, Sotomayor ended up graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa from Princeton. She also was a co-recipient of the M. Taylor Pyne Prize, the highest honor Princeton awards to an undergraduate. Sotomayor then went to Yale Law School, where she served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal and managing editor of the Yale Studies in World Public Order. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) said on Fox News this morning that of all the nominees, Sotomayor “brings the most in terms of judicial experience — in terms of serving on a federal court — in 100 years.”I can't say I know anything about her at this point, but given the above information she is definitely not of Harriet Miers' ilk! And if the right is this upset about her, then she is probably the correct choice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
Good for them. That means they are doing their job with the whole check and balance thing.
When you have a president who wants to piss on the constitution and go with "Empathy" instead of rule of law; he deserves a good long hard look. Not to mention, we see how well this guy did due diligence in selecting his cabinet.
Lady liberty is no longer blind, race ethnicity and economic status will now dictate the rile of law. Take off that blind fold lady liberty.
This morning on my way to work, I heard a little snippet from one of our Senators here in Arizona, John Kyl, on the pending Supreme Court nomination. He basically said he was against the judiciary "making laws"(a comment which I agree with). A second later the ire boiled up inside me and I blurted out, "So why the fuck are you so enamoured with the President making laws".
I personally do not see the difference, except we have nine justices and only one President.
Congress has abdicated their collective responsibility for decades. Take any law they pass; once it is passed they sit back and watch the President manage the law any way he sees fit. The President also presents laws for Congress to give the thumbs up or down. How is this Constitutional? Are we ever going to get a Declaration of War from Congress ever again? Why, when we have Presidents who find it within their power to do so and Congress gets the extra benefit of deniability when the war goes badly.
Congress is our deliberative body to deliberate on the complex issues of our day. These are the people who should be making the laws, setting up the enforcement of those laws with exacting detail so that we do not rely on only one person, who just so happened to win the biggest of popularity contests,to interpret what Congress has given him. The Supreme Court makes sure it is all Constitutional. That was how it was supposed to work, no?
Good points all, Bawdy.
Post a Comment