PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Comments:Criticize a public figure regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don’t attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sotomayor in Spanish Translates as a Major Thicket
9
comments:
T Dooley
said...
It could also translate to "Racist woman believes Latino's to be superior to white people". I wonder if she also thinks Latinos are superior to blacks? If so, I can't for the world of me think of any reason she wouldn't say so!! LOL!
I wonder if her and the First Lady will sit around and talk about how minorities and women don't have a chance in this country and how Whitey is always beating them down. It will be the topic on the helicopter ride out to Camp David.
I suppose I'll wait until I know more to pass final judgment but I'm not encouraged. Unfortunately elections have consequences but she has some explaining to do.
I doubt we'll see a "high-tech lynching" as we did with Clarence Thomas. Republicans probably will be respectful and we won't see loved ones reduced to tears the way Alito's wife was after Democrats savaged him as a racist. I also doubt Republicans will filibuster because it, in my view, is unconstitutional.
My biggest concern is that Obama was telling the truth when he said he would pick judges with empathy.
I'm not a Constitutional scholar but this is my view. The requirement for approval of Supreme Court Justices is a simple majority of the Senate. I'm a little fuzzy on if it says so specifically but at the very least the Constitution does specifically say which procedures require a "super majority" (60 votes) and anything that isn't enumerated falls in the "simple majority" category. A filibuster means that a judge cannot be approved without 60 votes. I don't think the Constitution says anything about filibusters, I'm not sure. This throws the balance of power all out of whack. For these reasons I supported the "nuclear option" over the "gang of 14".
Liberal racist are OK, its only the conservative white who can be called a racist and have it stick. The real world is never pretty. No fairless in the MSM.
Hm, that is interesting. I don't think (I'm not a constitutional scholar either in anyway, but I have read it many times and studied it pretty well) that filibustering even a judicial nominee, or a presidential appointment is unconstitutional. Since it isn't talked about in the Constitution it would fall under the rules of the Senate.
Filibusters are annoying, and in the case of a Supreme Court Justice nominee they would be ridiculous especially if the person is going to get confirmed anyway.
As I recall (I'll google up later now that it's an issue) the "nuclear option" was a Senate rule option, just make it against the rules to filibuster judicial nominees. It is very rare, if not unprecedented, to do so. My impression is that it was like a common courtesy, they didn't need a rule...until 2005. The "Gang of 14" had the numbers so it never blew up. Will it this time now that the tables have turned?
Republicans have been burned before (Bork, the horrendous treatment of Clarence Thomas). They responded by overwhelmingly approving Ginsburg and Breyers because they were in fact qualified and Republicans respected the time worn traditions that gave Clinton, and by extension the people, that right.
Whatever your views, this nomination will be interesting. Sotomayor is probably a lock. That doesn't mean Republicans shouldn't try to defeat her if she's bogus. Cinncinatus (on the other Sotomayor thread) is right, it's a defining time for the Republican party.
9 comments:
It could also translate to "Racist woman believes Latino's to be superior to white people". I wonder if she also thinks Latinos are superior to blacks? If so, I can't for the world of me think of any reason she wouldn't say so!! LOL!
T. Dooley
I wonder if her and the First Lady will sit around and talk about how minorities and women don't have a chance in this country and how Whitey is always beating them down. It will be the topic on the helicopter ride out to Camp David.
I suppose I'll wait until I know more to pass final judgment but I'm not encouraged. Unfortunately elections have consequences but she has some explaining to do.
I doubt we'll see a "high-tech lynching" as we did with Clarence Thomas. Republicans probably will be respectful and we won't see loved ones reduced to tears the way Alito's wife was after Democrats savaged him as a racist. I also doubt Republicans will filibuster because it, in my view, is unconstitutional.
My biggest concern is that Obama was telling the truth when he said he would pick judges with empathy.
Serious question how is filibustering unconstitutional?
I'm not a Constitutional scholar but this is my view. The requirement for approval of Supreme Court Justices is a simple majority of the Senate. I'm a little fuzzy on if it says so specifically but at the very least the Constitution does specifically say which procedures require a "super majority" (60 votes) and anything that isn't enumerated falls in the "simple majority" category. A filibuster means that a judge cannot be approved without 60 votes. I don't think the Constitution says anything about filibusters, I'm not sure.
This throws the balance of power all out of whack. For these reasons I supported the "nuclear option" over the "gang of 14".
To clarify: I am not saying that the filibuster itself is unconstitutional, only the filibustering of judicial nominees. Sorry for the confusion.
Liberal racist are OK, its only the conservative white who can be called a racist and have it stick. The real world is never pretty. No fairless in the MSM.
Hm, that is interesting. I don't think (I'm not a constitutional scholar either in anyway, but I have read it many times and studied it pretty well) that filibustering even a judicial nominee, or a presidential appointment is unconstitutional. Since it isn't talked about in the Constitution it would fall under the rules of the Senate.
Filibusters are annoying, and in the case of a Supreme Court Justice nominee they would be ridiculous especially if the person is going to get confirmed anyway.
As I recall (I'll google up later now that it's an issue) the "nuclear option" was a Senate rule option, just make it against the rules to filibuster judicial nominees. It is very rare, if not unprecedented, to do so. My impression is that it was like a common courtesy, they didn't need a rule...until 2005. The "Gang of 14" had the numbers so it never blew up. Will it this time now that the tables have turned?
Republicans have been burned before (Bork, the horrendous treatment of Clarence Thomas). They responded by overwhelmingly approving Ginsburg and Breyers because they were in fact qualified and Republicans respected the time worn traditions that gave Clinton, and by extension the people, that right.
Whatever your views, this nomination will be interesting. Sotomayor is probably a lock. That doesn't mean Republicans shouldn't try to defeat her if she's bogus. Cinncinatus (on the other Sotomayor thread) is right, it's a defining time for the Republican party.
Post a Comment