Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

With Backing from Voinovich, Sotomayor Poised to Receive Support of 9 GOP Senators

Updated Aug. 5
Every Republican senator has now made public statements in support of or in opposition to the nomination of appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. Below is a scorecard with the final tally heading into the vote by the full Senate, scheduled for 3 p.m. Thursday.

LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS
• George V. Voinovich (Ohio), the only senator who had remained mum as of Wednesday night, said this morning that he will vote to confirm Sotomayor. Voinovich said that, "on balance I believe she is fit to serve on our nation's highest court."

TOTALS
GOP: 40
Out For: 9
Out Against: 31

Republicans Supporting Sotomayor
• Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.)*
• Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.)
• Sen. Christopher Bond (Mo.)
• Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)
• Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)
• Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)
• Sen. Mel Martinez (Fla.)
• Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)
• Sen. George V. Voinovich (Ohio)

Republicans Opposing Sotomayor
• Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)*
• Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)*
• Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa)*
• Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)*
• Sen. John Cornyn (Texas)*
• Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.)*
• Sen. John Barrasso (Wyo.)
• Sen. Robert Bennett (Utah)
• Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.)
• Sen. Richard Burr (N.C.)
• Sen. Jim Bunning (Ky.)
• Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.)
• Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
• Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.)
• Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho)
• Sen. Jim DeMint (S.C.)
• Sen. John Ensign (Nev.)
• Sen. Mike Enzi (Wyo.)
• Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (Tex.)
• Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.)
• Sen. Johnny Isakson (Ga.)
• Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.)
• Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
• Sen. James Risch (Idaho)
• Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.)
• Sen. Richard Shelby (Ala.)
• Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
• Sen. David Vitter (La.)
• Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.)
• Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska)

* Member of Judiciary Committee

By Washington Post  |  August 4, 2009; 3:39 PM ET
Categories:  Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Today on the Hill
Next: Today on the Hill

Comments

Sen. John Cornyn (Texas)*
• Orin Hatch (Utah)*
• Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)*
• Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
•Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
•Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.)

Race,Race,Race,Race,Race,Race,Race,Race,Race,vRace,Race,Race,Race,
and oh yeah she's a women also.

All of these men, most of which I never did have respect for are not leaving us in doubt as to their mental makeup, Racism is alive and well in Miss, Utah, Kentucky, Arizona the great progressive state of Texas, the one where God said white people run the education system

Posted by: rosenfan1 | July 25, 2009 8:01 AM | Report abuse

They will pay the political price for opposing the nomination of a remarkable judge. Their opposition lays bare their innate racist views and will motivate the opposition in the next election.

What a bunch of throw-backs!

Posted by: thebobbob | July 27, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Gee, why am I not surprised? Jeff, I've said it before and I'll say it again: Sour grapes makes for sour w(h)ine. You do get a C for consistency, though. (I won't insult you by implying that you're just going to vote against her because you're a racist. Others have done that quite adequately, and besides, you know in your heart what you are.)

Posted by: bucinka8 | July 27, 2009 12:19 PM | Report abuse

As always, Senator Sessions represents his constituents with unfailing accuracy and determination. Alabama continues to live true to the state history and prevailing ideas of the majority of state citizens. Unfortunately for Alabama the current year is 2009 and not 1809.

Posted by: thw2001 | July 27, 2009 12:36 PM | Report abuse

I AM A WHITE IRISH/ENGLISH WOMEN AND I AM WISER THAN ANY WHITE MALE ON THIS PLANET.

ALL OF THE WOMEN OF THIS WORLD KNOW THEY ARE WISER THAN ANY WHITE MALE. WHEN HATE SUCH AS RACISM GUIDES YOUR THOUGHTS AND INTENTIONS AND YOU ARE OWNED BY THE LOBBYISTS OF THE BANKING AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THINK ONLY WITH YOUR LITTLE BRAIN THEN WHERE CAN THE WISDOM OF GOD THAT PASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING HAVE A DOOR TO YOUR DECISIONS - IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

MR. SESSIONS AND OTHERS ARE THE BLIGHT OF AMERICA AND SHOULD BE SPRINKLED WITH DDT. OH THAT'S RIGHT, DDT WAS BANNED SO THE CHEMICAL COMPANIES COULD SELL US CANCER CAUSING AGENTS AND MALARIA CAN FLOURISH. OH THAT'S RIGHT, THE PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES REFUSE TO SEND HIV MEDS TO 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES DARE THEY TEACH ABSTINANCE.

Posted by: MissClarty | July 27, 2009 12:40 PM | Report abuse

These poor middle-aged/old good ole boys just can't drag themselves into the 21st (much less 20th) century. They're frightened of women and minorities. Grow-up guys. They see their small world getting smaller and they're scared.

Posted by: jckdoors | July 27, 2009 12:45 PM | Report abuse

I AM A WHITE IRISH/ENGLISH WOMEN AND I AM WISER THAN ANY WHITE MALE ON THIS PLANET.

ALL OF THE WOMEN OF THIS WORLD KNOW THEY ARE WISER THAN ANY WHITE MALE. WHEN HATE SUCH AS RACISM GUIDES YOUR THOUGHTS AND INTENTIONS AND YOU ARE OWNED BY THE LOBBYISTS OF THE BANKING AND INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THINK ONLY WITH YOUR LITTLE BRAIN THEN WHERE CAN THE WISDOM OF GOD THAT PASSES ALL UNDERSTANDING HAVE A DOOR TO YOUR DECISIONS - IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

MR. SESSIONS AND OTHERS ARE THE BLIGHT OF AMERICA AND SHOULD BE SPRINKLED WITH DDT. OH THAT'S RIGHT, DDT WAS BANNED SO THE CHEMICAL COMPANIES COULD SELL US CANCER CAUSING AGENTS AND MALARIA CAN FLOURISH. OH THAT'S RIGHT, THE PHARMACUTICAL COMPANIES REFUSE TO SEND HIV MEDS TO 3RD WORLD COUNTRIES DARE THEY TEACH ABSTINANCE.

Posted by: MissClarty | July 27, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology. You folks are ufb.

Posted by: RambleOn | July 27, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse

This problem began when Obama said he wanted a Supreme Court justice who was sympathetic to the needs of women, minorities, homosexuals... This isn't the right criteria for a Supreme Court justice. They are supposed to ensure the Constitution is upheld by ensuring legislation is consistent with the Constitution.

I don't believe she should be a Supreme Court Justice and my feelings have nothing to do with her gender or family/ethnicity. I simply don't think she is the best qualified for this position. Her recommendation by the President was compromised by the criteria he set forth. He needs to readdress the criteria and start over.

It is really pedantic when people accuse you of being a racist for not supporting her nomination. Several others have mentioned the hell Clarence Thomas was put through and his accusers weren't called racists. Why the obvious inconsistency?

Note to all... she is not the best person to be a Supreme Court Justice and this has zero to do with her gender, age, ethnicity or whatever else you'd like to classify her as. She is just not the best out there! End of story.

Posted by: victor615 | July 27, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

He is just another one bowing down to their master -- NRA. As soon as the NRA said they will be use this vote in their ranking of congress, they have found cover to hide their racist views. Just because Sessions could not project his views on Sotomayor, he cannot come to gripes that a minority woman is wiser and more level-headed than he and his cronies.

Shame that these lame, backassward, old, white guys are in position of power in this country when they can't look beyond their "entitlement that they are superior".

Posted by: hadelaide | July 27, 2009 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Sessions opposes Sotomayor.

In other news, Pope is Catholic, bear does business in the woods, more at 11...

Posted by: ASinMoCo | July 27, 2009 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Is this news? Sessions and his cohorts are pitiful white old men who are just envious of a wise Latina. Sotomayor is smarter, brighter, and an asset to America.

Posted by: mstratas | July 27, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Is there any more positive endrosement for the woman's credentials than having Jeff Sessions oppose her?

Posted by: gilbert6 | July 27, 2009 1:43 PM | Report abuse

***GASP***!!! EGADS! jeff sessions opposes Sonia Sotomayer's become s Supreme Court Justice!!! who woulda thunk it!!!


Posted by: demtse | July 27, 2009 1:45 PM | Report abuse

And thus the Republican party shows it to be the party of old white guys and continues its long slide into irrelevance. The times are a'changin' boys. Either push, pull, or get out of the way.

Posted by: caebling | July 27, 2009 1:49 PM | Report abuse

These are the dinosaurs and peddlers of ignorance and hate that we need to chase, tar, and feather as we run them out of government on a rail.

There is NO reason to oppose Sotomayor except for: Racism. Hate. Fear. OH - and pandering to those who share those weak-minded emotions for campaign contributions and lobbyist bribes.

Posted by: onestring | July 27, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

He must have gotten his orders from the KKK, his favorite community org. Also, does this guy look really pervy to anyone else?

Posted by: calif-joe | July 27, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Brilliant, the Republicans' slide into irrelevance seems to pick up speed every week. Republican's have already alienated fiscal conservatives, most of the middle class under age 60, and virtually everyone under age 35. Now they can add Latin Americans (the country's fastest growing ethnic group) and many women to the list.

What's left? An ugly cast of philandering, closeted, right wing, gun toting religious fanatics.

Could it be that the Democratic Party will split and the Republicans will become a weird little third party? Does it matter? For now they are just a weird little second party.

Posted by: davidjryan | July 27, 2009 1:59 PM | Report abuse

what a brilliant first nominee... really flushed out the party of no before not one but two major constituencies. And she will be confirmed, that's the beauty of this strategic 1rst nominee.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | July 27, 2009 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Frankly, if I were Ms. Sotomayor, I'd be proud to know that an old white racist from an old white racist state didn't like me. I'd also proudly wear the label of being opposed by the guy who thought the KKK was a great community organization, thinks the CIA and torture go well together, thinks a civil libertarian is a bad thing and thinks the Voting Rights Act is "intrusive federal legislation". Sessions represents all that is unholy in the South. If he did support me, I'd call him and ask him to withdraw his support.

Posted by: mcalvinlaw | July 27, 2009 2:26 PM | Report abuse

At the very least, hopefully Obama will be constrained from nominating another Catholic to the Supreme Court should he have another chance.

Sotomayor's confirmation will install a Catholic supermajority. 66% of the Supreme Court (6 of the 9 Justices) will be Catholic, in a country where less than a quarter of the population is so.

If ethnic diversity is an asset to the Court, why is religious diversity less so? Someone's ethnic background may affect how that person views the world, but that person's religion absolutely does.

I was surprised that Sotomayor's religion was not an issue during her hearings. Given the Catholic Church's views on abortion, birth control, stem cell research, genetic modification, gay marriage, etc., why aren't more people concerned about Catholic over-representation on the US Supreme Court?

If Obama goes with another next time and that person get confirmed, 8 of 9 Justices will be Catholic (!).

Posted by: bpai_99 | July 27, 2009 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Sorry - meant 7 of 9 would be Catholic should Obama's next one be so and get confirmed.

Posted by: bpai_99 | July 27, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

I was born the same week as MLK in Alabama.
I was born and raised a WASP.
When I was a child, I spoke and thought as a child. When I became a man I got the heck out of Alabama.
It is GREAT to now live 2,000 miles away from demagogs like Sessions and Eugene (Bull) Conner.

Posted by: lufrank1 | July 27, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Shucks, these good ole boys vot'n agin the judge is like not gett'n a member invite to the book of the month club.

Posted by: review001 | July 27, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Judge Sessions wants revenge for not convicting those "Darkies" for voter fraud in Alabama(who were obviously guilty so says Rove) Sotomayer is not black but she is close enough. Hopefully the people of color take note on this vote. Especially note Senator Cornyn of Texas. I think he can be outed..

Posted by: vanwahlgren | July 27, 2009 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I would be concerned if he did want to confirm her. The Sessions seal of approval is no badge of honor.

Posted by: SWB2 | July 27, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Surprise, surpise !
Is there anyone who doubted, long before the Senate Judicial Committee convened, that (nearly) all the Republican Senators would vote against Sotomayor's conformation ? The Republicans made fools of themselves, asking a series of inane and foolish questions, most of them irrelevent with regard to her judicial career.
And Session especially displayed his ineptitude in repeatedly addressing those irrevelencies.
The Judicial Committee hearing will come to haunt the the hapless Republican Party in 2010,

Posted by: fscalzi | July 27, 2009 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I live on Dauphin Island, Alabama in the mouth of Mobile Bay. I continually am embarrassed by the conservative posturing done by our Alabama Politicians on both the State and Federal levels. Sotomayor did an excellent job of not falling into the many verbal traps that were set for her by primarily those Republicans trying to bolster their own party and outdated conservative stance rather than do what is right in a bipartisan fashion for the country. We can only hope that "change" will eventually reach into Alabama as it has into other parts of this great country to produce a new and effective political front that we can be proud of rather than continually apologizing for.

Posted by: Hemingway845 | July 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Sun Rises in East!!! Film at 11!!

"I want to be in Kentucky when the end of the world comes, because it's always 20 years behind" -Mark Twain

Posted by: WarriorGrrl | July 27, 2009 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Jeff Sessions has to say he's going to vote against Sotomayor to keep his racism cred legit in good old Alabammy. This is about as newsworthy as the sky being blue.
On the other hand, if you don't like Sotomayor, it doesn't mean you are a racist. But let's call a spade a spade. Chances are you ARE against gay rights, immigration reform, and 'social justice'. Not to even mention abortion and climate change legislation.
Nobody, but nobody cares what the qualifications of a givin nominee are. They only care, 'will this person interpret the law the way I see it?'
That's it. All else is talk.
You may not be a racist if you're against Sotomayor, but you are a jerk.
Because this country can't take much more old white rich man justice.

Posted by: DAMNEDGENTLEMEN | July 27, 2009 3:27 PM | Report abuse

My wife tells me daily she's smarter than me, I smile & keep my mouth shut because I secretly know the real truth. To hold that remark against Sotomayor is A typical Southern Republican remark. But, the new guy on the block for the Republican party, Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) has impressed me very much & I've seen few Republicans who've ever impressed me. So, he must be doing something right. He deserves more Press coverage. McCain's protege might be the real thing ?

Posted by: wasaUFO | July 27, 2009 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Sessions against Sotomayor?

No surprise....

People like Sessions want only subservient minorities -- like Justice "Uncle Tom" Thomas, Alberto "torture is okay" Gonzalez, and Michael "go-fer" Steele.

GOP = got old prejudices

Posted by: abby0802 | July 27, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

They may or may not be racists, but these eight Republicans would vote against any Obama nominee regardless of race, gender, or age. They just don't like her because she won't vote in a way conservatives will like.

They would also vote No even if Obama nominated Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court.

(Then again, Jesus was a long-haired radical peacenik and a Middle Eastern Jew. He'd have an issue getting restaurant service or housing, and avoiding arrest for loitering in any of the states these guys represent.)

If this were to replace Antonin Scalia, they wouldn't just be voting no. They'd be fillibustering with everything they've got. Since it's "liberal for liberal," they're just being "principled" while acknowleging that they can't stop this particular train.

Posted by: Gallenod | July 27, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sessions and others haven't come to terms with the greatness of diversity, and through their actions exhibit their bigotry. Their time is running thin, and soon they will be an unpleasant memory.

Posted by: JaneB08 | July 27, 2009 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa has also announced he would not vote for her based on concerns about her activism.

Posted by: ejgallagher1 | July 27, 2009 5:03 PM | Report abuse

As a 57 year old southern white man I am also disappointed with many of the folks representing us in both the state and federal governments. Senator Sessions is a bitter white man.

My home state of S.C. has Sen. DeMint, a man with plantation mentality. Unfortunately, his mind set is shared by some of his counterparts from Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. These guys do not realize we now live in a country which is and will become more diverse. The age of the white male as the dominant force in this country is finally coming to an end. This stirs fear in these folks and they make that loud and clear with their rhetoric.

Rush and Sean feed the voters who elected these Senators with nonsense. These individuals are under the box, incapable of ever thinking outside the box which contains cherished medals their southern ancestors received during the civil war.

Posted by: BlufftonMan | July 27, 2009 5:49 PM | Report abuse

Grassley used to be fair minded but since the last election it is obvious being in the minority has damaged some neurons labeled *nice*, *polite*, and *open minded*.

Posted by: sauerkraut | July 27, 2009 5:50 PM | Report abuse

Isn't this the same Jeff Sessions who was turned down for a federal judgeship by the senate years ago because of his racist past? He's a joke.

Posted by: othernovak | July 27, 2009 5:56 PM | Report abuse

This should be understandable to republicans that if they don't start working for the American people they are going to be thrown out of office. Sotomayer is replacing Souter and that is not a big deal. So these old farts are just being the Big Giant No Party against the good work Democrats are trying to do.

Posted by: equalon | July 27, 2009 6:20 PM | Report abuse

So it seems all of the mind reading liberals have brought the racist issue to bear regardless of the facts. Sort of reminds me of the lying racist scholar in Mass. that cries racist for attention.

Would there be another reason why these senators would not vote for this racist and opinionated liberal judge? Or was that always the first thing to come to your pea brains. They may feel it is what their constituency feels is right in a free country.

Sotomayor does not believe in the use of deadly force for self defense and stated as much. There are very few people living in southern or southwestern states that do not believe in self defense or the use of deadly force for self defense. Could it be possible that that is the reason? Your ignorance of the southern culture is beyond stupid. I would trust the judgment and integrity of any of the southern senators before I would trust your corrupt and lying Pelosi, Reid, and the laundry list of communist Democrats now serving in Congress and the Senate. They are probably the last of the true patriots in this dying country.

Posted by: longbow65 | July 27, 2009 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Here is Sen. Chuck Grassley's (R-Iowa) statement re Sotomayor. Everyone knows that she'll be appointed, so don't try to read anything into the almost perfect party line voting (e.g. no = racist, yes = not racist. btw...what does it mean if a senator abstains?). Lighten up, people, this was over before it started. This is politics after all - there is positioning being done on both sides of the yes/no fence...

DES MOINES, Iowa -- Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley said Monday that he will vote "no" on the nomination for Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
“I’ve had the opportunity to vote on many judges and Justices since becoming a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We confirmed a great number of them. I had hoped to be able to vote for Judge Sotomayor to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court, but after a thorough review of the hearing record and her cases, speeches and writings, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination," said Grassley in a statement released on Monday.
Grassley said he believes Sotomayor will not be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the Constitution.
"There’s no question that nominees have become quite adept at dodging our questions, but her lack of clear and direct answers to simple questions regarding the Constitution were troubling."

Posted by: cjkiscarl | July 28, 2009 8:29 AM | Report abuse

A convenient list of senators serving their last term in office:
• Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.)*
• Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah)*
• Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa)*
• Sen. Jon Kyl (Ariz.)*
• Sen. John Cornyn (Texas)*
• Sen. Thad Cochran (Miss.)
• Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.)
• Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.)
• Sen. John Thune (S.D.)
• Sen. Roger Wicker (Miss.)

Posted by: exPostie | July 28, 2009 8:49 AM | Report abuse

regardless of political party, i've never seen a nominee more qualified.
where are nay - sayers going to find a more qualified candidate?

Posted by: boblesch | July 28, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Yeah, the white-wingers are out in force on this one.
OBAMA MUST FAIL!
We must DESTROY AMERICA to SAVE AMERICA.
GOP: New American Taliban.

Posted by: Tomcat3 | July 28, 2009 12:07 PM | Report abuse

I'm not a fan of John Thune of South Dakota, but he is NOT a racist, nor is he against women. Don't be such an a$$, rosenfan1.

Posted by: cayman2 | July 28, 2009 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Wow! What a bunch of intolerant hate filled racist bloviators you all seem to be! You act as if you are all smarter than any republican who believes that the law should not be subject to manipulation for subjectivist, activist judges. You make their case!

Posted by: theunbloviator | July 28, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse

If Sessions had approved her, I would really be concerned about her qualifications. The fact that he and the rest of the Good Ole Boy Republicans voted against, she must be more than qualified. SCOTUS better get ready. In Oct, 2 women with brains will be in the courtroom and on the bench.

Posted by: ekoeko | July 28, 2009 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The theater of the absurd continues. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, of the Confederate State of Alabama, purports to oppose Judge Sotomayor's ascension to the bench of the High Court based on his alleged perception that she's TOO RACIST!!!!

Bet ol' Jeff thinks she's "uppity", too.

Haven't we seen this in a bad movie?

Posted by: Iconoblaster | July 28, 2009 5:08 PM | Report abuse

"I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology. You folks are ufb.Posted by: RambleOn"

No, the 48 Democrats who voted against Thomas had severe doubts as to his fitness to be on the Court. His record on the Court over the years suggest that those reservations were well founded. In his whole history on the Court he has spoken openly in session once, when hearing a case deciding whether cross burning was constitutionally protected speech.

He is intellectually dishonest, and always has been. He was put on the Court because he can reliably be expected to vote the way the heritage Foundation tells him to vote.

He wasn't a good nominee at the time, and he hasn't grown by a hair's breadth in eighteen years.

But other than that, the Party of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act were maybe racist?

You share with Thomas his intellectual honesty

Posted by: ceflynline | July 28, 2009 11:53 PM | Report abuse

The Republican Party has become sooooo unAmerican!!

An Independent

Posted by: aeaustin | July 29, 2009 6:53 AM | Report abuse

Is Vitter afraid that she's going to vote against crapping in a diaper with a hooker then spouting the "family values" party line ? I'm just curious.

Posted by: dennissuper | July 29, 2009 9:33 AM | Report abuse

I think it is much more interesting than not one Democrat is voting against a candidate whose speeches and writings are so opposite of her testimony. I know many more liberals read the Post than do conservatives but I guess I gave them more credit than they deserve in terms of critical thinking ability. Are there ANY liberals that have a problem with BLATANT inconsistencies?

Posted by: vitaglubet | July 29, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse


RAMBLEON: I believe only 46 Dems voted against his nomination. Remember ANITA HILL? She still insists he is an oversexed fat man. I believe her.

Posted by: caesarganz | July 29, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I am fed up with people calling Justice Souter a liberal. He is not a liberal; he is a traditional New England Republican.

It demonstates how warped our political language has become, and how low the Republican party has fallen.

Consider that in the 1980s, the overt rascism of Jeff Sessions was so repugnant, even to fascists, that the Republican-controlled Senate refused to confirm his appointment to a Federal court.

And we thought Republicans were whacko then!

Posted by: matthewjblack | July 29, 2009 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to inform these republican senators that Bush is no longer the president so they don't need to live in FEAR any longer.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | July 29, 2009 12:46 PM | Report abuse

No one has forgot that John Roberts was a "YES MAN" for the Bush Adm.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | July 29, 2009 1:05 PM | Report abuse

I've looked back a couple of times and there are NO liberals that can think critically.

Posted by: vitaglubet | July 29, 2009 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Interesting. Sotomayor is not good enough for David Vitter, a diaper-wearing, VIP member of the late DC Madam's establishment, and whacky anti-choice teabagger. I truly hope Stormy Daniels runs against Vitter in 2010. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

Posted by: revbookburn | July 29, 2009 6:02 PM | Report abuse

WHY do republicans hate hispanics?

Posted by: lithium452 | July 29, 2009 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Republicans are the most hateful spiteful party. Why anyone would want to belong to a group who will not appreciate the experience and qualifications that Judge Sotomayer brings with her to the Supreme Court? Sotomayer is no great threat to any horrible policies that republicans hold so dear. All this will come back to bite them really hard.

Posted by: equalon | July 30, 2009 10:44 PM | Report abuse

Lamar Alexander is the typical career politician and seems to think he knows which way to vote that is most beneficial to his career. He probably is not voting in his constituency’s best interest but his actions will win him some favors from the Senate Democrats and the Obamanation in power. I would believe the action will lose a great deal of grass roots support from his State.

It looks like he is climbing on board the socialist bandwagon of the elite for the ride to national poverty. Of course that will not include the Senator in his bid for President. He has just been in Washington too long and simply lost touch with the country.

Posted by: longbow65 | August 1, 2009 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Bye Bye GOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They just flipped out of their freaking minds. McCain in his summation of Sotomayor actually described himself. Huh, why he is not President. He could not explain it in Spanish, English, German or Pig Latin so, he did what most illiterate people do when they do not understand-say NO. They only have two words in their vocabulary No and No. The GOP theme song of hatred for what they deem a cheer. McCain could not explain Palin; he could not explain anything past Vietnam and now he cannot really explain his own argument-she is academically great but, she lacks understanding of the law? What does that exactly mean: "I had to say something to try to justify why I am so damn dumb?"

Posted by: Scar1 | August 3, 2009 4:42 PM | Report abuse

In the list of Republickans who will vote against Sotomayor, can anyone find an intelligent being. Sessions is the least qualified among the lot because he is the guy who did not get a federal judge position for being an avowed racist. How can he sit in judgment of anyone on that issue? McCain has little room to talk about anything, he picked Palin, the flash in the Yukon pay, to be his number two and she melted like Arctic Ice in Bermuda. I trust that she will be confirmed by the entire Senate, minus this fractured bunch, and she will go on to do great things.

Posted by: ronjeske | August 3, 2009 5:14 PM | Report abuse

McCain appears to be willing to commit political suicide. Arizona has a 29%+ Hispanic population and McCain almost lost the state in 2008. To top if off, nothing in his reasoning lines up with Sotomayor's record or the congressional hearing. It is like the second debate when it became obvious that he nor his financial advisers had even bothered to read the TARP bill that he (wink-wink) suspended his campaign and rushed back to Washington to take credit for as savior of the economy.

His vote comes directly on the heals of his dissertation that the GOP had to woo back the Hispanic vote. Either his age related cognitive decling is rapidly advancing or someone has something really big on McCain. Given what he has to lose and his rapid shift in gears, I suspect the latter.

Posted by: xclntcat | August 3, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse


I can't believe I voted for this guy in 2000. Seriously, it's not the same guy.

McCain must be more worried about a GOP primary contender than the general election back in Arizona. I can't believe he really feels she is unqualified, and he must know it's not going to help him with hispanics back home.

He must be planning to run though, otherwise he'd have played bipartisan.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 3, 2009 6:16 PM | Report abuse

The only surprise I have is that 6 republicans are voting for her. I expected a solid republican no. Oh well, she's going to be nominated and there isn't really anything they can do about it.

Posted by: fortheclueless | August 3, 2009 6:22 PM | Report abuse

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Some seem to forget those last five words.

Posted by: Gladys2 | August 4, 2009 12:33 AM | Report abuse

As their experience is comparable in regard to their positions, if Sotomayor isn't "qualified" for the high court, McCain isn't qualified for the Senate. I'm no fan of McCain's, but I thought there was a bottom line there beyond which he wouldn't drop. I was wrong.

Posted by: Koko3 | August 4, 2009 9:15 AM | Report abuse

Nixon is back, it appears. Now they are making lists of all their enemies who have wronged them. Come on, Nov., 2010.
Let's return freedom to America.
No more fear.

Posted by: robtay12003 | August 4, 2009 10:24 AM | Report abuse

No more fear.
No more enemies lists.
No more socialism.
No more class warfare.
No more lies.
No more government takeovers.
No more taxes.
No more groveling to dictator thugs.
No more apologizing for America.

Stand tall and fight this anti-American coup.

Posted by: robtay12003 | August 4, 2009 10:29 AM | Report abuse

mikeinmidland, yes, McCain is running back here in Arizona. He's not too worried as his only competition, Janet Napolitano, will not be running against him. McCain supports amnesty, so that will still sway hispanic voters.

Posted by: pepperjade | August 4, 2009 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology. You folks are ufb.

Posted by: RambleOn | July 27, 2009 12:57 PM | Report abuse
-------------------------------------------
They didn't vote against him because they were racists.

They voted against him because he's a f@cking idiot.

As he has proved many, many times.

That clear it up for you ?

Posted by: dennissuper | August 4, 2009 1:09 PM | Report abuse

vitaglubet- Her beliefs and the law may seperate along the way. She has to rule within the law and precedent. She doesn't have to always agree the law is correct. She was clear that she follows the law.

As to the democrats who voted against Thomas, have you forgotten Anita Hill? His lack of depth? Experience? More people should have opposed that man. He has neither the knowledge, depth of character or morals to serve on the court. He has shown that to be the case in his years he has been there.

Posted by: alaskan2 | August 4, 2009 1:24 PM | Report abuse

LATEST ANNOUNCEMENTS
“• Sen. John McCain said Monday that he will vote no on Sotomayor's confirmation. He called her life story inspiring and compelling, but that is not enough to qualify her for a position on the high court, he added.”

So...this McCain individual who was elected to the Senate solely on simpathy, not integraty, is the same McCain who, as recent as a few weeks ago on NBC's Face the Nation, claims Palin is totally qualified to be President of the United States...?

Yes that Palin; “Her stupidity is expediential to the movement of her mouth.”

Duh.

Who do we trust anymore...?
Who can we trust anymore...?

Posted by: Nipit | August 4, 2009 1:44 PM | Report abuse

I have read all of these comments and fear for the future of America. I lived abroad for 20 years and the last 10 years back in the States. Skin color is not an issue to me. Many of my dearest friends are from Zimbabwe, Croatia, Haiti, Central & South America,& China to name a few.
So what is this virulent hate that I read in these postings from people who have purported to vote for a president to lessen racial tension? Differences, even strong ones should not bring about such rage or bitterness. This week, I read a quote from Gen. Patton, "If everyone is thinking alike, someone is not thinking." Differences of opinion are fundamental to democracy. Having lived in several countries controlled by dictators, I salute and support a two-party system with vigorous debate..but let us not engage slanderous accusation. Instead, celebrate the freedom that our founding fathers gave us to disagree. Pamelita

Posted by: phannay | August 4, 2009 2:55 PM | Report abuse

O.M.G. McSame is against Sotomayor , SHOCK, SHOCK. Who woke the old fool up, he has been sleeping quietly since November.

Posted by: SWAMPYPD | August 4, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

To be accurate, the title of this story should start "More Republican Senators . . ."

Posted by: nodebris | August 4, 2009 9:50 PM | Report abuse

There are lots of reasons for opposing Sotomayor's appointment. A female judge should be at least two inches taller; blonde; blue eyed; and a staunch gun-toting bible-bashing Republican who likes war, small government and huntin'. Sarah Palin almost fits the bill.

She is none of these things and so she should be sent home with a note for her mother saying that she has been uppity by seeking a position above her station.

Posted by: robertjames1 | August 5, 2009 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Gladys2; I wondered if anyone had bothered to read her entire statement. One poster made reference to critical Thinking. If one stops to read and understand her statement, the critical thinker should come to the conclusion that the statement applies equally to all races and genders.

A wise person and their experiences will almost always make a better decision than a person that does not have similar experiences. That would seem to be a logical observation, then again Logic has no place in Politics, the politician say what he or she believes will get them elected.

When will people wake up and demand that our legislators do the job for which they were hired, represent the people of this great country. Not in our lifetime I fear.

Once again the Republican party spreads fear, and racism.

Posted by: TheGeneral1 | August 5, 2009 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Clarence Thomas was a token, and has not distinguished himself. Sonia Sotomayor is in a totally different mould.

Men generally are afraid to compete with women, and clever women scare the living daylight out of many of them. Sotomayor has shown that her intellect is superior to all those 28 men, and women, who have signified that they will not vote for her confirmation.

Posted by: hyalum | August 5, 2009 10:31 AM | Report abuse

What most people who have commented don't seem to understand is that the Supreme Court, as a Judiciary part of the Federal Government, is supposed to interpret the Constitution, not legislate new law by degree when the majority appointed judges feel that they know what is best for the general public. The Court has been a set of presidential loaded dice for almost as long as the Constitution has existed. A review of the Supreme Court's decisions needs an independent state assessment before becoming effective.

Congress is supposed to make laws on the Federal side, and only those expressed specifically in the Constitution. Both the Judiciary and the Congress have done little more during the last century than erode what was once called states rights; to handle matters on that level such that the Federal government would not interfere in state squabbles. Congress does too much; the states, too little.

The Executive level, the President, should be managing affairs that affect the welfare of the country (supposedly a republic) on both an international and national level. But what the President generally seem to end up doing is lobbying the Congress, the Courts, and major corporate lobbyists into some kind of compromise on issues that affect mostly themselves rather than the citizens of the country. Compromises create conditions where no one is held accountable, and nothing really works very well.

Where does that leave the average citizen? Not much better off politically than where he was 200 years ago.

"At the constitutional level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections." (Justice William O. Douglas), p 203, Kevin Gutzman, ... the Constitution.

Posted by: RonScheurer | August 5, 2009 10:45 AM | Report abuse

The disturbing thing about the Republican furor over the wise Latina woman is that she is no liberal; she is a very conservative Catholic woman who will move the center of the Court even more to the right.

We are still waiting for Republicans to offer evidence for her presumed liberal leanings.

Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

At least the alien abductees claim to have been present at their probings and, in that case, at least are witnesses, which makes them marginally more credible.

Posted by: matthewjblack | August 5, 2009 11:17 AM | Report abuse

I am a white 55 yr. old woman, wife of 22 yrs. Mother of 2 daughters and grandmother of a boy and a girl. I am smart enough to ask a valid question, what if there is a cure for A.I.D.S yet the government would not give it, as they make so much money off the drugs industries and sex industries that they have no motivation to do so. What say you!!!

Posted by: boski66 | August 5, 2009 12:49 PM | Report abuse

Of the 3 Senators not yet on the list, Voinovich from Ohio will probably vote for Sotomayor. Like Kit Bond, Voinovich will be retiring and has nothing to lose.

Posted by: bonncaruso | August 5, 2009 2:54 PM | Report abuse

Xcintcat wrote:

"McCain appears to be willing to commit political suicide. Arizona has a 29%+ Hispanic population and McCain almost lost the state in 2008. To top if off, nothing in his reasoning lines up with Sotomayor's record or the congressional hearing."

Indeed, it is also perplexing for me. McCain was supposed to be the maverick that should show the GOP a better way. He would have nothing to lose by voting for Sotomayor. So, apparently, he is not really hot to win in 2010.

Posted by: bonncaruso | August 5, 2009 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow! Rarely in my in life, including 25 years of military service, have I been so depressed about the future of my country. We can all disagree about policy and the road ahead, but is everyone really so clueless about the Constitution and what Supreme Court's mission is?

How very sad that nominating a future judge had nothing to do with quality, but everything to do with gender/race/ethnic identiy. A twofer! How nice for the left!

If nothing else, this article has nine reasons for some great primary races next year:)

Posted by: silencedogoodreturns | August 6, 2009 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Who cares let these malignant narcissists conservative republicans in the US Senate all drop dead or commit collective suicide. Along t=with that they can also take their token Scalia's water boy Uncle Tom once Clarence Thomas.

Posted by: winemaster2 | August 6, 2009 1:15 AM | Report abuse

"I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology." Another interpretation is that 48 Democrats looked beyond race and saw someone who would be a disgrace to the Supreme Court, as subsequent events have amply demonstrated.

Posted by: frodot | August 6, 2009 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I really don't think it's racism. I think it's unmitigated, gut-wrenching fear of the GOP's Birther, tea-bagger, seccesionist base.

That and fear of Boss Limbaugh.

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | August 6, 2009 7:49 AM | Report abuse

"I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology." Another interpretation is that 48 Democrats looked beyond race and saw someone who would be a disgrace to the Supreme Court, as subsequent events have amply demonstrated.

Posted by: frodot | August 6, 2009 7:51 AM | Report abuse

Senator McCain is concerned about temperment and bias?

Who knew?

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | August 6, 2009 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Grassley said he believes Sotomayor will not be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the Constitution.

He also confirmed that his new comic hit "Sir-tax-alot" will be followed by his latest...."Charlie's Pony Show".

Posted by: willandjansdad1 | August 6, 2009 7:57 AM | Report abuse

Amazing. Sen. McCain will not support Sotomeyer but supported Palin. Now what do you think about that. Wow. He is getting to old to make the right decisions.
A good thing that most Americans could see that when they voted for President.

Posted by: barryaudrey | August 6, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

I still suppose that Voinovich will vote YES, which, assuming that either Kennedy or Bryd (one of them) doesn't make it to the vote, makes for:

Yes: 68
No: 31
Absent: 1

And for those posting slime about Sotomayor, she was listed by all major judicial organizations as "eminently qualified". She can do the job.

Posted by: bonncaruso | August 6, 2009 8:59 AM | Report abuse

I suppose the 48 Democrats who voted against Clarence Thomas were racists also and their vote had nothing to do with disagreements on judicial philology. You folks are ufb.

Posted by: RambleOn | July 27, 2009 12:57 PM

____

Nice try, but I call BS. The senators who voted against Clarence Thomas disagreed with his worldview -- just as the senators who vote against Judge Sotomayor disagree with hers. Problem is, Judge Sotomayor's worldview represents the 21st Century, whereas, Clarence Thomas is a reactionary who pines for the 19th. If you supported Clarence Thomas, it had nothing to do with his "political philosophy," and everything to do with the fact that he offered you cover to go about pursuing reactionary policies that would end up hurting people of color.

Posted by: Route1 | August 6, 2009 10:07 AM | Report abuse

robtay120003, you're back. are you still advocating the overthrow of the duly elected President by any means possible? we'll be watching, and remember The Fix had to sign into the comments on his blog and remind King of Zouk to stay on topic. Start threatening the life of the President again, and it won't be the blogger who condemns you....

Posted by: katem1 | August 6, 2009 10:21 AM | Report abuse

SHAME on the RINOs who voted for a person who looks not to the Constitution, but race and gender to make judgments. These RINOs can no longer claim to be defenders of the Constitution. Period.

We must send these sell-outs a message:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html

Posted by: ensignbay | August 6, 2009 12:11 PM | Report abuse

"How very sad that nominating a future judge had nothing to do with quality, but everything to do with gender/race/ethnic identiy. A twofer! How nice for the left!"

Give me a freaking break. All the "activists" on the Court now are conservatives. We have had 100+ white male Justices. Too bad you are so very threatened by the idea of a little diversity.

The Republican Party is the "Party of the Past". Look at the old fat white teabaggers shouting in fear at town hall meetings. Not a pretty picture.

Posted by: marSF | August 6, 2009 1:18 PM | Report abuse


Nine good reasons for a primary fight? No, try 31 reasons.

Posted by: mikeinmidland | August 6, 2009 2:12 PM | Report abuse

It is truly amazing to me to read the comments following this story. I believe the reason President Obama nominated this woman was because of her intellect and her outstanding decisions as a judge on the federal courts. Of course her credentials should have been enough to assure her nomination but enhancing her candidacy was the fact that she was a woman of color. Instead of judging this candidate on the basis of her judicial accomplishments, the republican senators have once again given in to the old tired rhetoric from
racists, their ever shrinking right-wing base, and overly-confident radio hosts. Only after the deeply rooted hate has been purged will the republican party emerge as a critical thinking entity once again. We need one republican senator to lead the rebellion and sweep out the remnants of McCarthyism which lives large in the ranks of the republican in congress.

Posted by: TTDS | August 6, 2009 2:51 PM | Report abuse

John McCain cracks me up...he spent no time at all determining that Sarah Palin was qualified to be President of the United States. Yet, Justice Sotomayor's 17 years as an appellate judge showed she was not qualified?

For the record, if McCain's analysis was accurate, how come the ONLY case singled out from her 17 years of rulings (the firefighter decision) was a case in which Sotomayor allowed the status quo, rather than set legal precedent? Isn't that the polar opposite of judicial activism?

No, this hypocrite chose to focus on 2 comments made during seminars.

I cannot wait to see McCain get trounced in his re-election bid.

His judgement is horrendous.

Posted by: scootmandubious | August 6, 2009 3:37 PM | Report abuse

Sotomayor does not believe in the use of deadly force for self defense and stated as much. There are very few people living in southern or southwestern states that do not believe in self defense or the use of deadly force for self defense. Could it be possible that that is the reason? Your ignorance of the southern culture is beyond stupid. I would trust the judgment and in
--------------

Sheriff Andy Taylor wasn't a rube, yet you?

WTH happened?

Posted by: thegreatpotatospamof2003 | August 6, 2009 3:50 PM | Report abuse

Do I smell a blood bath at the repub polls in 2010? At last, this wretched gene pool of old white geezers who are beholden to big business and whites only will finally go down. I'm marking the days as of this moment.

The world is homogenous. Get over it you numbskull Repubs.

Posted by: gprice720 | August 6, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Remember when the GOP created the Viva Bush people? Viva Bush .....what happened....did the GOP forget how they used the Hispanic vote to get George into office...Once he got in, it has been ....run away run away from those "people" as fast as you can. After all, we could not let the white ivory tower of the Republican party get tainted. All you have to do is see the rudeness of the gentlemen ( I use the term loosely) from Oklahoma and you cringe with embarrassment at the rudeness of them to another educated human being.

Posted by: esg719 | August 6, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Even with Cash for Clunkers never forget to negotiate the car price.


Jimhenry
Blogger
www.cashforclunkersfacts.info
http://www.cashforclunkersfacts.info

Posted by: jimhenry0808 | August 8, 2009 4:56 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company