• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Schumer: Sotomayor `virtually filisbuster-proof'

What do you think? Is Schumer full of it or for once is he actually right?

Schumer: Sotomayor `virtually filisbuster-proof' - Yahoo! News

Unless something new is brought to light, I do not see republicans mounting a filibuster on this. She tends to rule as a moderate, has ruled in against abortion rights issues(well, at least one), and republicans are scared of annoying hispanics. Notice who is attacking her, it's not the people who will be voting on her. Even if republicans decided they wanted to filibuster, at least one or 2 repubs would not support it and the filibuster would fail.
 
Unless something new is brought to light, I do not see republicans mounting a filibuster on this. She tends to rule as a moderate, has ruled in against abortion rights issues(well, at least one), and republicans are scared of annoying hispanics. Notice who is attacking her, it's not the people who will be voting on her. Even if republicans decided they wanted to filibuster, at least one or 2 repubs would not support it and the filibuster would fail.

I wouldn't say that already Sen.Graham has said he wants answer and he will press her for answer. If Mr.Graham doesn't get his answer's I can see other Republicans and a few Blue Dog Dems follow his lead.
 
I wouldn't say that already Sen.Graham has said he wants answer and he will press her for answer. If Mr.Graham doesn't get his answer's I can see other Republicans and a few Blue Dog Dems follow his lead.

Source? Answers about what?
 
Source? Answers about what?

Graham Calls on Sotomayor to Apologize for 'Wise Latina' Statement - Political News - FOXNews.com

A prominent Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to apologize for saying years ago that she would hope a "wise Latina woman" often would reach a better conclusion than a white man.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "FOX News Sunday" he wasn't buying President Obama's attempt to walk back his Supreme Court nominee's controversial statement from 2001. Obama said Friday that given the chance Sotomayor would have "restated" that comment, and that she was merely trying to express how her experiences give her perspective on others' hardships.
 
Graham Calls on Sotomayor to Apologize for 'Wise Latina' Statement - Political News - FOXNews.com

A prominent Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee called on Judge Sonia Sotomayor to apologize for saying years ago that she would hope a "wise Latina woman" often would reach a better conclusion than a white man.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told "FOX News Sunday" he wasn't buying President Obama's attempt to walk back his Supreme Court nominee's controversial statement from 2001. Obama said Friday that given the chance Sotomayor would have "restated" that comment, and that she was merely trying to express how her experiences give her perspective on others' hardships.

Thank you for the link. To get a filibuster to work you would need every single republican, or for ever republican defection, you would need to woo a democrat. It's not going to happen.

Senator Graham said:
"I don't think she's a racist," Graham said.

Notice the difference in the level of rhetoric between those on the senate, and those on the right who are not elected officials. It's a big clue.
 
Thank you for the link. To get a filibuster to work you would need every single republican, or for ever republican defection, you would need to woo a democrat. It's not going to happen.



Notice the difference in the level of rhetoric between those on the senate, and those on the right who are not elected officials. It's a big clue.

Oh I agree with you but to say she isn't filibuster-proof is a stupid statement to make all it take is one slip up or one missed answer and then wham we have a filibuster.
 
Oh I agree with you but to say she isn't filibuster-proof is a stupid statement to make all it take is one slip up or one missed answer and then wham we have a filibuster.

That is why I said "Unless something new is brought to light".
 
Schumer's pretty much accurate on this one. Sotomayor was an incredibly safe pick for Obama, and there's not really anything there for republicans to get agitated about. Obama's got 59 seats and popularity - the only way she doesn't get confirmed is if she ****s it up in the hearings.
 
Schumer's pretty much accurate on this one. Sotomayor was an incredibly safe pick for Obama, and there's not really anything there for republicans to get agitated about. Obama's got 59 seats and popularity - the only way she doesn't get confirmed is if she ****s it up in the hearings.

Hmmm I;m not sure this one statement from the article sort of sums it up for me,

With Sotomayor's confirmation set to dominate the summer months, Graham said the nominee will have to "prove" that she could give somebody like him a "fair shake" in court. He said her controversial statement suggests she feels her life experiences give her a "superiority" over others.
 
Hmmm I;m not sure this one statement from the article sort of sums it up for me,

With Sotomayor's confirmation set to dominate the summer months, Graham said the nominee will have to "prove" that she could give somebody like him a "fair shake" in court. He said her controversial statement suggests she feels her life experiences give her a "superiority" over others.

Well that's great that Graham feels that way. Unfortunately, I doubt that 39 others agree.
 
Sotomayor is "filibuster-proof" for the simple reason that she is every bit the stealth nominee Souter was. Other than her rambling opinion Foot v Mouth (aka, the "wise latina" speech in 2001), she has very little of significance in her record besides a predilection for gigging the Supreme Court and getting smacked down as a result (3 of 5 opinions reversed, with a strong possibility to be 4 of 6 by the time hearings commence in July, and an outside shot at 5 of 7 if Maloney goes to the Supreme Court).

Most interesting about her nomination is the lack of enthusiasm for it on the left. She's filibuster-proof for now, but she's not a shoe-in either.
 
Sotomayor is "filibuster-proof" for the simple reason that she is every bit the stealth nominee Souter was. Other than her rambling opinion Foot v Mouth (aka, the "wise latina" speech in 2001), she has very little of significance in her record besides a predilection for gigging the Supreme Court and getting smacked down as a result (3 of 5 opinions reversed, with a strong possibility to be 4 of 6 by the time hearings commence in July, and an outside shot at 5 of 7 if Maloney goes to the Supreme Court).

Most interesting about her nomination is the lack of enthusiasm for it on the left. She's filibuster-proof for now, but she's not a shoe-in either.


It's strange how people decide not to look past Foot v Mouth (2001). It's almost like we care more about what the scientist or engineer does in his spare time more than we care about what the scientist or engineer does as a scientist or an engineer. IF he lawful judging is impeccable then she can call Nancy Pelosi a white-whore, she can call Barack Obama a cum-dumpster. I don't care. I just don't care. I seriously just don't freaking care.

To be quite honest she probably had no idea that her rebuttal in Foot V Mouth (2001) would be used 8 years later to tarnish her. I mean hell, I am not planning my words today so that when I am 28 I will go filibuster free.
 
Sotomayor is "filibuster-proof" for the simple reason that she is every bit the stealth nominee Souter was. Other than her rambling opinion Foot v Mouth (aka, the "wise latina" speech in 2001), she has very little of significance in her record besides a predilection for gigging the Supreme Court and getting smacked down as a result (3 of 5 opinions reversed, with a strong possibility to be 4 of 6 by the time hearings commence in July, and an outside shot at 5 of 7 if Maloney goes to the Supreme Court).

Most interesting about her nomination is the lack of enthusiasm for it on the left. She's filibuster-proof for now, but she's not a shoe-in either.

Any idea what percentage of cases the Supreme Court overturns? 2006-2007 it was 68 %, the year before is was 73.6 %. Based on that, a 60 % overturn rate is not all that bad.

Source: FactCheck.org: What percentage of Sonia Sotomayor's opinions have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court?
 
It's strange how people decide not to look past Foot v Mouth (2001). It's almost like we care more about what the scientist or engineer does in his spare time more than we care about what the scientist or engineer does as a scientist or an engineer.
Bad analogy. An engineer can think all white dudes are crackers or all Latinas are hoochie-mamas and still build one hell of a bridge.

A judge who thinks either of those things is seriously impaired on the bench.

Moreover, that speech was a lengthy endorsement of ethno-centric and gender-centric reasoning in jurisprudence. She was talking about how she approached jurisprudence; if an engineer, while at a party, makes an offhand comment that he fudges stress calculations in building a bridge, I damn sure don't want that engineer building any bridges for me.
 
Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion

Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion ? I would think that the administration would have found a Senator with less glue to still a bad rap on to be her champion guide whatever it's called this process to get to sing with the SUPREMES!!! Chuckey Cheeze is lightning rod!
 
Re: Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion

Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion ? I would think that the administration would have found a Senator with less glue to still a bad rap on to be her champion guide whatever it's called this process to get to sing with the SUPREMES!!! Chuckey Cheeze is lightning rod!

wat



.....
 
Re: Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion

Should Chuckey Cheeze be her champion ? I would think that the administration would have found a Senator with less glue to still a bad rap on to be her champion guide whatever it's called this process to get to sing with the SUPREMES!!! Chuckey Cheeze is lightning rod!

To quote a line from Billy Madison:

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

And yes, that was in good fun :)
 
The impotence of the GOP will be on full display in the Sotomayor hearings. The few remaining GOP Senators outside the deep south, many of whom will retire rather than face the rath of the voters in 2010, will swipe helplessly at the nominee. They will humiliate themselves far more than they will damage Sotomayor.
 
Sotomayor is "filibuster-proof" for the simple reason that she is every bit the stealth nominee Souter was.
Of course, Souter was EXACTLY the kind of justice the GOP always claims it wants -- he believed in precedent, he deferred to the legislative branch, and he respected the sovereignty of the states.

The GOP's hatred of Souter is the final proof of its towering hypocrisy on the topic of judicial nominees.
 
Back
Top Bottom