Comments on: How Both Sides Should Handle Sotomayor Hearings

By: tidbits

tidbits — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:20:14 +0000

Much better, AR. Not only is your statement controversial, it would put me in the even more uncomfortable position of having to defend Obama in order to respond. Fortunately, TMV's comment policy requires me to stick to the subject of the article, so I will beg off on a technicality and return to a studied avoidance of the Sotomayor hearings.

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:18:17 +0000

AR – Being too much in agreement with your well reasoned comments in recent days has become annoying. Will you please put something up worthy of spirited disagreement?

Obama is the ultimate sleeper cell of Al Qaeda.

How's that?

By: MFA

MFA — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:36:05 +0000

I really do like Sotomayor. She’s got a compelling backstory and from everything I’ve read, she seems like an excellent fit for the supreme court. But then again, just like with Presidents, it’s difficult to tell how they will really be until they have the position. There’s a good article floating around online today about whether Sotomayor might be the left’s version of Scalia in terms of temperament and the way she argues: http://bit.ly/c8tuS Not sure if this is a good thing or not.

By: tidbits

tidbits — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:13:10 +0000

Sotomayor's judicial history is relatively undistinguished, and her approach to judicial intellectualism and constitutional interpretation is rather pedestrian. Having said that, to argue that she lacks “experience” or “ability” is misplaced. Regardless of the objections some of us may have to her nomination/confirmation, she will be confirmed barring some bombshell and go on to become a mediocre Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

AR – Being too much in agreement with your well reasoned comments in recent days has become annoying. Will you please put something up worthy of spirited disagreement?

By: tidbits

tidbits — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:12:09 +0000

AR – Being too much in agreement with your well reasoned comments in recent days has become annoying. Will you please put something up worthy of spirited disagreement?

By: lurxst

lurxst — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:04:14 +0000

The filibuster would not seem to be an option for republicans this round. All they can do is grandstand. Its still possible that Soniamayor may say something exceedingly horrendous during questioning but I suspect her answers will be couched in the same legal cloud speak as previous nominees. I am sure that Free Republic readers will still imagine her voice sounding like Rosie Perez.

By: shannonlee

shannonlee — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:20:25 +0000

The woman is absolutely qualified for the job and her rulings are considered pretty mainstream by people of both sides of the isle. The only issues people have with her have to deal with her public statements while not on the bench. Which is fine considering her potential new job title.

Joker, I don't think you know what you're talking about.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:50:02 +0000

How sad that our highest poltical representatives (Senators, for heavens sake) need to be told how they should “handle” the nominee for the highest Court in the land….

By: AustinRoth

AustinRoth — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:41:30 +0000

it is about the ABILITY and EXPERIENCE to do the job which Ms. Sotomayer lacks at this point in her career

I do not know how anyone could make that statement. I don't agree with her jurisprudence philosophy, but she is eminently qualified to serve, and certainly has the pedigree and experience to be a SCOTUS Justice.

By: joker60

joker60 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:37:22 +0000

We need QUALIFIED people, not people who will be confirmed because they fit the politically correct mold of our present soceity.This is not about creed , color , national origin , or Party Affiliation, it is about the ABILITY and EXPERIENCE to do the job which Ms. Sotomayer lacks at this point in her career.
We as a nation need to demand of all our politicians regardless of party or platform.
What would “Joe The Plumber” do if he made assurances to the people (his customers) i.e. i am going to do this and this and this as part of my service to you and i expect this(payment) in return? If he did not fufill his contractual agreements to his people he would be removed from their trust and the job he had been hired to do.
If our polticians do not live up to their ASSURANCES made as part of their election platform they should be held as responsible as the next American…. I believe this is where the description “public servant comes in?

By: AlwaysOptimistic

AlwaysOptimistic — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:37:00 +0000

As much as I want transparency in our government, I wish these hearings were not televised. It seems like since they started televising Supreme Court appointee hearings they have turned into “dog and pony shows”, with both Republicans and Democrats looking “silly and petty”, as they mug for the cameras.

By: jwest

jwest — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:17:48 +0000

In short, you want Republican to act as they always have acted, and not devolve into acting as Democrats do.