R WARS
Posted on 07/24/2009 8:13:13 AM PDT by STARWISE
When Sen. Lindsey Graham announced his support for Sonia Sotomayor this week, right-wing radio talk show host Mark Levin said it was a sign that Graham is “unreliable ... as a thinker and a leader.”
Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, called it proof that Graham “still lacks courage, statesmanship and an understanding of the Constitution and rule of law.”
“May his antics get the attention they richly deserve.”
The response from Graham: Enjoy life in the minority.
In an interview with POLITICO Thursday, the South Carolina Republican defended his decision to back Sotomayor by laying out a broad critique of conservative activists who push “ideological purity” and refuse to cooperate with a Democratic Congress and White House.
“If we chase this attitude … that you have to say ‘no’ to every Democratic proposal, you can’t help the president ever, you can’t ever reach across the aisle, then I don’t want to be part of the movement because it’s a dead-end movement,” Graham said.
“I have no desire to be up here in an irrelevant status. I’m smart enough to know that this country doesn’t have a problem with conservatives. It has a problem with blind ideology. And those who are ideological-driven to a fault are never going to be able to take this party back into relevancy.”
While a handful of other GOP senators have said they’ll back Sotomayor when her nomination comes to the floor, Graham is the first Republican on the Judiciary Committee to support her.
He may be the only one. Not all of the Republicans on the committee have announced their views, but the two who would seem mostly likely to defect — Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans who have voted for every Supreme Court nominee they’ve faced in the Senate — have both expressed reservations about Sotomayor.
Hatch said that he’s “troubled” by her nomination, and Grassley said that “people take things into consideration now that they didn’t used to before.” He added: “So obviously, there are other things to consider than just qualifications.”
Graham said that Sotomayor is not the nominee he would have chosen.
But after questioning her extensively during her confirmation hearing — asking about everything from her views on abortion to the charge that she’s a “bully” on the bench — he said Sotomayor deserves his support because a review of her 17-year record proved she was well-qualified, her confirmation would not upset the ideological balance on the court, and Obama is entitled to some latitude in making his pick because he won the election.
Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees — citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.
“I don’t want to politicize the judiciary any more than has been done,” Graham said. “My goal is to ensure the rule of law isn’t taken over by special-interest groups.”
Whether it was his efforts to prevent the “nuclear option” in 2005 over George W. Bush’s judicial nominations, to back the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility or to pass an immigration reform bill that the right calls “amnesty” for illegal immigrants, Graham is used to the heat.
~~~
Rest at link.
McCain was a valuable commodity to the Dems when he could sell out his party and conservatives.
How valuable is he now that we are in the minority and They don't need him anymore?
------------------------------------------------
What does he think Sotomayor represents?
“Most of all, he said, he wanted to return to the days where ideology was not part of the equation when choosing judicial nominees — citing the 98-0 confirmation of Antonin Scalia in 1986 and the 96-3 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993.”
Only problem is that Bork happened in 1987 and Thomas was practically ruined in 1992. The little cockroach forgot about those.
This is about what to expect out of Grahamnesty.
It comes as no surprise....
Goober, as Levin calls him, isn't idealogically driven at all. He's the new Arlen Specter.
Better to allow a Democrat win and brace for a frontal assault than get stabbed in the back by an "ally" like Goober.
I was afraid of the potential photos on the thread.
I voted against Flimsey Tinkerbelle,too, but to no effect.
Heck, this is South Carolina! You’d think a candidate named “Buddy Witherspoon” would at least get the entire redneck vote (many of whom are fine people).
What horrifies is (is this true?) the Senate rule that if the SCOTUS nominee fails to gain a single Republican vote in committee, then his/her nomination is toast!
In other words, Republicans CAN keep Sotomayor off the Supreme Court in spite of their minority status.
And Little Lord Grahamnesty just queered the entire deal!
None taken, BUT, I don’t fight like a little girl. Nor do most real Conservative women!
Thank you South Carolina voters!! < /sarc>
Lindsay Sotomizer Gramnesty must be defeated at all cost now. It is time to evacuuate these RINO turds.
We need to vote out of office every incumbent that acts like their job is a foot ball game instead of the most serious responsibility to represent the people of their state. This job is anything BUT being about oneself, and EVERTHING to do with putting your country first over your own interests.
FLUSH the District of Corruption! NO INCUMBENTS IN 2010!
Not for His party, just his stated party.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.