Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No. 3 Republican to back Sotomayor for high court (Lamar Alexander)
AP via Google News ^ | July 30, 2009 | JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS

Posted on 07/30/2009 7:48:34 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON — The Senate's No. 3 Republican announced Thursday he'd break with the rest of his party's leaders to support Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, who's in line to become the first Hispanic justice.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said he was voting for President Barack Obama's nominee despite his differences with her, particularly on gun rights.

"Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve," Alexander said in a speech on the Senate floor.

(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: 111th; lamar; scotus; sotomayor

1 posted on 07/30/2009 7:48:34 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It hardly matters. These guys know that she’s going to be confirmed, and they’re not willing to take the hits from the Hispanic community.


2 posted on 07/30/2009 7:49:40 AM PDT by domenad (In all things, in all ways, at all times, let honor guide me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

He may be #3 but he looks like #2 to me, if you know what I mean.


3 posted on 07/30/2009 7:53:00 AM PDT by Huskrrrr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad

Bingo.

Still “Republican” means very little.


4 posted on 07/30/2009 7:53:52 AM PDT by PBRSTREETGANG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Like Lindsey, his re-election is so far off he couldn’t give a d*mn about how this vote harms the people of TN who put him in the Senate.


5 posted on 07/30/2009 7:54:16 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad

“It hardly matters. These guys know that she’s going to be confirmed, and they’re not willing to take the hits from the Hispanic community.”

It matters to me - the RNC will think it matters too, if they can’t keep these idiots in line so the voters don’t think there is no difference in the parties - and if there really isn’t, I’m out of the RNC pocket anyway...


6 posted on 07/30/2009 7:55:25 AM PDT by jessduntno ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I’m going to vote for her even though her “views” differ from mine on gun rights.

This isn’t about views, it’s about “rights” if a nominee doesn’t understand the “right” to bare arms then how can you possibly vote for her and consider her “experienced”

Complete nonsense. I guess these guys care more about what a bunch of people who will never vote for them over people who might/have voted for them.


7 posted on 07/30/2009 7:55:43 AM PDT by wilco200 (11/4/08 - The Day America Jumped the Shark)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

They just don’t get it. We’re at war!


8 posted on 07/30/2009 7:57:23 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve

cough cough

Besides, she's a girl. a latina one. We have to make allowances.

Forget those reversals of her opinions- she'll learn. That is what the USSC is for- to help our minority judges to grow and learn
sarc
9 posted on 07/30/2009 7:58:14 AM PDT by silverleaf (If you can't be a good example, at least don't be a horrible lesson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: demshateGod

And it’s a war WE didn’t start.


10 posted on 07/30/2009 7:58:36 AM PDT by J40000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: domenad

Trust me— it matters.


11 posted on 07/30/2009 7:59:11 AM PDT by Clara Lou (Spread my work ethic, not my wealth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: domenad

“....and they’re not willing to take the hits from the Hispanic community.”

####

Which means that the Hispanic community, like the black community, puts race first and foremost.


12 posted on 07/30/2009 8:00:06 AM PDT by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Vichy Republican (#3 no less!) collaborating with the Party Of Evil. What a surprise....

When are conservatives going to stop supporting these traitorous Alpha Hotels?


13 posted on 07/30/2009 8:00:52 AM PDT by EricT. ("Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government." -George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad

You are no doubt right. But I find these comments about being “well qualified”, etc. to be indicative of the fecklessness of many in the GOP. The “well qualified” standard no longer applies as a primary consideration and hasn’t for decades. Poitical and judicial philosophy are now of paramount importance because so many in the judiciary have taken it upon themselves to legislate from the bench.

Judicial confirmations are now a matter primarily of political consideration. Perhaps THE main reason this country continues to slide left is because of judicial activism. It does no good to elect people of a particular party and political philosophy if all they do can be overturned by a panel of judges dominated by an agenda. The left has been quick to get this and make use of it whereas the GOP is still having trouble grasping the concept.

Confirmation fights are a matter of political necessity these days. And I predict that in the probably not-so-distant future impeachments will be attempted against judges who demonstrate too much opposition to the dominant party in their rulings. Either that or some effort to limit terms for judges so that the dominant party can replace them with others more amenable to the current fashion.


14 posted on 07/30/2009 8:01:00 AM PDT by scory
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wilco200

That’s a great point. Views are things like, do you prefer the Cowboys or 49ers? Or ak-47 vs ar-15.

Complete Stupidity. He’s so old he’s probably retiring but you Vols better send him packing if he runs again.


15 posted on 07/30/2009 8:03:01 AM PDT by demshateGod (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

Lamar is just another Country Club RINO.


16 posted on 07/30/2009 8:20:01 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bummer administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Thanks La Raza Lamar! Just what we need...a Hispano-Racist justice


17 posted on 07/30/2009 8:21:37 AM PDT by UCFRoadWarrior (Know the difference between "conservative" and "republican")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander said he was voting for President Barack Obama's nominee despite his differences with her, particularly on gun rights.

This is how we got Campaign Finance Reform from Bush 43. Even as he signed the bill, Bush acknowledged that he didn't like the bill and that it violated our 1st Amendment Rights, but he signed it anyway and tossed the whole issue over the transom, believing that the SCOTUS would strike down the unConstitutional provisions. Instead, the SCOTUS did an end around when the case was dumped in their laps and refused (initially) to deal with the issue. Eventually, most of the issues surrounding Campaign Finance Reform were struck down but, to the best of my knowledge, the part that violates our 1st Amendment rights remains intact.

Alexander is playing the same game with Sotomayor - he's tossing the issue over the transom and forcing the SCOTUS to deal with her - potentially for the next 30+ years. Elections have consequences and electing RINOs, just because they have an "R" after their name has very big consequences.

Thanks for nothing, Lamar!!

18 posted on 07/30/2009 8:26:30 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: domenad
It matters to the NRA. And his vote for Ms. La Raza will be remembered.
19 posted on 07/30/2009 8:28:47 AM PDT by MBB1984
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Lamar!, you ignorant slut. I’m GLAD I voted against your sorry RINO ass last November.


20 posted on 07/30/2009 8:30:03 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Trouble with a capital T


21 posted on 07/30/2009 9:16:11 AM PDT by crazyotto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

And the Republican sellout of the Constitution continues.


22 posted on 07/30/2009 9:18:08 AM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
What possesses these people to finally lose any credibility or saneness they may have once had?
23 posted on 07/30/2009 9:20:42 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wilco200; Jim Robinson

Sotomayor’s rulings will not be in accordance with what the Constitution actually says.

For that reason, it is the duty of every United States Senator to vote against her.

Any United States Senator failing to vote against her is betraying their oath to uphold the Constitution, and is thus unworthy of retaining the office to which they were elected.


24 posted on 07/30/2009 9:24:42 AM PDT by TheFourthMagi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: wilco200
-- I'm going to vote for her even though her "views" differ from mine on gun rights. --

"Lamar Alexander" and "gun rights" aren't compatible. Senator Alexander voted against permitting people to go armed into National Parks per state firearms regulation.

25 posted on 07/30/2009 9:45:51 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson