Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: katiedidit1
Make that he endorsed PRO choice candidates and voted aye on pro choice judges! “Santorum’s “record” shows he endorsed and voted for a PRO CHOICE judges, candidates”

Once again, I'm sure we can find a similar list for just about any GOP senator.

Even McCain voted NO on Sotomayer! Santorum crossed the line and went with the dems.

Your post is breathtakingly dishonest. Santorum wasn't in the Senate for the Sotomayor SCOTUS vote. He voted for her as an appeals court judge. McCain voted against Sotomayor when there was a large public outcry for her as a Supreme court judge and he needed to try and prove his conservative bona fides.

You do the Newt campaign no favors with these kind of apples and oranges posts.

160 posted on 03/18/2012 8:51:05 AM PDT by dirtboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies ]


To: dirtboy; Marguerite; annieokie; PSYCHO-FREEP
Evidentally you practice "selective" reading. If you would note..Santorum voted for Sotomyer as 2nd circuit judge in NY..she was a Clinton nominee...Santorum crossed over and voted with the dems. He is a sell out...LOOK at this guy he voted for to serve on the 9th circuit! another sell out..Santorum is an absolute pious little sneaky fraud.

Following March 9, 1994, nomination by President Bill Clinton, confirmation by the United States Senate on June 15, 1994, and reception of commission on June 16, 1994, Paez became the second Mexican American to sit on the bench of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, a district that covers Los Angeles.[2]

Paez was confirmed by Senate on March 9, 2000, by a 59-39 vote, more than four years after President Clinton first nominated him to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Paez waited 1,506 days to be confirmed, which at that time was the longest wait for a vote by any judicial nominee in U.S. history.

In a 2009 decision, he held that a San Francisco resolution urging the Vatican to withdraw a directive against same-sex adoptions does not violate the Establishment Clause. [3]

In a 2011 decision, he issued the majority opinion upholding a lower court's blocking of the most controversial parts of the Arizona SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration law from taking effect.[4]

173 posted on 03/18/2012 9:35:55 AM PDT by katiedidit1 ("This is one race of people for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever." the Irish)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


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