Skip to comments.
Sessions: GOP Won't Block Vote on Sotomayor Nomination
The Washington Post ^
| July 16, 2009
| Robert Barnes, Amy Goldstein, and Paul Kane
Posted on 07/16/2009 1:40:15 PM PDT by EveningStar
Judge Sonia Sotomayor ended four days of testimony this afternoon with prospects of rapid confirmation to the Supreme Court improved, as a conservative Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee edged toward endorsing her and the panel's ranking Republican said the GOP would not block a vote on her nomination.
Shortly before the committee concluded its questioning of Sotomayor, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the panel's senior GOP member, told Sotomayor he would "look forward to you getting that vote" by the time the Senate takes its annual summer break, slated to begin Aug. 7.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: 111th; jeffsessions; scotus; sessions; soniasotomayor; sotomayor
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
To: EveningStar
Sure am Glad W threw me out of the party a couple of years ago. I do not want the Republican label anywhere near me!!!!
61
posted on
07/16/2009 2:23:40 PM PDT
by
mad_as_he$$
(Nemo me impune lacessit)
To: April Lexington
BTW, so far the only Obama appointee, Sotomayor, is hardly young, and she's in ill-health. Her bones are already falling apart due to her 47 years of insulin injections (most of which was done in the bad old days before the good stuff came on the market).
If we are truly blessed he'll appoint someone like Larry Tribe (68 years old I believe). He's becoming quite erratic and might even give us another Conservative vote from time to time, but odds are good he wouldn't survive any longer than Ruthy.
Obama really doesn't have any good young Leftwingtard candidates to serve on the USSC. The Democrat party's Special Interest politics requires him to nominate the old, the sick, the lame, the people dictated by the NEA or the united bombers unions.
62
posted on
07/16/2009 2:27:08 PM PDT
by
muawiyah
To: americanophile
>>
It's better to go for a straight patty line vote and make our feelings about allowing this unqualified bigot onto the Supreme Court. <<
Only three Republican Senators had the spine to vote against Darth Bader Ginsburg. If you think Sotomayor will be confirmed on a party-line 60-40 vote, I have a bridge to sell you.
63
posted on
07/16/2009 2:29:26 PM PDT
by
BillyBoy
(Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
To: Mmogamer
They don’t have the votes! What do you want him to do?
To: EveningStar
There is no question our government is broken. The people in Washington are just playing out some kibuki theater, divorced from reality.
I’ve voted for the “lesser evil” for the last time. The only choice the GOP offers is the stage coach to socialism as opposed to the express train. I will no longer be party to it.
65
posted on
07/16/2009 2:30:19 PM PDT
by
henkster
(A "Living Constitution" yields a Dead Republic)
To: EveningStar
This makes me nauseous....
66
posted on
07/16/2009 2:31:13 PM PDT
by
LadyPilgrim
((Lifted up was He to die; It is finished was His cry; Hallelujah what a Savior!!!!!! ))
To: Emile
I know I'll draw fire for this, but 0 was elected, and under the constitution he has the right to nominate who he wants for the SC, unless they are clearly unfit. Senate advice and consent was meant by the founders to determine fitness, not reject on the basis of ideological differences.
Based on her judicial record of being overturned by higher courts numerous times due to her lack of understanding (or lack of caring) of the US Constitution, and her membership in racists organizations like La Raza, and her openly racist statements, Sotomayor IS unfit. Other than the nomination of a convicted felon or a hostile foreign national, there would never be a greater case against confirmation than there is for this woman.
67
posted on
07/16/2009 2:31:30 PM PDT
by
fr_freak
To: muawiyah
"If you are concerned with longevity, we get enough control of Congress we can IMPEACH and REMOVE any judge we wish, so that's what we have to do." Sure. When was the last time a Supreme Court justice was impeached and removed from the bench? Congress will never do it.
68
posted on
07/16/2009 2:33:06 PM PDT
by
StormEye
To: Albion Wilde
They told us Ginzburg and Breyer were moderates too.
69
posted on
07/16/2009 2:33:12 PM PDT
by
Luke21
To: EveningStar
and that all senators are spineless tools.
70
posted on
07/16/2009 2:34:35 PM PDT
by
Avoiding_Sulla
(Yesterday's Left = today's status quo. Thus "CONSERVATIVE": a conflicted label for battling tyranny.)
To: MEGoody
“So, yes, if McCain would have gotten in, it likely would have made a difference in who was nominated to begin with.”
Yeah, except who gave us Souter and Sotomayor to begin with?
71
posted on
07/16/2009 2:37:42 PM PDT
by
Luke21
To: EveningStar
I’m just sorry I cannot vote against Sessions when he comes around for election again. What gets me are all the wimp FReepers who say that we shouldn’t start a third party. He**, I say we should start a second party because clearly there is only one party in this country now.
72
posted on
07/16/2009 2:38:35 PM PDT
by
calex59
(I, me, myself, am actually Jim Thompson)
To: Sarah Barracuda
RIP GOP. It was great knowing you
______________
They passed away a couple of years ago.
73
posted on
07/16/2009 2:43:04 PM PDT
by
mojitojoe
(All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.)
To: grandpa jones
Thank you for lending some sanity to this thread. She can’t be stopped and fillibustering would do nothing to advance the cause of conservatism. Sessions is one of the most conservative men in Washington and now we’re throwing him overboard.
To: exit82
75
posted on
07/16/2009 2:59:21 PM PDT
by
americanophile
(Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
To: Bryanw92
76
posted on
07/16/2009 2:59:54 PM PDT
by
americanophile
(Sarcasm: satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language.)
To: EveningStar
Of course not. The GOP would never allow the civil rights of 150 million european-americans interfere in any way with the coronation of a quota queen.
77
posted on
07/16/2009 3:01:14 PM PDT
by
gorilla_warrior
(Metrosexual hairless RINOs for hopey-changey bipartisan-ness)
To: EveningStar
Bunch of republican butt-kissers! Every one of them is a disgrace for giving up without even the semblance of a fight.
Nope! Don't stall her coronation "boys". Just bend over and spread'em!
78
posted on
07/16/2009 3:07:02 PM PDT
by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
To: pnh102
A GOP President would give us another justice Roberts, Thomas, etc.
Not Sotomayor
79
posted on
07/16/2009 3:08:04 PM PDT
by
SoCalPol
(Reagan Republican for Palin 2012)
To: Sarah Barracuda
80
posted on
07/16/2009 3:13:49 PM PDT
by
mono
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-98 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson