« Iran Sends 6 Warships to Int. Waters in 'Saber Rattling' Move | Main | Obama's War on Talk Radio »
May 27, 2009
DeMint Takes Lead in Criticizing High Court Pick
DeMint takes lead in criticizing high court pick
WASHINGTON
Sen. Jim DeMint, was more critical than his Republican colleagues Tuesday about President Barack Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
While most Republicans took a cautious approach, DeMint, of South Carolina, sounded warnings about Sotomayor's record and philosophy as a federal district and appellate judge from New York.
"Some of her writings seem to raise serious questions about her approach to the Constitution and the role of the federal judiciary, but I will withhold judgment about her nomination until she has the opportunity to fully present her views before the Senate," DeMint said.
DeMint's aides pointed to a case last year in which Sotomayor ruled that the city of New Haven, Conn., had acted properly in rejecting discrimination claims by white firefighters. The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, is now before the Supreme Court.
"Few things are more central to our duty than confirming Supreme Court justices who will uphold the law and apply it equally for all Americans, not rewrite it from the bench based on personal opinion," DeMint said.
DeMint is not on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will hold confirmation hearings for Sotomayor.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who does sit on the judiciary panel, was more guarded in his response to Obama's choice of Sotomayor as the first Hispanic nominated for the high court.
"I do not know Judge Sotomayor," Graham said. "I look forward to meeting with her and discussing the important issues confronting the court."
Graham was among the Senate Judiciary Committee members Obama called last week to discuss his pending high court nomination. Graham was out of the country Tuesday, but his aides said they didn't believe Obama had named Sotomayor during their phone talk.
Graham said he intends "to be fair and firm in (his) questioning of the nominee" during the committee confirmation sessions.
"The hearings can be a valuable public service, as they give us a window into the nominee's philosophy and disposition," Graham said. "I hope we will have a meaningful opportunity to explore the qualifications, judicial temperament and judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor."
Republican President H.W. Bush appointed Sotomayor to the federal district bench in 1992. Democrat Bill Clinton elevated her to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
After an extensive delay over political disputes, the Republican-controlled Senate voted 67-29 in October 1998 to confirm Sotomayor's promotion to the appellate court.
The late Republican Sen. Strom Thurmond voted against Sotomayor. Sen. Fritz Hollings, a Charleston Democrat, was one of four senators who chose not to vote.
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., called Sotomayor "a superb pick" by Obama to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.
"The president has demonstrated that he is dedicated to nominating justices who have life experiences that will enable them to both sympathize and empathize with all Americans," Clyburn said.
Sotomayor, 54, grew up in a Bronx housing project with a single mom after her father died when she was 9.
Only the Senate will vote on Sotomayor's confirmation.
Oran Smith, head of the Palmetto Family Council, criticized Sotomayor as an activist judge.
"Judge Sotomayor's judicial record and writing clearly show she believes a court is not an applier of law written by elected representatives, but just another political advocate for social change," Smith said
.
From Rush Limbaugh........
"So, here you have a racist. You might want to soften that and you might wanna say a reverse racist. And the libs, of course, say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist and now he's appointed one -- getting this, AP? -- Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court ...
So she's not the brain that they're portraying her to be, she's not a constitutional jurist. She is an affirmative action case extraordinaire and she has put down white men in favor of Latina women. She has claimed that the court is all about making policy. So yes, there's a golden opportunity. Take this to the mat. Take it to the wall. The people need to know what Obama really believes in and this is how it could happen. Now will the Republicans do it? That's another question."
.
Wild Thing's comment...........
DeMint, one of the few with a spine!!!
For the time being our days as a Constitutional Republic are almost over. I know that sounds down and depressing but that is what is showing up.
Founding Documents provide that, if any branch of our government ever exceeds its Constitutionally limited authority and ceases to be lawfully of, for and by the people, we the people have both the duty and the unwavering obligation to remove it and restore a Constitutional one again.
This in-over-his-head rent-a-meat-puppet in the White House swore an oath to uphold and defend our Constitution even as he paid a team of lawyers to prevent him having to abide by it.
The Constitution does not grant to the president the authority to fire CEO's of corporations, take over huge companies, dictate what cars can be built, take over the country's health-care or own and run the banks.
Unless and until we remove this larcenous, traitorous, pathalogically-deceitful usurper from the White House, we are no longer a Constitutional Republic for right now.
This will be a good test to see who is trustable and who is not. There should be no mistaking RINOs for republicans anymore.
The thing our side I wish would learn, I mean the politicans that say they are Republicans. We are aware we are outnumbered in both houses. But if they can show US, we the people that they at least speak out and make it known they do not go along with this kind of thing each time they need to, we WILL remember later when it comes time to vote. Just as we WILL remember those that turned to mush and stayed silent.
Posted by Wild Thing at May 27, 2009 06:40 AM
Comments
I confess I didn't listen to her complete statement at the press conference, but i didn't hear any mention of the Constitution. Isn't that the primary focus of a Justice? Aren't they supposed to have a love of and desire to uphold this document? All I saw was another liberal love-fest.
Posted by: jim warren at May 27, 2009 09:44 AM
The Constitution no longer applies. Henceforth it's chicken entrails and Tarot Cards for decisions.
Posted by: horace at May 27, 2009 11:10 AM
It's all about Ooooom!!!
The post turtle Reich Minister of Propaganda has his own news production, even though all but one media outlet is in the tank for him, he bars scrutiny and labels everything that questions the constitutionality of his moves as racist. The sycophant minions pledge their allegiance to the devil and not their country and it's founding document, not a whit of cognizance of the parallels of 1933-1945 and the rise of another national socialist dictator. Stalin was a follower of Marx too, the purges have only just begun.
Posted by: Jack at May 27, 2009 11:35 AM
the Soutpiel's nomination of this woman is a declaration of War on the 2nd Amendment to our constitution. If Gun owners mobilize and unite, It's possible (though unlikely) to stop this radical nominee.
Of 6 Opinions she's written 4 have been overturned by the Supreme Court. Obama voted against Justice Alito because he always voted to uphold the law and never for the rights of the 'little guy' said, the Soutpiel Puppet during Alito's confirmation process.
So isn't PROTECTING, the 2nd Amendment part of the little guys rights to self defense and protecting his property ? But this is not what obama is about. He is all about power and taking rights away from the little guy grants himself more power. He has proven that by stealing GM from 'its' rightful owners.
Posted by: Mark at May 27, 2009 04:29 PM
Watching Glen Beck Monday, he had Judge Andrew Napolitano speaking about one part of the Constitution, the 17th amendment. This was part of the early 20th century progressive movement. The same time Income Tax came in and Senators were elected by the people instead of the lndividual States Legislature as the founding fathers had set up. this by itself grew govenment just by allowing the senators to campaign and the money involved to get them elected. We have reached a point now where it is a good ole boy network of 100 Senators.
Before when the State Legislature's elected the Senators. They were bound to abide by what the State considered important, they represented their state. If there were problems with a certain Senator they could be recalled by that legislature. The scope of these Senators was limited to the interests of their State. Now they could care less what the State wants. It is how far they can move their party's agenda and get re-elected.
Now with the 17th Amendment Senators are not bound by their States constitution and are Free agents to do what they want. This gives them power never intended and of course the State has only a quasi Senate representation. If the people disapproved with the Senators leadership they had only to complain on a local level to an assemblyman or State Senator. Now it is next to impossible to remove a corrupt Senator.
Supreme Court nominations by Senators, the Senators were agian bound by their States' legislatures desires not what the party dictates and agenda was.
Repealing the 17th amendment would give the control of the government back to the people and back to the local level. Where it was intended.
Posted by: Mark at May 27, 2009 09:28 PM
