Sotomayor Clears Committee

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court on a mostly straight party-line vote. The final tally was 13 to 6 in favor with GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joining the dozen Democrats on the Committee. More from the New York Times:

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted, 13 to 6, on Tuesday to endorse the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, easing her path to likely confirmation as the first Hispanic member of the tribunal.

As expected, all 12 Democrats on the judiciary panel voted for Judge Sotomayor, after praising her intellect, character and inspiring personal history. But among the seven Republicans on the committee, only Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted in favor.

The committee action sends the nomination to the full Senate, where her confirmation by a comfortable margin seems to be assured.

The vote might be significant in another way however. The newest member of the Senate, Senator Al Franken (I will never tire of saying this), spoke truth to power right before the vote. More below the fold.

From the Minnesota Independent:

Franken was the last senator to speak before the vote, but his statement was perhaps the most arresting as he threw off the mild-mannered mantle of a first-month senator and threw down a gauntlet over high-court rulings he termed "judicial activism."

It was a theme that he struck more tentatively during committee hearings and today promised to revisit when the nomination reaches the Senate floor.

"Individual rights, individual protections and individual liberties" are under attack by the current Supreme Court, Franken asserted, pointedly citing other senators on specific high-court rulings with which he found fault.

With a vehemence not yet seen in his short tenure in Washington, D.C., Franken took issue with rulings on abortion, voting rights, price fixing, age discrimination, and corporate entanglement in elections.

Noting how court actions have overturned or threatened even recent precedent, Franken said, emphatically, "This is judicial activism. This is a court that's willing to reverse itself ... to achieve its own agenda of what is right. ... A vote for Sonia Sotomayor is a vote against judicial activism."

Thank you Senator Franken for calling it as it is.

Tags: SCOTUS, Senator Al Franken, Sonia Sotomayor (all tags)



Awesome statement

the Right has owned "Judicial activism" for far too long.  Let's hope Franken stays unaffected by the clubbiness and empty decorum of the World's Worst Deliberative Body.

by JJE 2009-07-28 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Awesome statement

I think the NSCC's recent treatment of Jim Bunning is indicating some cracks in the clubhouse. They have decided to punt on an old friend after years of yes-man style service.

by KoolJeffrey 2009-07-29 06:21AM | 0 recs

God Bless him, wouldn't be just funnier then all hell if HE DID turn out to be Paul Wellstone Reborn!

An actual LIBERAL SENATOR, with the balls to tell the truth and not mealy mouth to the dying on the vine old Southern Conservatives!

Thank you Senator Franken (just love to say that, just wish Bill Orally was in ear-shot.)

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-28 02:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Go BIG AL!

There will only be ONE Paul Wellstone, but I can hope that Big Al takes on the system like Paul did.

by rduckham 2009-07-29 01:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Sotomayor Clears Committee

You may never tire of saying it, but I tire of the saying "Speak Truth to Power."

by MNPundit 2009-07-28 02:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Sotomayor Clears Committee

The Republicans will not vote in any numbers for any Obama nominee.  So, the next time he might as well go whole hog with an ultraliberal like Pam Karlin.  No point trying to appease people who will oppose anyone you pick.

The Republicans are in a vindictive, nihilistic, self-destructive frame of mind.

by Bob H 2009-07-29 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Sotomayor Clears Committee

What do you guys think the over/under should be for how many Republican senators vote to approve Sotomayor's nomination?

I say is should be ±33, but my friends say higher.

Who is correct?

by KoolJeffrey 2009-07-29 06:17AM | 0 recs

You're kidding, right...

I'm thinking 8-10 max.

The base will rise up and smite them down all in the name of Fireman Ricci, for voting for the reverse-racist wise Latina!

by WashStateBlue 2009-07-29 02:08PM | 0 recs
Re: 33?


Going into this, I would have said the Republicans most likely to support her were Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, Murkowski, Hutchison, McCain, Lugar, Grassley, Graham, Hatch, Martinez, and Gregg.  Snowe, Collins, Lugar, Graham, and Martinez are on board.  Hatch, Grassley, and I think Hutchison are already against her.  When three of the more reasonable Republicans are already voting no, I don't think you can count on 33 out of 40 Republicans to support her.

by TheUnknown285 2009-07-30 12:45AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads