GOP unwilling to filibuster Sotomayor

[revision]

GOP unwilling to filibuster Sotomayor

Thu, 28 May 2009 09:51:59 GMT

http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=96276&sectionid=3510203

Leading Republican Senator Jeff Sessions says he will grill Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the US Supreme Court justice, but vows no filibuster.

Sessions, the high-ranking Republican authority on the Senate Judiciary Committee, lashed out at Sotomayor on Wednesday, questioning the Hispanic-origin Judge's eligibility for the job.

"The nominee has serious problems," Sessions noted, adding, "We have an absolute constitutional duty to make sure that any nominee, no matter what their background and what kind of life story they have . . . will be faithful to the law and not allow their personal views to influence decision-making."

The Republican said, however, that his party remains reluctant to filibuster the 54-year-old nomination as the embattled party does not seek more downhill trend in the Senate but hopes to "broaden its tent."

Meanwhile, Sotomayor's nomination still draws Republican fire as the party members continue their barrage on the US Appeals Court judge.

On Tuesday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor a 'racist' over her 2001 remarks in which she had challenged the wisdom of a 'white male.'

Democrats currently hold 59 seats out of the 100 in the upper chamber of the Congress, which is only one seat shy of providing the party with filibuster-proof rulings.

Yet, Sotomayor will apparently experience a trouble-free vote due no later than August as seven Republican Senators have already responded positively to President Barack Obama's calls for a speedy vote-in on Sotomayor.

[Lenny]

1. Obama nominates radical anti-white Hispanic judge to Supreme Court (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4713)
2. "GOP unwilling to filibuster [said judge]".

--Yeah, that makes sense.

And some nonwhites and "progressive" whites still smear the Republicans as a "secret white racist party".:rolleyes:

[anonymaus]

It's likely they will do to her what the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas: shower him with praise, remark on the excellence of race relations in America and what a triumph for Latinas etc. They will bide their time until they get something to bludgeon her with, then turn very nasty.

This way they can say "we liked her before, but this is too much" to avoid being labeled racist.

[Lenny]

It's likely they will do to her what the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas: shower him with praise, remark on the excellence of race relations in America and what a triumph for Latinas etc. They will bide their time until they get something to bludgeon her with, then turn very nasty.

This way they can say "we liked her before, but this is too much" to avoid being labeled racist.
The problem with this theory is that every Republican last year was singing the praise of Having-A-Black-As-President-For-Its-Own-Sake.

This is no longer the Republican Party of even the 1980s or early 1990s; it's crossed into a weird twilight zoney state of being.

[Cato]

I was a Rebpublican from 1994 to 2004, late teens to late 20s, but the lack of steel in the collective spine of the party drove me a a smaller party: NY's conservative party. The Republicans have been in disarray for some time, and I had to get out of there so to speak.

[Birka]

I was a Rebpublican from 1994 to 2004, late teens to late 20s, but the lack of steel in the collective spine of the party drove me a a smaller party: NY's conservative party. The Republicans have been in disarray for some time, and I had to get out of there so to speak.

I was a conservative for a long time, but the whole Ron Paul movement has opened my eyes to the Libertarian Party and philosophy of very limited government and a foreign policy of non-empire.

[Rudy]

Libertarian Party and philosophy of very limited government and a foreign policy of non-empire.
Does the Libertarian Party believe in an open border with Mexico? That has been a sticky point for me. I am more of a protectionist, or at least believe in having equal trade restrictions.

[Psychonaut]

Does the Libertarian Party believe in an open border with Mexico? That has been a sticky point for me. I am more of a protectionist, or at least believe in having equal trade restrictions.

That's my big sticking point with the LP as well; they don't have nearly a strong enough stance on immigration or border security. That's why I'll favor Constitution Party candidates in national elections, but will still support LP guys in local elections.

[Cato]

I was a conservative for a long time, but the whole Ron Paul movement has opened my eyes to the Libertarian Party and philosophy of very limited government and a foreign policy of non-empire.

I was a lukewarm supporter of Paul's, then I began to have seconds thoughts. Being something of a student of history, I've come to believe that very limited government isn't as workable as it's made out to be. I saw some of the people that supported Paul and, frankly, was a bit disgusted. :eek: I had to belong to a political party that was going to consist of like-minded persons, rather than as a loose confederation of disparate political elements like the Paul campaign. About the only area where I agreed with Paul was his constitutionalism and his emphasis on the importance of the founding documents of the U.S.

[Psychonaut]

I've come to believe that very limited government isn't as workable as it's made out to be


the only area where I agreed with Paul was his constitutionalism and his emphasis on the importance of the founding documents of the U.S.

Limited government is entirely in line with the Constitution and almost all of the Founding Fathers (expect Hamilton). :confused:

[Cato]

Limited government is entirely in line with the Constitution and almost all of the Founding Fathers (expect Hamilton). :confused:

It's complicated- the constitutionalism of Paul, to me, equates with the idea of following a set of laws that govern a country. I sort of see the U.S. Constitution as having grown out of a specific place in history, reflective of certain socio-political factors, et cetera, and currently in need of clarification for those idiots in politics who want to blatantly ignore it.

I see the situation as analogous to Athenian democracy- it worked well on a small scale, say a citizen body of a few thousand men, but I don't know if the Founding Fathers ever envisioned their republic being one of more than 300 million people. So... I'm kind of ambivalent on the idea of limited government in a nation as large as the modern U.S.

[Birka]

About the only area where I agreed with Paul was his constitutionalism and his emphasis on the importance of the founding documents of the U.S.

Who else in the political arena even comes close to the Constitution besides Ron Paul, Libertarians and Constitutionalists? I do not care how non-organized the Ron Paul coalition was, they were fed up with the politicians who ignore our Constitution. I'll take their votes if they elect someone who will follow the laws and original documents set up by our Founding Fathers.

[Cato]

Who else in the political arena even comes close to the Constitution besides Ron Paul, Libertarians and Constitutionalists? I do not care how non-organized the Ron Paul coalition was, they were fed up with the politicians who ignore our Constitution. I'll take their votes if they elect someone who will follow the laws and original documents set up by our Founding Fathers.

I'm of the belief that these documents need to be thrust into the hands of modern Americans. They simply can't say that they love the Constitution in the breach and then just do whatever they want to, damn the consequences. I was kind of caught up with Paul's ideas till I had the thought that the people int he U.S. need to first be educated, even scolded, on what these original political concepts of the Founding Fathers meant. That's the realist in me, but I think it's a proper observation.

[Birka]

What modern Americans do you trust to run this country with your updated Constitution?

[Psychonaut]

What modern Americans do you trust to run this country with your updated Constitution?

My dream ticket, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin:

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/unfairwitness/images/2007/06/15/ron_paul_best.jpg http://www.youngmoneytalks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/cbaldwin08.jpg

[Cato]

What modern Americans do you trust to run this country with your updated Constitution?

Not updated, I think it'd take at least another constitutional gathering to update the U.S. Constitution- and that'd open up a can of worms. The idea is to get people truly interested in government, make them aware of the ideas of checks and balances, and so forth. There's been plenty of commentary on American government over the past 200+ years- and if the people themselves would take a stand, then they wouldn't need to rely on these tenured plutocrats currently in office.

[Birka]

My dream ticket, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin:

http://ancapistan.typepad.com/unfairwitness/images/2007/06/15/ron_paul_best.jpg http://www.youngmoneytalks.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/cbaldwin08.jpg


Gets my vote.

[Birka]

Not updated, I think it'd take at least another constitutional gathering to update the U.S. Constitution- and that'd open up a can of worms. The idea is to get people truly interested in government, make them aware of the ideas of checks and balances, and so forth. There's been plenty of commentary on American government over the past 200+ years- and if the people themselves would take a stand, then they wouldn't need to rely on these tenured plutocrats currently in office.


Wow, Hroda, you have much more faith in the American sheeple than do I.

[Cato]

Wow, Hroda, you have much more faith in the American sheeple than do I.

I don't think of them as sheep, just misguided and self-serving in many cases. These kinds of people will either continue to exist in a bread and circuses relationship with the government or they'll become aware that, in theory but not currently in practice, they are the bosses. A humdrum existence as a recipient of government charity seems to serve many people, but I'm not many people. Either they'll wake up or they'll just get crushed underfoot, so to speak, but the tide of history and change.

[Birka]

I don't think of them as sheep, just misguided and self-serving in many cases. These kinds of people will either continue to exist in a bread and circuses relationship with the government or they'll become aware that, in theory but not currently in practice, they are the bosses. A humdrum existence as a recipient of government charity seems to serve many people, but I'm not many people. Either they'll wake up or they'll just get crushed underfoot, so to speak, but the tide of history and change.


The sad part is that we are the ones being crushed underfoot. The Socialists got their president and congress this election. There might not be anything left once these criminals are through. I hope there are enough of us left to wake up.

[Psychonaut]

Wow, Hroda, you have much more faith in the American sheeple than do I.

Quoth the Master:


Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.


I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them, but to inform them by education.

Information and education are the only way for democracy to function as the Founders intended, which is (a part of) why America's electorate was originally so small and elite. I would go so far as to say that a high school diploma should be a voting requirement.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I would go so far as to say that a high school diploma should be a voting requirement.

At bare minimum, given the tards who are able to get a high school diploma or GED. Certainly a lot of monkeys need to be cleared off the voting rolls, but that's more of a dream than anything else.

[Lenny]

Being something of a student of history, I've come to believe that very limited government isn't as workable as it's made out to be.
The way I see it, the less power in the hands of the U.S. Federal Government as it is currently constituted, the better.

All philosophical considerations should subordinate to that.

The U.S.FederalGovernment today is a very negative influence as regards Europeans worldwide.

[Lenny]

My dream ticket, Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin
I've heard somewhere that the Constutition Party has been appropriated by the Mormon Church? :confused:

[Psychonaut]

I've heard somewhere that the Constutition Party has been appropriated by the Mormon Church? :confused:

Really? Baldwin is anything but a Mormon, he's a pastor in my hometown, Pensacola, which is anything but a hotbed of Mormon activity. Even if that were the case, I wouldn't mind a bit. I have more in common with Mormons than almost any other type of Christian, and, more often than not, I find myself sharing the political views of my Mormon workmates.

[Cato]

The sad part is that we are the ones being crushed underfoot. The Socialists got their president and congress this election. There might not be anything left once these criminals are through. I hope there are enough of us left to wake up.

History has a way of proving people wrong, however. Perhaps you mightn't agree with this, but I believe that providence works through history. I feel that there's no reason to expect the expected- that is that the country'll be overrun with and controlled by these leftist bigwigs. I'm not a pessimist and, quite honestly, the devil can take Obama and his cronies. The fact that tens of millions of people didn't vote for Obama ought to be seen as a positive sign. :thumb001:

[Lenny]

Really? Baldwin is anything but a Mormon, he's a pastor in my hometown, Pensacola, which is anything but a hotbed of Mormon activity. Even if that were the case, I wouldn't mind a bit. I have more in common with Mormons than almost any other type of Christian, and, more often than not, I find myself sharing the political views of my Mormon workmates.
A libertarian quasi-political-figure and sometimes-racialist named Edgar Steele, tried to get his name on the ballot for the Constitution Party and was rejected.

He claims that the people who rejected him were part of a group of Mormons who had seized control of the party in Idaho. He also claims that in his dealings with the party, he has discovered that it's being slowly taken over by the Mormon Church.

Make of that what you will.


Mormons do constitute pretty fundamentalist Christian thinking, you know, but I do not know how deeply Mormonism has penetrated the Constitution Party in states other than Nevada and Idaho (and, presumably, Utah, of course). I mention this and the Mormon element to the Idaho coup of 2006 merely to support my thesis that the Constitution Party is bent upon establishing a form of state religion, in fact, if not in actual name. There is, of course, a party platform plank that holds that “there shall be no religious test to hold political office,” but that seems to me to be mere window dressing.
http://www.nickelrant.com/rants/090513rant.htm


Speaking of Mormons: if the Mormon TFR continues to top 3.0 while the general white TFR continues to sit at 1.65 (among white-white couples), there'd be 30 million white-Mormons by the early 2100s, vs. 120 million white nonMormons. The American white population would be 20% Mormon (vs. 2.5% today) :eek:

[Supreme American]

I've heard somewhere that the Constutition Party has been appropriated by the Mormon Church? :confused:

If true, not a good thing. The Mormons are nothing of what they used to be. They have since long caved to hostile liberal media coverage about the racial views they once carried and have now abandoned and are pretending were never there.