What do you think about this for the Senate during Confirmation Hearings?
By ParaTed2k
@ParaTed2k (22940)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
July 13, 2009 2:05pm CST
“There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe it calls for meaningful advice and consent and that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.”
4 people like this
7 responses
@thegreatdebater (7316)
• United States
14 Jul 09
Ted, I agree that the Senate should advise, but just like that last two nominee's the President has the final say. I don't think this nomination will be very long, or questioned to much. Republicans can't aford to lose the hispanic vote in 2012, and if they attack a hispanic women, that may as well kiss 2012 good by. It is sad that politics plays such a role in a job like this, but it has been this way for decades.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
But apparently it's ok for Democrats to attack Hispanics all they want.
No, actually the Senate has final say. The president can't veto a senate rejection.
1 person likes this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
14 Jul 09
What I find odd is that when the democrats teamed up against Miguel Estrada that didn't hurt the Hispanic vote for them one iota. I'm not saying you're wrong debater, but isn't there a clear double standard with who gets to play the race card?
1 person likes this
@matersfish (6306)
• United States
15 Jul 09
lol
Ever since the Republicans mysteriously became the racist ones when the blue boys decided to find a new tactic, the dems have been able to do any and everything they want without losing minorities. Heck, they don't come close to losing them.
That is the makings of a very, very thorough debate here on myLot, as to why exactly. I have my own theories on that. But it is crazy.
Kill whitey. No, not that whitey! He's with us. The OTHER whitey! Yes, I realize all whiteys look the same, but trust me: that whitey thinks your people are ignorant! My whitey side will take from that whitey and hold the carrot at the perfect distance so that you're never fed but also never motivated to stop chasing it. We're the good whitey!
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14113)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
14 Jul 09
[i]
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments"
~ U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1
seems pretty cut and dry to me.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
Yup, it would seem clear to me too.
1 person likes this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
14 Jul 09
I think if someone is to be appointed as senate, judge, etc. he or she should be put through the wringer. That not only should that person's qualifications and character be examined, but also the past record, whether there has been favoritism shown to a certain group, whether there has been any wrong doing or whether that person lets his or her heart rule the head. If they found out that the potential judge was a neo Nazi they would not let that person in. So they should not let in a judge in the senate who favors even a Latino or Black group and shows partiality. That is what the Senate failed to do.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
13 Jul 09
I agree with you. If she has made rulings based on her personal feelings or philosophies rather than the Constitution, she if unfit to serve on the Supreme court. Justices are not supposed to be influenced by their personal lives when making a ruling. That could lead to rulings based on what kind of mood someone is in that day, rather than what the Constitution says.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
If you agree with this, you are agreeing with Prs. Obama. He said it when he was a Senator. It is now being quoted by Senate Republicans as the "Obama Standard".
I agree with him on this... we'll see if the Senate Democrats and Obama himself agree with it.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
14 Jul 09
One contributor to Fox News commented how common it is for politicians to change their views when they are promoted to a higher office. I wouldn't count on the former statements of any of the "promotees" being relevant to them now. When President Bush's appointees were up for confirmation, Obama's original statement was in vogue. Now that his apointee is up, his former view is no longer politically correct.
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
It only means one thing... he wants to judge the nominees of others but hates anyone else to judge his own nominees.
2 people like this
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
13 Jul 09
I'm curious to see how many people agree with that statement or more importantly, who disagrees with it before you tell them who said it. I think that very simply we need a judge who can be impartial and focus more on the constitution than political ideology. Sotomayor does not fit the bill.
2 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
Well, you know that Sen. Obama said it. Let's see if Prs. Obama agrees. ;~D
1 person likes this
@Fortunata (1135)
• United States
14 Jul 09
This Sotomoyer has ties to ACORN. That's one reason to vote against her.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
14 Jul 09
I agree with Sen. Obama on his statement, but I'm not sure if Prs. Obama agrees. ;~D
2 people like this
