You are hereForums / Issues / The Courts / McCain to Vote Against Sotomayor
McCain to Vote Against Sotomayor
Wasn't McCain the one saying the GOP must be careful not to alienate Hispanic voters? Well, it looks like he plans to vote against Sonia Sotomayor. Link from MSNBC.
From NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and Domenico Montanaro
Arizona Sen. John McCain
said today he will vote against Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick to be the next U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
McCain's
no vote is interesting because he holds the view that "elections have
consequences" meaning a president should get his nominee approved if
qualified.
McCain voted for Bill Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsberg, for example.
McCain
is also up for re-election next year, and not only does Arizona have a
large Hispanic population, McCain also has a primary -- against Chris
Simcox, one of the founders of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, an
anti-illegal immigrant activist group.
"There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the professional background and qualifications that one hopes for in a Supreme Court nominee," McCain said in a statement today on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He added, "And obviously, Judge Sotomayor's life story is inspiring and compelling."
But, "an excellent resume and an inspiring life story are not enough to qualify one for a lifetime of service on the Supreme Court," McCain said. He cited, as have other Republicans Miguel Estrada, a Hispanic who was nominated by President Bush for the DC Circuit Court but blocked by Democrats. He added that he does "not believe that she [Sotomayor] shares my belief in judicial restraint." And: "Though she attempted to walk back from her long public record of judicial activism during her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor cannot change her record."
A "NO" vote from McCain would be extremely stupid.
1. He's not going to run for president anymore, so he doesn't need to impress the GOP base.
2. Sotomayor is going to be confirmed even without his vote, so the gesture seems pointless.
3. He could be making enemies of Hispanics in his own state, whom he will likely need to be re-elected to the Senate in 2010 (even though most AZ Hispanics are Mexican American, and Sotomayor is Puerto Rican).
This is almost equivalent to his selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008 as far as nonsense value is concerned.
Talk about cutting off the nose to spite the face!!
Thought John McCain should be pretty familar with doing that, at this point in his career.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis Black says: "A Republican will stand up in Congress and say, "I've got a really bad idea." And a Democrat will immediately jump to his feet and declare, "And I can make it sh*ttier.""
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
McCain's strongest out of party competition (assuming he survives the GOP primary) is now Homeland Security Secretary, and poses no threat now. He just has to survive the GOP primary.
Maybe he's right here. Maybe the wingnuts really do rule in the GOP.
Let me first say that Senator Brandon would vote yes on confirming Sotomayor. She is the president's pick, isn't a radical, and doesn't change the composition of the court. There really isn't a good reason to vote no in my opinion.
But we should examine judicial picks as individuals and not as part of some identity group. Hispanics do not all think alike and in a Zogby poll 47 percent of Hispanics supported her confirmation while 43 percent opposed.
McCain should vote his conscience and if he feels like she doesn't belong on the Supreme Court, he should vote no. But this should be because he honestly thinks she doesn't belong on the court for some reason and the politics of the GOP's standing with Hispanic voters should not be a factor either way.
I will be disappointed if McCain votes no, but I was FAR MORE disappointed when Obama voted NO on both Judge Roberts and Judge Alito's confirmation.
And... I don't know if Alito was confirmed prior to 2004, so I'm rather curious as to how you would be disappointed at the time?
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
I believe Alito was confirmed in 2005, and began serving at the beginning of 2006.
I'm not clear on the point you are making.....can you clarify for me?
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
Obama voted no on both Alito and Roberts.
Obama became a Senator on January 4, 2005. Alito was confirmed on January 31, 2006. Roberts was confirmed on September 29, 2005.
I was told by many people over and over including some at RFO that Obama was some kind of "new Democrat" and would govern in a less partisan manner. I argued his record showed otherwise as he voted with his party 97 percent of the time as a Senator.
I'm still not sure why so many thought he would be different.
While I agree that identity politics should not be the determining factor, reality says it is still a factor, like it or not.
The thing is, I don't think McCain is voting his conscience, he is voting his sour grapes. He lost, not only the election, but his last chance to be POTUS. He doesn't want Obama to succeed in anything, so he can say "I told you so, America". It's not very pretty to watch.
You say you were more disappointed in Obama's "No" votes for Roberts and Alito. Why? (I have to add that I find it difficult to fathom the Republican from TN closely following the votes of the freshman Senator from IL. I'm just sayin'....)
I have a problem with both parties voting yes or no for a SCOTUS Justice based almost exclusively on ideology. That is NOT a Constitutional qualification for the judgeship. Nominating, and voting up or down, a candidate based on ideology is trying to create an activist court, as much for the right as it is for the left!!
You are right, I was paying ZERO attention to Obama's Senate votes during the time those judges were confirmed.
I learned about those votes during the primary season of 2008 and that was when I was disappointed that Obama wasn't as bipartisan as I had hoped.
I agree with you about the ideology vote and McCain's reasons for voting no. I generally think unless a nominee has ethical issues, is unqualified for the position or really is a radical then the Senate should approve the president's pick.
Conservatives have not gotten across to voters how important it is to vote for presidential candidates that will select good judicial nominees. Elections have consequences and the Supreme Court was my main issue in 2008.
I guess it all depends on how you define "good judicial nominees". With Sotomayor, we seem to have gotten a very good, moderate Justice. No one, or either party, could have done better, IMO.
If I remember correctly, (and I do...lol) your SCOTUS issue was based on wanting an ideological pick. Do you disagree?
"your SCOTUS issue was based on wanting an ideological pick."
I believe the role of the federal government is defined and limited by the U.S. Constitution. What is not in the Constitution should be left to the states as the 10th Amendment clearly states.
I want to see judicial picks that would agree with that philosophy. If that is an ideological pick than your statement would be correct.
I for one like the ideology of the Founders.
How does the other side get around the 10th Amendment?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do you really think you can say the Civil War was fought over the 10th Amendement?
The Civil War settled the issue that once a state enters the Union, it is always part of the Union. The 10th Amendment is about what powers the Federal Government has and what powers the State Government has.
"I for one like the ideology of the Founders."
So do I. It has to be understood, however, that the U.S. is not a country of 13 states and 2.9 million people, with Virginia being the largest state, as was the case in 1790.
We have 50 states, stretch from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and count over 300 million citizens. The Founding Fathers, as smart as they were, could in no way comprehend the complex nation that was to evolve over the next 200 + years.
We have to remain mindful of this little tidbit.
"comprehend the complex nation that was to evolve over the next 200 + years."
Wcolin, would you not agree that is one of the reasons why they came up with a way to amend the constistution?
I think the fact that there are 300 million people in the nation makes my point stronger. What works for Nevada might not work for Tennessee.
Liberals want to control you and your life because they think only they know what is good for you. The only way to do that is through a strong federal government.
Conservatives believe you should be empowered to make your own decisions, so government that is closer to the people (like state and county) is more responsive and can be held in check by the people. Obviously things like national defense and international relations where the country must speak as one should be the responsibility of the feds.
But why do you want federal government bureaucrats in Washington deciding something like your health care or how you educate your kids or telling you what kind of car you can drive?
I do agree that constitutional amendments are the best way to change as the country changes.
I also agree that judges should not "legislate" from the bench. We have a legislature (Congress) for that. I do NOT agree that the constitution or any other laws can NEVER be subject to interpretation.
Although I disagree with your overall (and one sided) definitions of liberal/conservative, if that is your opinion, I have no problem with that. What I would like to address is your last paragraph.....
Health care could easily come under "promote the general welfare", education is such a mixed bag of state, local and federal that it's hard to sort out. Making a car more expensive to obtain or drive doesn't prohibit your driving it. Just like so many things in this life, we have the choice, and sometimes we have to pay for the choices we make, but it is still there, available if you so desire. No one is telling you that you can't have it.
Healthcare also could refer to "life" as in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I disagree that Liberals want control everyone's life, as I see it Liberals want our people to be educated, have the basic needs to live, and the freedom to practice religion however they choose or not. Not to have it shoved down their throats.
Hope, what you describe as supporting education, basic needs and freedom of religion may describe liberals of the past.
Unfortunately, what we generally call liberal today is a different animal.
Liberals believe that the government should redistribute wealth. The ability to spend my money that I earn the way I want to spend it is one of our greatest freedoms. Liberals want to tax my income and then they can decide how it is best spent.
<what we generally call liberal today is a different animal>
That applies in spades to conservatives, Brandon. I hardly know what the term means any more.
I would agree with you there, Suzi.
I consider Russell Kirk, William Buckley, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan conservatives.
I don't consider George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Glenn Beck or Bill O'Reiley conservatives.
----
It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
I agree, Hope. It also impacts pursuit of happiness. How can one reach the full potential of happiness when a health problem creates mountains of debt, marriage problems, or, worse, that ailment must be ignored/not addressed due to lack of funds?
Sen. Dodd brought up a great point when discussing his cancer diagnosis, which was found early and looks to be a good prognosis for survival. It was found during a routine check up-you know those "routine check-ups" which are not so routine for the many without health insurance. Doesn't anyone else see it as very wrong that someone wealthy and well-connected may survive cancer due to early detection while a poor, uninsured person may not survive because they did not discover it until it was too late? And the far right are trying to say the Democrats want to kill seniors?
Heh -- I believe in the 10th Amendment and States' rights in general. But your characterization is one-sided.
Both liberals and conservatives want to impose their morality on the populace at all levels of government. And sometimes they are right to do so, and sometimes they are not.
Liberals think you should make your own decisions except... Conservatives think you should make your own decisions except... Meanwhile we all have to live with one another and sometimes we have to band together to go against something which we don't like. Foreign or domestic.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -- Douglas Adams
From The Hill: McCain's primary challenger says that McCain's vote is racially motivated. Yes, this is the same challenger who is a co-founder of the Minutemen group.
Do some of these guys have no sense of irony? No wonder they think Stephen Colbert is an ally.
----It's sad that we've reached a point where 'government service' is a dirty word... If we're the greatest country on earth, maybe we can have the greatest government.
Lewis Black
The more I think about it, the more I think the title of this thread should be changed to read "McCain to vote against McCain."