Patterico's Pontifications

7/22/2009

Lindsey Graham Supports Sotomayor’s Confirmation

Filed under: Government,Judiciary — DRJ @ 1:38 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

According to Bloomberg News, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham plans to vote in favor of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court:

“Graham endorsed Sotomayor just minutes after Jon Kyl of Arizona, the second-ranking Senate Republican, said he would vote against her. Graham and Kyl are members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that is scheduled to vote on her nomination on July 28.

“I find her to be well qualified,” said Graham, even as he expressed reservations about some of her off-the-bench remarks.
***
“I would not have chosen her if I had made this choice as president, but I understand why President Obama did,” Graham said. “Elections matter.”

I don’t live in South Carolina and how Graham votes is primarily between him and his constituents. But he strikes me as one of the most unpredictable members of the GOP, and I don’t care for unpredictable Republicans.

— DRJ

53 Responses to “Lindsey Graham Supports Sotomayor’s Confirmation”

  1. Yeah, well, he’s not the only one. Richard Lugar (R-IN, my home state) has also said he’ll vote to confirm Sotomayor, as well as U.S. District Judge David Hamilton for the 7th Circuit (another Obama nominee).

    Not that it matters a damn since the Dems have their filibuster-proof majority.

    Jeff Lebowski (1b7d55)

  2. “I would not have chosen her if I had made this choice as president, but I understand why President Obama did,” Graham said. “Elections matter.”

    Really? Yet in the 109th Congress, when Republicans had a majority but not a filibuster-proof one, the Distinguished Gentleman from South Carolina joined the infamous “Gang of 14,” to insure that the so-called “nuclear option” would not be used, and saw to it that elections really didn’t matter when the election had produced a Republican president.

    The disappointed, but nevertheless unsurprised Dana (3e4784)

  3. The article said Graham will be the 5th Republican to vote for Sotomayor. The first three to announce were Martinez (Florida), Lugar (Indiana) and Snowe (Maine). I’m not sure who the 4th one is but I can’t say I’m surprised by these three. But Graham marches to his own drummer.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  4. Graham is the new GOP version of Arlen Specter.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  5. Lugar is turning into one of those that just wants everyone to get along. Lindsey is a spineless one, and has been for some time.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  6. Dude is known as “Lindsey Gramnesty” for a reason.

    Ed from SFV (6162a9)

  7. A disgrace to the two belief systems he swore to uphold before becoming a Senator:
    The Law, and The Military.

    AD - RtR/OS! (94ba46)

  8. Arlen Spector gave up a lot of power… now that power goes to Graham. just as Anthony Kennedy’s randomness makes him the nation’s most powerful judge.

    Our system doesn’t make a lot of sense sometimes.

    But Graham is right… elections have consequences and while Sotomayor is a racist and apparently quite inarticulate and perhaps unintelligent, this is the President’s choice.

    But Graham is wrong… the only way to get the democrats to accept that their past behavior towards GOP selections was wrong is to give them the exact same behavior until they agree to compromise. We’ve only cemented that the democrats and republicans have different rules to abide by. Republican presidents aren’t as powerful as Democrat ones, basically by law now.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  9. Until she lied about what she was saying with her wise Latina quote, I would have voted in favor of her as well.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  10. But then, she went on to misstate the holdings in Kelo, show no grasp of the 2nd Amendment and incorporation, etc …

    JD (f4f0f3)

  11. There’s nothing “unpredictable” about Graham. Just keep in mind he’s had a loose screw ever since the Clinton Impeachment hearings went down in flames.

    JerryT (a3e7e7)

  12. Graham just another example of a Petanist RINO. How can someone who has been invovled in identity politics since their university days be qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

    But what is of greater import is it demonstrates exactly how the Dhimmirats view the law and our nation. And for all those who like to hurl the racist label I wonder when was the last time the Dhimmirats nominated a white, male, Christian to the supreme court? My guess is that when this happens again it will because he is the candidate of the gay lobby.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  13. Now you’re just trying to get me in trouble on purpose.

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  14. “I find her to be well qualified,” said Graham

    I find Senator Graham to be a putz.

    Graham said. “Elections matter.”

    Yes they do, except in your case, where SC conservatives voted for a worthless RINO who did the opposite of what 95% of SC conservatives would want you to do. Putz.

    The confirmation of good judges has been an issue in US SENATE elections. Those elections dont matter? To support Sotomayor is to endorse her reckless record of poor decisions, her opposition to 2nd amendment rights, her identity politics (aka ‘wise latina’), and her history of working with extremist organizations.

    Senator Graham: You have thrown away your own voters and discarded your constitutional responsibility to advise on nominations. To use the phony “elections matter” shield is beyond pathetic – it is an abdication and deriliction of duty.

    Graham has become another worthless RINO PUTZ.

    My next twitter: ” #Howdareyou be a GOP senator and vote for leftwing activist Sotomayor “

    Travis Monitor (9e3371)

  15. JD, when someone goes off about how a prominent black academic is high on himself and therefore is half responsible for being arrested out of his home in this way, that’s code for “the uppity black guy deserved it.” You know it, Patterico knows it, I know it. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect from Patterico, who is a Bush dead-ender who supported the whole conservative regime — which means, of course, that he had no problem with its reliance on racial appeals, no matter how much he may say he’s not a racist.

    And I see to reason to be polite to you about it, given how you write. You’re a racist, and so is Patterico, and your reflexive defense of a bad arrest under coded racism disguised as populism is just par for the course. You are both part of what’s wrong with this country, but luckily the movement you serve is out of power now, so really you should just be ignored.

    I love it when the Leftists are so utterly predictable. They are like parodies of caricatures.

    And now SEK is not posting my comments, so he is going to allow to stand, with a charge of racism leveled at myself and Patterico. Fucking coward.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  16. Wrong thread, sorry.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  17. If I had a vote, I’d consider voting NO on the basis of her mediocrity, but her views are well enough inside the mainstream (e.g. no worse than Justices Souter or Ginsberg) so I’d be unwilling to oppose her on the basis of legal viewpoint.

    I didn’t much care for the Democratic filibusters, and I want the Republicans on record as rejecting even the idea of a filibuster here — reserved for scoundrels and fools. This is a pretty standard Democratic appointee, and the Democrats won.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  18. Graham is such a pussy. She is going to be confirmed, and even if we could block her the alternatives are even worse, but that does not mean she is acceptable. It is perfectly ok for GOP senators to vote no and say way.

    It has nothing to do with race, it has to do with judicial temperment.

    Joe (a32cff)

  19. Graham can vote for her if he chooses but to say she is “well qualified” puts his judgement into question.

    Mike K (db3eb5)

  20. O/T … but, The Senate voted 58/39/3, that perhaps the Full Faith & Credit Clause actualy means something…in otherwords, they voted Aye on National CCW Reciprocity …Only two Repubs voted No: Lugar & Voinovich!

    AD - RtR/OS! (252b69)

  21. I don’t particularly care for Graham either, but this might be a smart move. Everybody should take a deep breath and try to bear in mind that, should Sotomayor by some miracle not be confirmed, Obama’s next choice for Supreme Court Justice is highly unlikely to be Robert Bork. Seeing as how there is no way to really stop her anyway, why take the chance on derailing somebody that might not be so bad when you consider who some of the other options might be?

    PatrickKelley (421674)

  22. I wonder if something in Graham’s personal background makes him vulnerable to a guilty conscience, which, in turn, makes him susceptible to weaker judgment than might otherwise be the case? IOW, maybe Graham is worried that his life in private sets him up for cries from the left of “hypocrite!,” and perhaps that triggers a squishiness in him.

    Consequently, maybe he finds himself falling for the notion that to be gay or bisexual goes hand-in-hand with someone also being very liberal (or “progressive”), or very, very centrist, so he starts feeling uneasy when he’s being too rightwing.

    In an interview with Politico about Sen. John Ensign’s recent admission of an affair with a campaign staffer, Sen. Lindsey Graham said he had his own secret “sins.”

    “I think he will be welcomed back by his colleagues and go back to being a good senator,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who said Ensign shouldn’t have resigned his leadership spot.

    Graham downplayed the political impact this would have on the GOP, saying, “Most Americans look at this as a personal situation.”

    Graham let out a laugh and said: “I’ve got plenty of sins that I’m not going to share with anyone else.



    The GOP primary challenger to incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham is bringing more light to the legislator’s rumored sexuality.

    According to the Gay Charleston blog of The Charleston City Paper, a radio show caller asked primary candidate Buddy Witherspoon, “Do you support Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell — the policy that is allowing Lindsey Graham to serve in the military?”

    Anti-immigration groups have also circulated a letter referring to Graham as “Lindsey ‘The Pink Elephant’ Graham.”

    On Oct. 20, Q-Notes first reported on Graham’s re-election problems relative to his sexuality. In 2002, it was state Democratic Party Chair Dick Harpootlian who said that Graham was “too light in the loafers” to replace Strom Thurmond.

    Well, enough of my armchair pyschoanalyzing. However, I wasn’t totally surprised when a long-time radio personality in Los Angeles, Al Rantel, who has aligned himself for years with a conservative philosophy, but who also has been quite open about his homosexuality, said he voted for Obama last November. Barry Obama, a leftwinger — in not ultra-liberal — with one of the most suspicious, flaky backgrounds of anyone who has ever grabbed for the brass ring of the White House in American history.

    Mark (411533)

  23. 21.I don’t particularly care for Graham either, but this might be a smart move. Everybody should take a deep breath and try to bear in mind that, should Sotomayor by some miracle not be confirmed, Obama’s next choice for Supreme Court Justice is highly unlikely to be Robert Bork.

    While I hate to agree with Dipsy Graham, in this case he and the rest of the GOP probably have no choice. They can spend their political capital on blocking Sotomayor…or they can fight the bigger battles over cap & tax and health care deform.

    If the GOP wants to duke it out with Obambi on judges, they should’ve won some more seats last year.

    KingShamus (4fabb2)

  24. The woman is a bigot, and everyone knows that. How is open bigotry something we should have on the highest court in our land?

    What happened to blind justice?

    10ksnooker (365bd9)

  25. I wonder when was the last time the Dhimmirats nominated a white, male, Christian to the supreme court?

    The last time the Democrats nominated anyone to the US Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Breyer was nominated in 1994, and the Democrats had no opportunity to nominate another Supreme Court Justice before this one.

    But it’s hard to get any sort of meaningful statistical information from this as, in the last forty years, the Democrats have had a total of three opportunities to appoint someone. Republicans, on the other hand, have had twelve such opportunities.

    aphrael (e0cdc9)

  26. I don’t particularly care for Graham either, but this might be a smart move. Everybody should take a deep breath and try to bear in mind that, should Sotomayor by some miracle not be confirmed, Obama’s next choice for Supreme Court Justice is highly unlikely to be Robert Bork. Seeing as how there is no way to really stop her anyway, why take the chance on derailing somebody that might not be so bad when you consider who some of the other options might be?

    Comment by PatrickKelley — 7/22/2009 @ 3:19 pm

    Well yeah, but that is no reason to vote yes or say she is “well qualified.” She is on paper adequately qualified, but in writing opinions and in temperment clearly not. Why not say so? Does Graham think this pussiness of his endears him to the Dems. While the Dems will use him like a drunk frat boy uses a desperate fat girl, they also have zero respect for him. But I digress…

    Yeah the alternatives are worse. Up at bat is Diane Wood, liberal and Justice Roberts smart. That is a much scarier than Sotomayor (who is more akin to a Liberal Harriet Miers), but hey, nothing stops us from voting no anyway.

    Joe (a32cff)

  27. Graham’s always been quite the cracker. Nice to see he still doesn’t disappoint.

    DCSCA (9d1bb3)

  28. Off the lithium again, International Man of Paroday?

    JD (f4f0f3)

  29. I am with KingShamus on this. Graham is not my favorite senator, but I think he is doing the smart thing. In fact, if I was Graham I would vote for Sotomayor even if the vote was still up for grabs.

    As I see it, Obama could have appointed an academic heavyweight who could go toe to toe with Scalia. Instead, he chose to score political points by pandering to the Latino vote. As a result, he appointed someone who, IMHO, is a lightweight. Sotomayor will be a reliable vote for liberal outcomes, but is unlikely to influence anyone else on the Court or the general course of American law.

    Now, if the Republicans were able to split off a few Democrats and get her voted down, Obama would still have the political capital he got by nominating Sotomayor, and would then be free to nominate Kathleen Sullivan or Elana Kagan. And trust me, people, that would not be a good thing.

    Roscoe (c63744)

  30. I agree with Graham that elections matter but that means something different to me than to him. Past elections have given Democrats control of the Presidency and Senate so it’s true they can confirm who they want. But it’s not true Republicans have to agree every nominee is acceptable or vote for questionable nominees.

    Sotomayor’s speeches show her judgment is affected by racism and sexism. That makes her the obvious nominee to vote against and dramatically illustrate that Republicans don’t accept that in a nominee, but Democrats do.

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  31. Graham’s always been quite the cracker. Nice to see he still doesn’t disappoint.

    That term doesn’t mean what you think it means, CBS Page Boy.

    I turned off the telly after trying to watch his greatness for 20 minutes – this guy’s self – love is truly reaching Homeric proportions, even greater than Clinton. And guess how he started his little confab? “There’s been a lot of misinformation coming from the REPUBLICANS on this issue…” Someone should really tell him that the time when he can keep blaming his failures on the other party is past due.

    Dmac (e6d1c2)

  32. DRJ wrote:

    Sotomayor’s speeches show her judgment is affected by racism and sexism. That makes her the obvious nominee to vote against and dramatically illustrate that Republicans don’t accept that in a nominee, but Democrats do.

    THing is, Republicans can vote against her without trying a filibuster. We couldn’t sustain one anyway, and not trying to filibuster keeps the GOP straight with the views expressed concerning them during the Bush Administration. BUt the vote against, while it doesn’t stop the nominee, shows principle.

    Maybe the Republicans could send a message by all voting “Present.”

    The practical Dana (474dfc)

  33. Voting “Present” works for me. So does voting “No.”

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  34. Republicans concerned about racism and sexism ha ha!.. who do the Republicans think they are kidding?

    The vote against Sotomayor is based on the same idea as the Republican stand against Health Care reform.. Rush said it best ” We want him to fail” This is all about attacking Obama and doing what Senator Mitchell said years ago….”Republicans will tear down the house in order to rule over the ruins”

    Oh and here is a really stupid statement from DMAC..Someone should really tell him (Obama) that the time when he can keep blaming his failures on the other party is past due.

    What you really mean DMAC is that you dont want Obama to keep reminding us of the deficit Republicans created, the needless war they started, the financial mess they allowed. Ya thats right in six months the effects of eight years of Conservative principles should just be forgotten. Imagine this..Pachyderms with such short memories!!!

    VietnamEraVet (8918ab)

  35. Oh and DMAC the self love you accuse Obama of?? That is called confidence.. something which I know you find objectionable in a black man..

    VietnamEraVet (8918ab)

  36. JD’s First Rule of Trolls – When Teh One starts doing poorly, trolls increase in frequency and vitriol. Witness the idiot above …

    JD (f4f0f3)

  37. RACISTS !!!!!!!!!!!!

    I am the President !

    JD (f4f0f3)

  38. This was a stimulus plan for factcheck.org. They are currently out searching for about 10,000 new staffers in order to keep up with just tonite’s speech.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  39. Oh and DMAC the self love you accuse Obama of?? That is called confidence.. something which I know you find objectionable in a black man..

    VietnamEraVet:

    No baseless accusations of racism here. We’ll leave that to the liberal blogs, thanks.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  40. Sotomayor’s speeches show her judgment is affected by racism and sexism. That makes her the obvious nominee to vote against and dramatically illustrate that Republicans don’t accept that in a nominee, but Democrats do.

    William Rehnquist had a stellar record on racism.

    steve (d25264)

  41. Does anyone need to point out to steve that those were in regards to the law, not that someone’s race or sex makes them a better jurist. Never mind. He doesn’t actually care.

    JD (f4f0f3)

  42. Challenging public accommodation laws AND the integration of public schools definitely involve points of law. William Rehnquist fought a Phoenix ordinance permitting blacks to enter stores and restaurants, worried about “the historic right of the owner of a drug store, lunch counter, or theater to choose his own customers.”

    “It is, I believe, impossible to justify the sacrifice of even a portion of our historic individual liberty for a purpose such as this.”

    It seems people are not truly free if they are not free to discriminate.

    steve (d25264)

  43. I would point out to anyone reading that steve is trying to deflect attention from Judge Sotomayor’s overt racism and sexism, and the Left’s tacit agreement with same.

    JD (f303d4)

  44. Evidently steve can’t defend Sotomayor, so he attacks a man long dead.

    That’s a good clue to an absence of argument.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  45. Plus, steve is trying to distract from the disasterous presser that Teh One had tonite.

    JD (5e5cad)

  46. steve,

    I’m not familiar with Rehnquist’s nomination hearings or his pre-Court writings — it was before even my time — but I don’t agree with him if he held those views. However, if it is accurate, it doesn’t appear he acted on those views as a Justice.

    It’s not directly on point but I read the other day Justice Ginsburg considered Rehnquist a good friend. This is from her statement after his death:

    “Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was the fairest, most efficient boss I have ever had. Speaking of his role in a 2002 address, he said: “[T]he Chief Justice has placed in his hands some of the tools which will enable him to be primus among the pares but his stature will depend on how he uses them.” In his leadership of the U.S. Judiciary and his superintendence of the Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist used to great effect the tools Congress and tradition entrusted to him.

    A plain speaker without airs or affectations, the Chief fostered a spirit of collegiality among the nine of us perhaps unparalleled in the Court’s history. He regarded an independent Judiciary as our country’s hallmark and pride, and in his annual reports, he constantly urged Congress to safeguard that independence. On the obligation key to judging, he cautioned that a judge steps out of the proper judicial role most conspicuously and dangerously when the judge flinches from a decision that is legally right because the bottom line is not the one “the home crowd wants.” I held him in highest regard and affection, and will miss him greatly.”

    DRJ (6f3f43)

  47. disastrous is right JD that was scary how he lies and lies.

    Tonsils.

    Really?

    I remember once Cindy was gonna have to get her tonsils out and then that would have effed up the boat trip so they tried to help her get better so they wouldn’t have to operate but after the commercial she got worse and then on top of everything her mom Carol had to get her tonsils out too! It was terrible and this was before Barack Obama so there was no hope what imbued the situation at all.*

    happyfeet (c75712)

  48. #42

    So of course Havard and Yale do not descriminate? How about firms when they employ someone? Baseball teams?

    Of course the owners of homes shouldn’t be allowed to determine who they rent to. Big brother knows better than you. Exactly what happened to our freedoms? Who wants to patronize a store that doesn’t wish your business? Who wishes to belong to a club that doesn’t want you to be a member?

    But let us remember such distinctions only apply to the right. If you’re a lefty you can have a black caucus, or black only dorms. The law is a living thing you know.

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  49. “I don’t care for unpredictable Republicans.”

    The root problem is not unpredictability. But that anyone will be unpredictable who has no clear and consistent set of principles and lives by them.

    That probably explains why, if Aphrael is correct (#25), Republicans could be responsible for nominating 4 times as many Supreme Court justices as Democrats and we STILL have a liberal court. I’m pretty sure I know what the Democrat Party stands for. They have never stopped pushing for more government at every turn. But I don’t have confidence that I know what the Republican Party stands for.

    Perhaps RINO is not as much an insult as we thought it was. After all, if the party is nothing more than a name then what’s the problem with joining it in name only?

    Gesundheit (47b0b8)

  50. #11, JerryT, thanks for the reminder. You hit the nail right on the head. Young Congressmen Graham got himself out in front on the impeachment issue and then got blindsided by Trent Lott, the grinning cheerleader from Mississippi.

    The House Impeachment Managers never saw it coming, neither did the American people. The fix was in, and Trent Lott sold us out, big time, right along with the rule of law.

    Shocked, confused and disillusioned, yes, but Lindsey Graham not only survived the experience, he learned from it, and that hard lesson turned him to the dark side. Since then he’s always played it coy at first, but voted with the insiders when the chips were down.

    Ropelight (bb3af5)

  51. Here’s the crux of all this for an agnostic…without a doubt there are people out there who would be perfect appointees for the SC, but they could never make it through this onerous political appointment process. So we always end up with a choice between My Guy or Your Guy.

    And in a sense, it doesn’t make a huge difference since the Supreme Court has drifted so far from what it’s supposed to do that the court itself is an integral part of the larger problem of this nation ever getting back to governance based on the original Constitution.

    The Supreme Court came with a very simple mission…to safeguard the Constitution. All a Supreme Court justice should have to do is read the Constitution to see if the law in question is constitutional, in other words, falls within the authority spelled out in the Constitution. The problem started when all this was handed off to so-called constitutional specialists [how’s that for heresy in a legal blog!]. Everyone started getting hung up on precedent and interpretation, which is the exact opposite of what you want in a Supreme Court justice.

    I advocate scrapping the vast majority, if not all, of the Supreme Court’s precedent. They should start from scratch, take the original Constitution in hand, and strike down any law that the Constitution does not specifically authorize. For instance, Article One, Section 8, makes it absolutely clear that any powers not given to the government in the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people. Amendments 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights reinforce that. But they’re completely disregarded, like everything else in that document, which was made to shield the individual against the state.

    All that might take a while, but we can order in lunch and dinner for them.

    Of course, none of this will ever happen. Any dunce can see that we as a nation are doomed to be hampered, tampered, and obstructed with the soft glove of the legal and political elites as far as the eye can see. The only consolation is that this is many degrees preferable to the hard glove rule in the likes of Iran, Venezuela, Russia, or any of your own particular favorites.

    political agnostic (ec0f22)

  52. “Evidently steve can’t defend Sotomayor, so he attacks a man long dead.”

    Yeah, Justice jackson.

    imdw (9811a2)

  53. LINDSEY GRAHAM, HE HAS DISSAPOINTED ME GREATLY. MARTNEZ, MY JERK IN FLORIDA, IS A LOSER ANYWAY, SO I KNEW HE WOULD SUPPORT ANYTHING HISPANIC..ILLEGALS, RADICALS, TERRORISTS, OR CASH CONTRIBUTORS…THATS MARTINEZ.

    BUT LINDSEY !!!!!! WHO BOUGHT HIM ????

    SO NOW HE MUST BE REMOVED AS A TRAITOR TO THE CONSERVATIVE CAUSE.

    JAQUEBAUER (ccf889)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5459 secs.