Comments on: Hatch reminds committee of past Obama statements

By: AlwaysThinking

AlwaysThinking — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:42:52 +0000

The Senators should be evaluating Sotomayor's record as a judge. She's got more experience on the bench than any other current Supreme Court judge, with 18 years of decisions to look at and evaluate.

That will answer the question of whether she can set aside her personal views when deciding a case.

By: Maximus

Maximus — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:40:21 +0000

Selecting a juge is more like selecting a God, someone with no color, no race, no past sins, full of wisdom and courage, free of emotions; who cannot be intimidated and corrupted and whose decision cannot be appealed and reversed. We do not have such and individua alive today. If we are looking for someone to render justice, we are engaging in a wild goose chase on a bridge to nowhwere, for justice does not and cannot exist in this world. It is an illusion, a dream, or better yet a black flower. No matter whom we choose as judge, we are paying someone to do what is beyond his/her ability to fulfill. So what difference does it make whom we place as judge? It's like molding a statue as an idol like the indians did, and come kneel before it in quest for miracles, response to mysteries, solutions to problems. The Indian's were made of wood, stone or other material; and were free of speech and motion; ours are human, but both are incapable of serving the purpose they are chosen for.

By: PFFT

PFFT — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:39:35 +0000

Actually, I couldn't stand Bush. But he was better than the other choice. Anything was better than what my choices were. But, you miss the point. There's an uproar over the fact that someone other than the great leader is using his words against him. That's my point. When people use Obama's words against HIM, they become wrong> Yet, when he used them in the first place, they were considered wonderful and revolutionary. Which is it? You can't say it's fair if it's only used against the other party.

By: DLC

DLC — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:37:41 +0000

Sad! The opening statement's by many of the Republicans end it with "God Bless You." Give me a break!!! They really should quit bringing God into it after some of the crap they said. If they want to showcase their Christianity then maybe they should contemplate "WWJD?" For those of you who are unaware, that stands for WHAT WOULD JESUS DO? They can save it! I mean, C'MON!

By: Expat American

Expat American — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:37:18 +0000

Given the racist tone adopted by the GOP during the last campaign and the bigoted rhetoric of the new party leader, Sarah Palin; to hear Republicans complain about racism is not unlike Nazi Collaborators complaining about being mistreated after Liberation.

"Stop hitting us, we're human beings too..."

By: Leta

Leta — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:36:03 +0000

Marc are you a McDougal your daddy got you riddin' my skirt again? It's alot different than it was in Lubbock ask John Cornyn and Hillary Clinton.....and you are no longer Mayor of that town...and why find another David Miller your's get into trouble......and how is your son since Grand Daddy sent him to Germany to avoid bad issues with in your reign.....?

By: tedious898

tedious898 — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:29:41 +0000

Doug Neuman (spelling?),

Your posts are always intelligent; though often I disagree. Yes.....you are right...her ethnicity is of no consideration. Unfortunately your party makes race a issue in every part of the public debate. Remember the calls of "terrorist, lynch him" at the McCain/Palin rallies? Well, there is another side of America that should be represented...meaning Sotomayor is a very smart jurist and her accession to SCOTUS provides diversity. Sonya represents what's best about america...a minority can rise to the highest level of their profession / aspirations.

By: Sniffit

Sniffit — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:29:19 +0000

@ MN in VA, who said "Tell me why making a ruling based solely on the collor of the plaintiff's or defendant's skin color is not racist. " The problem here is that you and the rest of the people trying to make political hay with it start from a faulty premise. That is NOT what her decision in the New Haven case was based on. Read it. Nobody would disagree that making a decision based solely on race, etc., is wrong, but that's not at all what she and the other judges who made the decision did. Nor is it what the 4 SCOTUS justices who agreed with her did. Because you know nobody could rightfully say "yes, deciding solely based on race is ok" you invent that she did so. It's akin to the classic "have you stopped beating your wife?" game. No right answer once you've started from the premise that the guy was, at some point, presumed guilty of beating his wife.

By: ella

ella — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:27:28 +0000

The big picture – The Republican senators that have spoken already – All aged, caucasion males giving the same obviously bigoted argument against anything that is not like them, only to end their statement with praises for her.

THINLY VEILED and OBVIOUS GOP!

By: Susan in NC

Susan in NC — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:27:24 +0000

Why must the proceedings be so hateful and mean-spirited? Frankly, I had to turn it off - the process is insulting to all involved and I'm amazed at the negativity. For or against her confirmation makes no difference - the process should be positive and respectful to all.

By: c1delta

c1delta — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:23:35 +0000

the problem I see is we are loosing our free country. so many try to un do what a lot of us stood for. so we all will lose on this one

By: Proud Member..Party of No

Proud Member..Party of No — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:22:57 +0000

Keep lowering the bar, democrats. Your mission of turning us into a third-world country continues.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:21:22 +0000

What I like about Hatch, and other lemming followers of America's righwing, like TCM and Doug, New Jersey, is their perserverance. One has to admire the remant thought processes they posess, despite having thier skulls breeched when the word s-t-u-p-i-d was branded on their foreheads.

By: GaryB

GaryB — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:20:43 +0000

Let's be clear about Judge Janice Rogers Brown. She was and remains an unapologetically partisan conservative. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and it does not mean that she is not a thoughtful or analytical judge. Her interpretation of the law, however, does tend to be colored by her own biases, particularly in terms of individual vs. corporate rights (she generally tends to side with corporations). There was legitimate concern that she could not separate her decisions from her political philosophy (which is a danger with all hyper-partisan judges from both the right and left). That's not a problem if you agree with her philosophy, but it is a problem if you claim to like your judges strict and impartial.

By: MN in VA

MN in VA — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:20:29 +0000

Marc @ 12:04 – the Judicial Branch was not created to represent the majority of Americans. That is what the Legislative and Executive Branches are for.

By: GOP = Party of Hypocrisy

GOP = Party of Hypocrisy — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:19:22 +0000

Hatch disgraces himself with his pandering to the racist far-right fringe that controls the GOP. Of course Sotomayor will be confirmed because she is well qualified. Having an intelligent, extremely well qualified Latina judge who follows the law on the Supreme Court will be a great benefit for all Americans. Only the racists oppose her.

By: history repeats

history repeats — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:18:35 +0000

PFFT

are you kidding? i love how republicans say that we look at obama like hes a messiah just because we like him alot more then we liked bush. you people LOVED bush and he made mistake after mistake and couldnt even talk in public!! the president you love couldnt even put a sentence together and you have the nerve to judge the way we like obama? churches were urging their "flock" to vote for bush to bring "god back to america". you people looked at bush as a messiah no matter how stupid the man was. you are such hypocrits its amazing! REALLY!!!

By: DLC

DLC — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:16:21 +0000

It's also funny to me for some of the comment writers to say that they feel Obama is nominating people of color solely because they are people of color. Ironically, that's how "minorities" have felt about a lot of the issues for countless years. DUHH! That is why affirmative action became neccessary. Many people have been denied MANY rights and DESERVED and EARNED privileges based solely on just that, the color of their skin, disregarding their expertise, or qualifications, or skills. Sucks, doesn't it...feeling like you are being treated in the same manner in which you treat those in which you feel are LESS THAN YOU. This Republican party should then, I feel, remember THE GOLDEN RULE (DO UNTO OTHERS....)!!!! You never know when the tables may be turned.

By: Sniffit

Sniffit — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:16:11 +0000

@ Rick CT, who said "Go back and look at Leahy's (and other Dem's) performance when Bush put up nominations." Actually, Roberts and Alito had it pretty darn easy relative to most nimonees. Maybe you're the one who should brush up on the history books. That being said, anyone who claims the make-up of the SCOTUS shoudl be "representative" is an idiot. Read read read!!! Understand the nature of the judicial branch and the FACT that it is supposed to be insulated from political pressures and popular/majority opinions. I support Sotomayor for her education, training and qualifications...THAT'S IT AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY VALID ARGUMENTS. You may not realize it, but everyone blabbering about a "representative" SCOTUS does themselves and the cause a disservice. If what you want is equality and for people to be judged in an ethinicity- and color-blind manner, then YOU HAVE TO PLAY BY THAT RULE YOURSELF or you invite the other side to ignore it as much as you are.

By: MN in VA

MN in VA — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:15:40 +0000

sniffit – Based on reading several of your posts, "yammering" is what you excel at.

Tell me why making a ruling based solely on the collor of the plaintiff's or defendant's skin color is not racist. Until you can convince me that that is not racism, I have no desire to waste anymore of my time "yammering" with you.

By: lol

lol — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:13:24 +0000

Who would have thought that a "strong latino woman" could stir up the repulican ranks into such a lather?

By: Expat American

Expat American — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:12:00 +0000

In approximately 30-40 years, Republican White Christian Conservatives will barely be an existing minority in the United States of America. It's a beautiful thing.

By: Erik

Erik — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:09:16 +0000

What!?!?! Obama says one thing and does another. This can not be! Oh wait, he already has gone back on a couple campaign promises (Gitmo, gays, transparency, lobbyists) why not another? This reminds me of when he fired an Inspector General without proper notice to the congress...a bill HE co-sponsered. This man does not follow his own rules to slow him down...he just keeps doing whatever he wants – promises or no promises – with no checks from the Dems in congress. It was bad when the Republicans did it, and it is just as bad when he does. CHANGE INDEED!

By: Sniffit

Sniffit — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:08:42 +0000

@ Mississippi Mike, who said "She's also got a history of racial and gender bias. " Really? What, pray tell, can you cite for that other than an out-of-context quote and a recently overturned legal decision that still had 4 of the 9 SCOTUS justices agreeing with her (and the other judges who decided with her in the lower court...she didn't make the decision alone). Her basis for the New Haven decision was in law, not in the clouds. You should probably stop pretending that decision is all about race and whimsy just to cover up the fact that you don't understand the legal reasoning underpinning it.

By: Kevin B

Kevin B — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:08:30 +0000

It s laughable that GOP bigots and racist are calling this nominee a bigot and a racist. The GOP is so desperate that they make the most absurd arguments.

These arguments only work on the willfully ignorant Limbaugh and Hannity sheeple.

By: Doug Neumann

Doug Neumann — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:05:47 +0000

I don't care that she is Latino – what has that got to do with anything? Yet that seems to be the entire reason she was chosen. I do not like the fact that the entire reason this or any other candidate is chosen is race and gender. Obama and his people said from day 1 they wanted a woman, and it would be nice if it was a Hispanic woman. So in my mind, they precluded all other candidates on day 1, and that isn't how the process supposed to work. If they said they wanted a white guy, and then chose a white guy, there would be total outrage.

In addition, it is hard to ignore her racist comments, where she says outright that she can make a better decision because of her race. Even though that is apparently not the case,as Sotomeyer also has a bad history of incorrect rulings, and has been overturned numerous times by higher courts. She has also said laws are made at the bench, and she is apparently a fan of legislating from the bench – which is not her job.

All thing considered, I am opposed to this candidate. I know they will confirm her, but it is a mistake. I do not often agree with Republicans these days, but Hatch is right in this case.

By: Sniffit

Sniffit — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:05:17 +0000

@ MN in VA, who said "When one begins to lose an argument, they immediately fall to name-calling." Do you know what irony is? How about hypocrisy? Let's see if I can make it a little clearer: here you are yammering about some "Obama supporter" calling people who oppose Sotomayor racists...meanwhile, the GOP has been calling Sotomayor a racist since the day after her nomination. Is it starting to sink in or do I need to highlight it further?

By: Marc

Marc — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:04:09 +0000

Rick – I agree with you.
Problem is that a bunch of white old men (Clarence Thomas included and no, this is not a joke) does NOT represent the majority of this country. 'The most qualified...' are all whites? According to who?
So it is probable that there are more qualified people than Sotomayor out there and who happen to be as prepared as she is, like it was well probable that there were more qualified names than Scalia or Thomas or anyone of those who are there now at the time of their hearings.
A nomination to the SCOTUS is a political decision, and all that we can ask is that the nominee has enough qualifications do fill the vacancy. And Sotomayor does that very well; check ALL her numbers and not only those who were picked by Limbaugh&Fox News.
Remember, Justice Alito was not GWB first pick, the first one was another of GWB's buddies from Texas, and a very unqualified one. When he presented Alito, who in spite of anything I might have against his decisions I have to agree that he fills the requirements for the job, he had more luck to convince even those Republicans that bashed his first appointment.
TCM – 'Supreme Court Czar'? Get a grip on yourself....

By: PFFT

PFFT — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:03:53 +0000

How DARE anyone actually throw the great beloved leader's words back at him? How DARE they actually hold someone else to the lofty standard he declared against the Republicans? How rude and inconsiderate it is to expect that the great beloved leader's words be held against his own corrupt party of spend and tax and tax and spend?

By: Too True For You

Too True For You — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:02:36 +0000

TCM, predictable as usual. The irony here is teh pot calling the kettle black. "Puppet"? You REALLY want to go there? When you guys did your best to politicize the judiciary, firing AG's who wouldn't play republican ball? Gross hiring illegalities, asking applicants their political views? Appointing radically conservative judges with absolutely no attempt at evaluating fair mindedness? Removing the bar association form their 5 decade role in evaluating nominees so that he could use biased evaluators he appointed himself? Appointing unqualified idiot yes-men like Gonzalez, who by the way wrote on the presidential website that Bush has nominated "a record number of federal judges . . . almost double the nominations that any of the past six presidents submitted in the first year." which he later confirmed "represents perhaps the President's longest lasting legacy."? But hey, why let facts get in the way? Republicans hardly ever do when it comes to ideology.

By: Sniffit

Sniffit — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:02:08 +0000

Whatever. Hatch is the guy who thinks the tournament structure for college football is important enough for the Senate to get involved. Go worry about your latest string of sports bets and let the big boys and girls handle the decision-making you old coot.

By: Rick CT

Rick CT — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:01:07 +0000

Yes, Obama won the election. No, that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be held accountable for his own statements and standards.

Go back and look at Leahy's (and other Dem's) performance when Bush put up nominations. Same standards still apply.

By: B

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:58:35 +0000

Mr Hatch has such a " well dressed" subtile quality about his racist views.

By: Scott, Tucson

Scott, Tucson — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:58:16 +0000

I'm just surprised that the pro-Choice groups and N.O.W. are not screaming bloody murder over Sotomayor.

By: Independent in Virginia

Independent in Virginia — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:58:03 +0000

Bob – Then what happened to Estrada? He was more qualified and more objective than Sotomayor and your "diverse-minded" Democratic leaders never confirmed him b/c they didn't want the first Hispanic justice to be nominated by Republicans. This Congress (all of them) is the biggest group of hypocrites in history.

By: readyandpacked

readyandpacked — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:56:26 +0000

TO Jon C. Sprowl – actually she IS qualified...the sad part is she will not, nor can she committ (her history shows this) to be "color blind" when it comes to the Constitution – which prohibits the use of any preferences based on race.

By: Go and Hate no more!!!

Go and Hate no more!!! — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:54:34 +0000

@TCM July 13th, 2009 11:12 am ET
Obama doesn't want a judge, he wants a puppet….another Czar…a Supreme Court Czar.***If President Obama Wanted a Puppet or a Racist ...He would have nominated You ....Now shut your sour pie hole!!!
She will be confirmed!!!!!!

By: DLC

DLC — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:53:26 +0000

Obviously the Republican's are still pouting...can't wrap their brain around the fact that they are no longer in control. They obviously feel a sense of entitlement. No one is 'entitled' to anything...you must EARN IT!!! They keep mentioning the importance of what you SAY, but never mention the importance of what you do equalling what you say. Republican's are very well known for saying one thing and doing another. They like to SAY that Sotomayor's race has nothing to do with many of their opposing views on this situation but most of us know that it really does. There was a time when a white male could SAY and DO anything against another race that they pleased. Now most of the racism is more subtle and behind closed doors, but it is still, in fact, VERY PRESENT! Just because Republican's don't always SAY what's on their mind, their actions almost always definitely SHOW IT. That is why their words are quite often not trusted. ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS!!! Republicans should remember that when they are making these SELF-RIGHTEOUS COMMENTS!!!

By: history repeats

history repeats — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:52:18 +0000

Leslie

its NOT affirmative action just because you dont like black people. the amrican people overwhemingly voted for obama how is that affirmitave action!? lol you "SO CALLED" conservatives and your childish, twisted logic!

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:51:14 +0000

I think it's pretty hilarious that people are representing Sotomayor as a "liberal latina". Obviously they can read the talking points. Sotomayor has, time and time again, passed down judgements that were middle of the road, and yes, gasp, conservative. She is a judge who follows the letter of the law. Oddly, years before Obama was on the scene, the Republicans endorsed Sotomayor. What this exposes is a childish, "If it's Democratic, it's got to be wrong" attitude. Before you get your right wing feathers all fluffed up, check Sotomayor's judgements. No, not what Limbaugh says. Check the truth.

By: Scott

Scott — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:51:05 +0000

B.H. and ttbala...Wow! Enjoy your 4 years right now...I am sincerely hoping that is all its going to be! The media honeymoon is starting to end...and then we will see how many campaign promises were actually kept by 'the savior'. And to make matters worse, we have so much debt that my great-grandchildren will still be paying the bill!!! Enough is enough!!! Sotomayor is not the best candidate, but Obama is looking at the hispanic vote and licking his chops. We will hear about her being grilled and things will look uncertain but in the end she will be confirmed. It is the same song and dance each time.

By: ImaLindatoo

ImaLindatoo — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:49:59 +0000

I should have said, to "confirm her' would be as equally guilty as her biased rulings and positions. She was obviously nominated already.

Here here. Good for you Hatch. She has shown that she rules not by fairness and law, but by prejudice and that her bias justifies the end. To confirm her to the Supreme Court because she is Latin or a Women, would be equally as guilty as her improper rulings.

When she was first nominated to servce, we did not have history and a record to see how she would rule and her position in succh cases, we do now and to over look her unlawful rulings would make you as guilty as she.

Use what you learn, her own words and rulings. A lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court she does not belong. I'm sure Obama can find a more qualified woman or hispanic or both, that does not rule by prejudice. To avoid embarrassment again for the Democrats, they should have removed her nomination, as Bush had to. They did not, their loss.

By: REF

REF — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:48:26 +0000

obama also said law should be decideded on empathy law should be king and blind it should never empathize with any one in court if law is not blind we are not republic and are subject to the whims of the day** that is why the statue is blindfolded in front of the supreme court house.

By: dominican mama 4 Obama

dominican mama 4 Obama — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:48:08 +0000

@Doug, New Jersey July 13th, 2009 11:20 am ET who said;

Here is what you support if you vote Democrat......

Dougie, you don't know what YOU support. So please, keep it to yourself until someone buys you a clue.

By: ImaLindatoo

ImaLindatoo — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:47:22 +0000

Here here. Good for you Hatch. She has shown that she rules not by fairness and law, but by prejudice and that her bias justifies the end. To nominate her to the Supreme Court because she is Latin or a Women, would be equally as guilty as her improper rulings.

When she was first nominated, we did not have history and a record to see how she would rule and her position in succh cases, we do now and to over look her unlawful rulings would make you as guilty as she.

By: MN in VA

MN in VA — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:22 +0000

10 minutes – that is how long it took for someone to call anyone that even thinks about questioning one of Obama's decisions a racist (see BH at 11:24). When one begins to lose an argument, they immediately fall to name-calling. When will we ever be able to judge someone on their merits, not their color? It is not racist to question anyone's ability to serve otherwise, all of the Democrats that opposed Justice Thomas would be racists. Where was the call then? Allow people to question abilities without calling names. Grow up.

By: Kelby In Houston, TX

Kelby In Houston, TX — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:13 +0000

I believe...
We all know that Hatch and the G No P want to stop this from going through. They insist that she is a reverse racist. The only problem is they can't prove it. They try a myriad of other tactics and arguments against her, but deep down, they know that they can not find any real fault in her. So the question becomes Why, Why are you doing this and in such a hateful manner. In the end, it makes the GOP look really bad

P.S.
Dear fellow posters. Stop stating your opinions as if they are fact. Otherwise, you are making baseless statements

By: citizenjane

citizenjane — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:02 +0000

So much anger. So much frustration. So much politicizing.
The charade of American politics at it's lowest.

President Obama won the election. Good or bad, the fruits of that win go to him and his party.

Get over yourselves.

By: Kevin in Ohio

Kevin in Ohio — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:45:53 +0000

Lets not forget how the TRUE "Party of No" has treated most Republican nominations to the judiciary. They deserve nothing more, nothing less, than what they have dished out in the past.

By: LB in FL

LB in FL — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:45:52 +0000

It looks to me like all the white men in power are getting a little nervous that they might be loosing their mojo. First Obama and now Sotmayer. They better wake up. The world has changed.