Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote

[Lookout]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/us/politics/29confirm.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee voted, 13 to 6, on Tuesday to endorse the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, easing her path to likely confirmation as the first Hispanic member of the tribunal.

 

[Oddball]

This was a foregone conclusion.

Little wonder Lindsey Graham folded up like lawn furniture on this one.

 

[Wingit]

So very depressing for our nation. We don't need her rewriting our laws. I hope in 2010 we can get a better balance in Congress.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I am so pleased to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

 

[Old Rocks]

So very depressing for our nation. We don't need her rewriting our laws. I hope in 2010 we can get a better balance in Congress.

You bet. 300 Dems.

 

[Darkwind]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Wow.....Good shit huh?

In case you all missed it. This does not change the overall balance of the SCOTUS.

There are still only two who even come close to being constructionists and the rest aren't even sure what the Constitution means.

 

[hjmick]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Uh... Yeah... Explain to us how she will "balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS."

I mean, you do know that the balance is unchanged, right?

 

[DiveCon]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Wow.....Good shit huh?

In case you all missed it. This does not change the overall balance of the SCOTUS.

There are still only two who even come close to being constructionists and the rest aren't even sure what the Constitution means.

they are proof of how delutional so many on the left are

 

[Amanda]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Uh... Yeah... Explain to us how she will "balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS."

I mean, you do know that the balance is unchanged, right?

Don't let facts interfere with talking points.

 

[elvis]

It will be interesting to see the final vote in the Senate. Ginsberg was confirmed 98-2.

 

[Darkwind]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Wow.....Good shit huh?

In case you all missed it. This does not change the overall balance of the SCOTUS.

There are still only two who even come close to being constructionists and the rest aren't even sure what the Constitution means.

they are proof of how delutional so many on the left are

LOL

Yeah, they keep clubbing us over the head with it....

 

[DiveCon]

It will be interesting to see the final vote in the Senate. Ginsberg was confirmed 98-2.

i bet it will be over 80 for

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Wow.....Good shit huh?

In case you all missed it. This does not change the overall balance of the SCOTUS.

There are still only two who even come close to being constructionists and the rest aren't even sure what the Constitution means.

I guess a dumb shit like you forgot that these Judges actually talk with each other, sometimes when the public does not get to listen in, LOL.....I think one "Wise Latina" will be more than a match for the OWG contingent, their no opinion flunky ....

As for knowing what the Constitution means, I am quite confident any one of them is as least twice as bright as you, after all, even A. J. Thomas.

 

[editec]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

 

[DiveCon]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

 

[Old Rocks]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Not hard at all. You should try it, sometime.

 

[Meister]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Not hard at all. You should try it, sometime.

Of course, it's not hard to read it, Roxie, The problem you have is comprehending what's inside those four borders.

 

[DiveCon]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Not hard at all. You should try it, sometime.

i have
maybe you should give it a shot, asshole

 

[Darkwind]

I am so please to see that she will be confirmed!


We need someone to balance out those RW activists now on the SCOTUS

Wow.....Good shit huh?

In case you all missed it. This does not change the overall balance of the SCOTUS.

There are still only two who even come close to being constructionists and the rest aren't even sure what the Constitution means.

I guess a dumb shit like you forgot that these Judges actually talk with each other, sometimes when the public does not get to listen in, LOL.....I think one "Wise Latina" will be more than a match for the OWG contingent, their no opinion flunky ....

As for knowing what the Constitution means, I am quite confident any one of them is as least twice as bright as you, after all, even A. J. Thomas.

your confidence is misplaced.

I see that you managed to completely avoid what it was I said.

Do you even know what a Constructionist is? Without going and looking it up?

 

[editec]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Reading the constiution is no big deal.

Understanding what it means in realtionship to our world certain is a big deal.

Especially given how the floundering fathers seemed to go out of their way, in some cases, to be purposefully vague, and in others they truly did write the thing as to NOT tie the hands of future generations.

What they apparently understood, that most of our board's legal scholars apparently do not, is that the world belongs to the living, and therefore one cannot write the laws that will be germane to every occassion and time.

The brilliance of that document is the flexibility its authors wrote into it.

If you'd told any of them that you were a strict interpretor of the constitution, I suspect they would think you'd missed the whole point of how carefully they crafted it to give future generations the opportunity to interpret it to suit the needs of the times.