Jay, of course senators on the Judiciary Committee should ask thoughtful questions about what we often refer to as "judicial philosophy" during the hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor. There is only one problem: some members of the committee have already made it clear they are planning ideological bloviations which will take up valuable time that ought to be spent on serious questions.
Politico has noted that some Republicans have come out swinging harder than expected. This didn't surprise me at all. Virtually everything Senators Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn have done since Sotomayor was nominated was gripe over her "smart Latina" comment (which has absolutely no bearing on her qualifications for anything). This has allowed space for Senator Orrin Hatch to crank up the "left wing groups" mantra to show some "conspiracy" behind the hearings, the latest stunt, of course, invoking claimed efforts to destroy anti-Sotomayor witness Frank Ricci (that is, to point out that Ricci had a previous record of claiming discrimination before the claim that lead to the recent Supreme Court decision about his later claim of discrimination).
Other space has been occupied by Senator Mitch McConnell whose main yapping point has been that there is so much material that the hearings and votes should be postponed (since we know he'll be reading every document).
It's one thing for these senators to repeatedly make haughty
comments (if they want to waste all of our time, I can't stop them).
But it's quite another when we have to listen to shout outs from the
peanut gallery. Already today, an anti-abortion activist yelled,
"Senator, what about the unborn?" when Senator Dianne Feinstein was
speaking. He was quickly silenced and escorted out of the room.
This confirmation hearing is not a free-for-all. Serious questions need to be addressed. I just wonder, will anybody ask them? Why don't you let the Senators on your side of this debate know that it is time to quit whining and get serious. Maybe you'd like to counsel the ideological advocates against choice that they have plenty of ways to get their ideas across short of screaming during the hearings.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rich,
1) "I do expect our Republicans senators to act with some integrity."
Do you have that same expectation of Democrats? Do you rail as loudly when they fail at it, or do you give them a pass? Democrats are touted as being the "fairness" party, right?
2) "This particular red herring resides in only in your mind also"
An obviously false statement based upon faulty logic. I am not alone in my judgment-call, neither on this blog, nor on others. (and there are other blogs that discuss Reverend Lynn, religion and politics. Some are conservative, and some are liberal.)
3) "... the rather malevolent intent of the Republicans."
Wow, you're not a conspiracy theorist either, are you? You must have been a fly on the wall in the secret meeting . As for theocracy being the malevolent intent (an assumption from a prior comment you made), right-wing Christians are exiting the GOP in droves. This is a current, well-documented news item.
4) "You seem to support their desperate theatrics."
This is another unfounded statement. All one has to do is read my first two comments directed at Reverend Lynn to see that your assertion is patently false. I feel theatrics by any party to be especially reprehensible and in poor taste. I have spoken out, many times, against Democrats and Republicans about this. I have now spoken out against Reverend Lynn when he did it. I'm about fairness, too.
5) "Gosh, it appears that you and I are not going to get along. Somehow, I figure the both of us will survive."
WOW, an area where we agree!!!
I will refrain from commenting further; although, I am sure you'll want the last word! I'll graciously allow you to have it (that was a joke, by the way). Because you have engaged me and my statements directed to Lynn, I believed that you wanted to refute my assertion regarding the reverend's tone. You have yet to refute why I was untrue. Actually, you agreed with me at one point. You, instead, went off on a list of political agendas, attacked the Republican party, accused me, personally, of unfounded assertions (of course, I would have given you my stance on things had you merely asked - you may be surprised to know that it's not what you have chosen to believe), and have used faulty logic in your argumentation.
In spite of it, I have enjoyed our sparring. I can tell that you are a thoughtful person with strong personal conviction. Until the next blog entry...
==As for theocracy being the malevolent intent (an assumption from a prior comment you [Rich] made), right-wing Christians are exiting the GOP in droves. This is a current, well-documented news item.==
Actually, the news item is suspect cuz the news media is [intentional use of the singular verb] suspect.
DGNOCP
July 15, 2009 12:37 PM
Rich,
1) "I do expect our Republicans senators to act with some integrity."
Do you have that same expectation of Democrats?
---------------------------------------------------------
No. Dems have demonstrated that they cannot legitimately and reasonably be expected to do so.
Oh stop your bickering, you guys. Rev. Lynn is expressing his frustration at Republican grandstanding.
I've watched the proceedings pretty faithfully (I'm also knitting an afghan, so I can tell myself that the time really is not wasted) and I'm struck with the Republican senators' apparent failure to comprehend Judge Sotomayor's explanations for her "wise Latina" comment.
Senator Sessions has a particular bee in his bonnet about this. He uses every opportunity to repeat this "concern" and insists, at the same time, that Judge Sotomayor's answers are not good enough to satisfy him. (As if he isn't going to vote against confirmation already, since he's offered into the record only letters that disparage the candidate.)
If her answers are not good enough, then let him vote against confirmation and be done with it instead of behaving as if he really wants to be convinced otherwise but just desperately needs an answer that will indeed convince him!
He needs to pass, and to let other senators ask questions about her experiences in corporate law, as well as her experiences working for the community... and other relevant questions!
I hope his constituents in Alabama are finding out what a fool he is. One can always hope for the best.
DGNOCP,
Yep, this is fun. I could do this all day but my employer has this fervent wish that I engage in things that create money. Pretty lame I figure.
Anyway, I don't think my position is all that complex. Barry posted an article that was cutting, biting and "snarky", whatever that is. The post seemed rather mild to me to be quite frank. Not a whole lot that would catch one's attention. I would prefer that he unleash both barrels at once on the Republicans. They certainly deserve it, more so with every passing day of the hearings. Complaining about Barry's tone doesn't do much one way or another.
Here is the real deal though. Both you and I know that whatever we post here is irrelevant. It is of no import compared the the real bloodletting going on in the hearing room. As well, we can both count on the fact that this is all political grandstanding. The Repubs will do everything they can to put Sotomayor in a bad light, this will include a purposeful distortion of the truth. The Dems will do the opposite, this will include highlighting her strengths and hiding or clouding over any weaknesses she has. It is a all a game designed to wow us with cool buzz phrases and discourage any attempt at thinking.
I get a bit tired of the Repubs whining about the "living Constitution" concept. Of course it is a living Constitution. We don't allow private ownership of nuclear weapons or machine guns. It is an imposition on my right to bear arms. Even the most ardent "strict constructionist" ninnies seem to allow the constitution to bend a bit when it comes to the private ownership of nukes. So, we still have Repubs with their canned talking points about an inviolate constitution unless it, you know, makes sense.
The problem with these continual games played by these dysfunctional narcissists is that there actually is some import as to who is on the court. Given what is at stake, I don't have a problem with people being snarky.
Snarkiness pales in comparison to what theocrats would do to my family. If those with an unhealthy Jesus fixation were to ever obtain their legal wet dream and get abortion outlawed, I can see them imprisoning young women with a bit too much glee. Since I have a 17 year old daughter who could conceivably become a victim of religious zealots should abortion become criminalized, you can likely imagine my disgust with those who would even contemplate the possibility of imprisoning young women. Taking away the freedom of someone based some ridiculous myth and insisting that everyone practice a religion even if they don't subscribe to it would be a legitimate cause for civil war as far as I am concerned.
So, you can fire away at me all day long. This is all just minor musings compared to the damage being done by the fractured personalities of both parties.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.