1 - That's the number of GOP Votes for Sotomayor

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Jul 28, 2009.

  1. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    Is it by magic the GOP hopes to attract the Hispanic vote?


    A Single GOP Vote for Sotomayor
    One.

    That's the number of Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee who voted for the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court today.
     
    #1 sargon20, Jul 28, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2009
  2. midlifebear

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    11
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Bar├želona
    What a surprise.
     
  3. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Someone go to China and get us some more coffins and nails. Apparently, the GOP really doesn't want to win back anymore seats in 2010 OR 2012. Nice job, fellas... :rolleyes:
     
  4. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    No more 'change' in Washington. I hope Obama realizes quickly there is no 'common ground' and he will need to go it alone.

    Next in 2010/2012 the so-called 'Blue Dog Democrats' need to be flushed. A long cleansing process is long overdue.
     
  5. Gnobe

    Gnobe Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Recent polls have shown that the Republicans are tied with the democrats in the generic vote for 2010 now. Hmm I thought that party could never be elected again?? Out for a generation etc.

    Oh and Obama's approval rating is 54% on Gallup as of yesturday.
     
    #5 Gnobe, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  6. B_Nick8

    B_Nick8 New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    44
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
    So, a single Republican can bring themself to vote for someone almost unanimously viewed as fully qualified to be on the court. Doesn't that speak well of the party. :rolleyes:
     
  7. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    pandering to the right...........and the business as usual
     
  8. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    well, not a single democrat voted to confirm out of the senate judiciary committee, (10-8, along party lines) someone unanimously viewed as "well qualified" by the american bar association, their highest rating.

    that man was Samuel Alito in 2006

    so, in all fairness, if that is the basis you are using to judge a party, the republicans come out +1.

    just saying.

    hypocrisy

    and btw...Senator Barack Obama voted against Alito (and Roberts as well) despite, both of them being fully qualified...in the full senate confirmation votes later.

    I will assume that Obama voted, along with 21 other democrats in the full senate confirmations against the candidacies of Roberts and Alito, both on philosophical grounds...

    in which case, it is amusing to hear you and others complaining about Republicans opposing Obama's candidate on ideological grounds.

    IIRC correctly, the Bork nomination was savaged by the left on ideological grounds, because ultimate control of the court lay with this nomination.

    Just because you disagree with the republicans views ideologically, does not mean the democrats' behavior is any different.
     
    #8 Flashy, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  9. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    LOL...well thank god you are using that brain of yours to ignore my posts, not to mention reality.

    the fact is, that the republicans are not the ones who are stopping Obama's plans...it is the blue dogs. they did not sign on to the Pelosi agenda, and if they vote for an agenda which is now sinking in popularity among independents, very rapidly, they will lose their seats in the 2010 and 2012 election. That is a fact.

    Obama is losing independent support across the board, and fast. Blue Dogs will not slit their own throats for him. They already took a reaming from him & Pelosi on Cap & Trade. They won't again.

    The far left wing is not the preferred ideology of the USA any more than the far right is.

    the facts, which you seem to ignore, are that the Blue Dog seats, would not, in fact, go to further left democrats in 2010/2012...in fact, your ignorance is rather astonishing. The blue dogs hail from more conservative districts, where the local election winner is usually either a conservative democrat, or a moderate republican....none of those districts are candidates for takeover by the far left.

    if the blue dogs are eliminated, it will not be in favor of the far left...if they lose, it will be to republicans, and then the democrats are right back where they started.

    Then again, you wont read this, so you wont have to confront reality.
     
  10. tripod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,250
    Albums:
    3
    Likes Received:
    465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Statesville N.C.
    I thought that Schumer voted for Alito? Wasn't he the one who suggested him? Why would he change his mind? :confused:

    And by the way, Lindsey Graham is a super queen. :tongue:
     
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Not so fast, Flashy.
    We need to find out why did those Democrats vote against Samuel Alito. Was it because of his race or due to fears that he may be biased towards people of his own kind? Or was it because of his beliefs on the Iraq War?

    We know why most of the Republicans on the nomination panel voted against Sotomayor. They admitted that it was about race. Yet I distinctively remember some Democrats concerned about Alito's views & policies on the War, which was a major issue with people back when he was nominated. Don't recall any Democrat calling him a "reverse racist". I could be wrong, so if you or anyone can find something more detailed about this then please bring it to the table.

    One issue is definitely racially motivated and deserves the call of hypocrisy. The other is not, and we shouldn't be judging all Democrats of being hypocritical if their decision to vote against Alito had nothing to do with his race.
     
    #11 B_VinylBoy, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  12. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    no he didn't, no he wasn't, and he never changed his mind

    Senator Charles E. Schumer
     
  13. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    they have not voted against her because of her race. They voted Clarence Thomas in, and he is black...they voted against her ideology...simple as that.

    a republican has just as much right to vote against a Sotomayor ideology with regards to racial preference hiring and being pro-choice as the democrats had the right to vote against Alito for being Pro-Life.

    Do you think for a second had George W, Bush nominated a latina woman, who was pro-life, pro-gun, and had a very high rating from conservative groups, that they would not have confirmed her?

    with regards to Alito, race based accusations did occur if you recall, with regards to his association with the group "Concerned Alumni of Princeton"

    It was quite a big stink, and many democrats on the committee, used Alito's association with it to kick up one hell of a fuss, even though the only reason Alito had joined was because he was a member of the ROTC.


    This is all about politics and ideology, and the Sotomayor nomination is politics, just as Bork was....neither side has any right to claim some form of altruistic high ground over the other in these despicable displays of partisanship.

    personally, i see nothing wrong with Sotoomayor, but then again, i really do not care about politicians and who they nominate anymore. I trust none of them. :smile:
     
  14. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    And by the way, Lindsey Graham is a super queen.................. does he give queens a a bad name?
     
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    Sorry, Flashy... but that just doesn't cut it for me.
    You stated that they voted against Sotomayor for her ideology. Let's look at a dictionary definition of ideology: a system of ideas or ideals, esp. one that forms the basis of economic or potential theory & policy. Another definition could be the ideas and manner of thinking characteristic of a group, social class or individual.

    Now, whether or not these ideologies are drawn on Sotomayor's opinions on the economy or Health Care is one thing. What is very apparent is that Jeff Sessions and many other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee had a problem with the "wise Latino" comment and that was repeatedly referenced over and over again. I could understand it being mentioned, however, once Sotomayor explained herself that should have been the end of it.

    Nobody is suggesting that voting against someone because of their beliefs is wrong, and I'm sure that may of had some part of it. The problem I have with this particular vote is that you know the beliefs regarding these particular Republicans were driven by racism. We should of heard more about her voting record and about some of her decisions, nevermind her views on some of the important political issues. But it seemed as if every time her name was mentioned, someone from the Republican side wanted to make this whole hearing about whether or not she would be too biased or judgmental against white people.

    Perhaps if Democrats were voting against Alito because they claimed he would be "too biased" then I would agree with you on the hypocrisy claim. But the issue surrounding him was more about civil rights and abortion (plus the war). Can't say that I heard many Republicans going against Sotomayor for her beliefs regarding Health Care & the Economy.

    That's irrelevant. That's because we can look at the nomination of John Roberts in 2005 and see that half of the Democrats in the Senate voted for him. Roberts Confirmed as 17th Chief Justice

    And if we look at the issues he's obviously pro-life, pro-gun and had a high rating among conservatives since all of them voted in favor of him. John Roberts on the Issues

    Are you suggesting that Democrats wouldn't have voted for John Roberts if he was a Latino woman? Please tell me that you're not going there...

    The Concerned Alumni of Princeton were already brought up on issues regarding the unfair treatment of minorities and women. They were also known to be firmly against Affirmative Action and co-education. Questions were formed because Alito was also against Affirmative Action and controversy sparked over whether or not his influence may have had any impact. But an extensive search of CAP documentation demanded by Ted Kennedy on January 11, 2006 showed there was no connection between Alito and the organization's actions. And that was the end of it.

    If it's just about politics and ONLY that along, then yes I agree with you to some level, although it's rather obvious why John Roberts, a moderate, would favor better than Samuel Alito, a conservative, with a Democrat.

    But if it's about ideology, I disagree. You can clearly see the motives of both parties in each case and see where decisions and lines were drawn. You can see how in the case of Alito that we found out that there was no connection between he and the Concerned Alumni of Princeton and it was not even brought up again. However, we can see how many times Jeff Sessions and the rest of the Republicans on the judiciary committee brought up the "wise Latina" comment even after she explained herself.

    I'm not going to pretend to be color blind just to find everyone guilty of something. I do it so I can hold every individual responsible for their own actions. I'll never say that all Republicans are racists, the same way that I wouldn't say that all Democrats are trustworthy. But these particular conservatives on the Senate Judiciary Committe have their obvious issues with Sotomayor and her race, and we shouldn't ignore that just so we can paint a bunch of people we may not trust with a broad, generalizing brush. That doesn't make us any better than the ones doing the initial hating.


    Well, I don't trust many politicians either. But I do like to have a good reason for it. :biggrin1:
     
    #15 B_VinylBoy, Jul 29, 2009
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2009
  16. Notaguru2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    The last three Justices have nearly been confirmed by straight party line votes. This seems to be business as usual.
     
  17. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,390
    Likes Received:
    2,130
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis

    We are what? 4 YEARS away from another election. And its easy to be tied with Mr Nobody. This person can be your fantasy lover however it's a real person that has to be nominated. And the republicans have nothing but theocrat and plutocrat wackos in the party. Once Mr or Mrs Nobody is nominated expect the fantasy to end. Palin is their 'star'. Need anyone say more?
     
  18. Notaguru2

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,541
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Charleston, SC

    Silly wabbit, you know you can't say stuff like that without a link. Pony up. And, what is a generic vote? To have a poll, you have to pose a question, Einstein. Who was running against who? House seats? (GOP is in no-man's land right now) Senate seats? lol Presidential election?

    I suspect you're full of bullshit is what I think.
     
  19. b.c.

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    9,307
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,687
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home

    Well, I had hoped for a show of more bipartisanship and fairness from the right, but it wasn't to be.

    Imo, the most significant thing that Obama can take from this vote, from the tactics being employed to defeat health care reform, and from other events since his presidency is that the right couldn't give a flying fuck about bipartisanship. His hope for it only a pipedream.

    It's now apparent that they're out to undermine him every step of the way. I mean, it'd be ONE thing if the confirmation of Sotamayor would've meant a shift in the court's balance. The one Republican who voted to confirm her acknowledged that her joining the court would result in no change.

    But these other cheeky fuckers didn't even want that! It's their way or the highway.

    Well, hope they can thumb a ride.
     
  20. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home
    actually, Sargon, we are under 16 months away from the next election...:rolleyes:

    the entire house of reps is up for re-election, as it is every two years, and one third of the senate is as well.

    and as bad as the republicans are, they are far from dead...in fact, the far left is doing an absolutely superlative job of resurrecting the GOP, without the GOP having to do anything, luckily for them. The Far Left, finally in charge of the nation, is showing exactly why the far left has not been allowed control over the nation since the Carter years.

    the democrats and Obama are falling across the board in several polls, losing independent support by the day.

    of course, you don't have to believe me, but the numbers say it all


    Pew

    Obama's Ratings Slide Across the Board: Overview - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press

    -

    report on WSJ/NBC

    New poll is bad, bad news for Obama, Democrats | Washington Examiner

    -

    Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

    -



    National Public Rado (NPR) generic ballots (43 dems, 42 reps)

    http://www.npr.org/assets/news/2009/07/28/pollreport.pdf

    -

    GWU/Battleground (43 dems, 40 reps)

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/politics_nation/Battleground 37 GOP Analysis Charts.pdf



    and the fact is, that you know president obama is in trouble, when his approval rating from Gallup(52%), NBC/WSJ (53%), Pew(54%), NPR(53%), GWU(53%), is equal to, or lower than *FOX NEWS* poll results (54%)



    But of course, since you won't read any of us, this may all come as a shock to you one day :rolleyes:
     
Draft saved Draft deleted