Monday, August 3, 2009

More Lunacy: McCain Thought Palin Was Fit for VP, But That Sotomayor Unfit for SCOTUS

Interesting: Senator John McCain has decided to vote against Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Previously, I defended McCain and Palin (when appropriate), but this decision is indefensible. According to McCain's decision making, Palin was qualified for the job of Vice President, but Sotomayor is unfit for the Supreme Court. Will the madness ever end?


Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

I supported Mac and Sarah. And I agree. It's indefensible.

No... the madness will never end.


Stray Yellar Dawg? said...

Here's a thought: maybe he is TRYING to help the Dems in 2010?

I just can't see any other rationale???

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

This is madness. And it will not end. And I do not know what he's doing. Is he running for Senate again?

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hutchinson: "And I do not know what he is doing":

a) McC is a politician, quite fond of the spotlight, as his teethmarks on it show. He is indeed running for the Senate in 2012, and I don't doubt he nurtures fantasies of being the Prez nominee in 2016.

b) His decision is as defensible as The One's voting against John Roberts for Chief Justice. viz, Senators can vote any dam way they like. If this means it is time to pay back SS for The One's unprincipled vote against Roberts, that's the way it goes. I think a vote against Sotomayor is the only vote possible. She does not have a good record that I can see, and my repeated requests to you for opinions her clerks have written for her that you think show a sound, capable judge at work have gone unanswered. What FEDERAL REPORTS or FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT citations with SS's name attached to them can you offer as evidence of SS's greatness?

also vote against her because SS lied in her testimony to the Senate. Remember, The One voted against Roberts because of those 5% of cases where a judge's heart and empathy must come into play. The One doubted Roberts's "heart" in those cases, and hence voted against Roberts. Since then, The One has prominently bawled that EMPATHY IS THE TOUCHSTONE for judicial nominees. Well how did SS meet this challenge? She met it by doing a perfect John "I'm just an umpire applying the law to the facts" Roberts impression to the Senate committee, wearing out six pairs of tap-dancing shoes while doing so. So either she lied to The One in becoming a nominee, or she lied to the Senate in her testimony. We both are sure she lied to the Senate. This is why DJ readers did not see any coruscations from you on SS's sudden conversion to Scalian/Robertsian styles of High Court judging.

To be sure, SS is hardly alone in lying to the Senate. Robert Bork is a poster boy of the hazards of candor, of saying what you really mean. Clarence "I never discussed abortion until my Supreme Court hearings" Thomas and John "I'm just an umpire calling them like I see them" Roberts are examples of successful lying (fibbing in Roberts's case.) SS, being of dubious character, took the oath, promptly crossed her fingers behind her back, and threw out enough fish stories to justify her arrest by any game warden in the country. It, and the 60 Senator Express, worked; short of nuclear armageddon, she'll don the James Clark McReynolds robes and provide conservatives years of examples of ineptness, witlessness, and thumb-on-the-scales judging. What a show!

c) Given that, why doesn't McC accept the inevitable and nod SS in, holding his nose? For years, the Right has done this. See: Ginsberg, J. (96-3 vote in the Senate) or Breyer, J. (87-9.) What did this graciousness get the Right? It got them Roberts (78-22) and Alito (58-42.) No, graciousness gets the Right nothing. Time to start marking up Left nominees the way Saul Alinsky & Co. have been doing as standard practice. I regret such tactics are necessary, but after all, the Supreme Court has long ceased to be a neutral tribunal, and has cancerously morphed into a supra-Legislature and Executive, always being pulled to the left, for all the efforts of GOP presidents.

That's why McC is voting against SS.

Sincerely yours,
Gregory Koster

Headmistress, zookeeper said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Headmistress, zookeeper said...

Sorry, I left out something I meant to say so I deleted and am reposting:

I don't see the point to McCain opposing Sotomayor, but I also think comparing his support for Palin to his opposition to Sotomayor is comparing apples to apples.

Palin was and is at least as qualified as Obama for the office for which she was running. Nothing that could be said against her experience and qualifications couldn't also be said about him, and he was running for the top of the ticket (and put a man I believe has the signs of the early stages of dementia in the second place).

The qualifications for the Supreme Court justice are different,
But he's not opposing Sotomayor because he considers she is unqualified and doesn't have the experience for the job- he is opposing her because he believes her judicial philosophy is incompatible with the Constitution and it seems to me that his 'no' vote is consistent with his currently stated views of the Constitution- “Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government." He believes her to be a judicial activist, which isn't the same thing as not having the experience or knowledge for the job.

You, I think have a different view of the Constitution and your support of Sotomayor is consistent with that view.

What I can't figure out is how McCain's current claim for what he believes about judicial activism and the Constitution can be reconciled to his past behavior:
There's what Matt Welch calls his decade long attack on the individual. there's McCain-Feingold, a glob of spit in the face of everybody who actually respects freedom of speech, there's the infamous 'gang of 14, ' which made it perfectly clear McCain had no interest in seeing to it that judges who respected the Constitution were seated when he was Senator, and is largely the reason why I didn't consider him trustworthy as President and didn't vote for him.

I think his so-called 'maverick' status is simply another word for contrary- he mistakes contrariness for independence of mind and this is just another example of it. His views and practices are often internally contradictory since they are, it seems to me, more based on his weathervane contrariness.

Real Time Analytics