Why register with the Steelers Fever Forums?
 • Intelligent and friendly discussions.
 • It's free and it's quick. Always.
 • Enter events in the forums calendar.
 • Very user friendly software.
 • Exclusive contests and giveaways.

 Donate to Steelers Fever, Click here
 Our 2013 Goal: $400.00 - To Date: $00.00 (00.00%)
 Home | Forums | Editorials | Shop | Tickets | Downloads | Contact Pittsburgh Steelers Forum Feed Not Just Fans. Hardcore Fans.

Go Back   Steelers Fever Forums > Miscellaneous > Locker Room


Steelers Fever Fan Shop

Doc's Sports Get FREE NFL Picks and College Football picks as well as Football Lines like live NFL Lines and updated NFL Power Rankings all at Doc's Sports Service.

Steelers Steelers - Referees    Browns

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2009, 09:53 AM   #1
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default GREAT Op/Ed Piece on Sotomayer Confirmation Hearings...

This is probably the plainest spoken common sense piece I've ever seen written on the subject of partisan politics during the Judicial Confirmation process.

http://www.ohio.com/editorial/commentary/50919982.html

In Obama's own words, a precedent to sink Sotomayor By Ruth Marcus
Washington Post

Published on Thursday, Jul 16, 2009
WASHINGTON: The hardest question in the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor is one the nominee can't answer.



Not because she doesn't know the law or can't offer a satisfactory explanation for a phrase in a speech. Rather, it's because this question doesn't really involve her, although it has everything to do with the number of votes she will get.



The question concerns the degree of deference that senators should show to a president's choice for the Supreme Court. More specifically, why should Republican senators weighing President Obama's nominee give him more leeway to name justices to his liking than then-Sen. Obama was willing to accord President Bush when he voted against both Bush nominees?





As the hearings got under way, Republican senator after Republican senator raised this question. Democrat after Democrat ignored it.
South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham put it best: ''You're probably going to decide cases differently than I would,'' he told Sotomayor. ''So that brings me back to, what am I supposed to do, knowing that?''





The Constitution provides that the president appoint justices ''by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.'' So there is constitutional space, and, indeed, a duty, for the Senate to consider not only technical qualifications but judicial philosophy and the overall balance of the high court.
The fact that senators are weighing a lifetime appointment rather than a Cabinet post dials up the intensity with which the Senate should scrutinize and judge a nominee.





In short, advice and consent doesn't mean roll over and play dead.
At the same time, as Graham put it, ''elections matter.'' If the test for confirmation were simply whether the senator would have chosen the same nominee if he or she were president, the answer would be a pre-ordained, partisan vote. This would be merely a nuisance in the case of a Senate controlled by the same party as the president. It would be a recipe for gridlock in situations of divided government.





Add to this constitutional muddle the fact that the current president the first senator to reach that office in nearly half a century is in the unusual position of having voted against confirming two Supreme Court nominees.
The sweeping phrases of the Constitution provide scant guidance about the degree of deference that presidential nominees should be accorded, but senators considering President Obama's choice have Sen. Obama's example to guide them.




In 2005, Obama said he was ''sorely tempted'' to vote to confirm John Roberts as chief justice, saying that ''there is absolutely no doubt in my mind'' that Roberts was intellectually and temperamentally qualified for the job.
But, Obama added, ''what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy.''





You don't have to be cynical to think politics was at play, too; in fact, you just have to read the Washington Post, which reported that Obama's Senate chief of staff, Pete Rouse, warned him that a vote for Roberts could cripple his presidential ambitions.





And it's possible to look at Roberts' performance on the court and say that Obama's worst fears were realized: Roberts is no humble umpire.
But it's also true that Obama's reported remarks to Rouse that if he were president, he wouldn't want his nominees turned down on purely ideological grounds were prescient.





As Graham told Sotomayor, ''I can assure you that if I applied Sen. Obama's standard to your nomination, I wouldn't vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background when it comes to lawyering and judging.''





The judicial confirmation wars are like conflict in the Middle East, with a never-ending cycle of attacks and recriminations over grievances past. Sotomayor ought to be confirmed by an overwhelming vote, and perhaps his colleagues will heed Graham's counsel that ''elections matter.''
Judging from the tone so far, the more likely outcome is a near party-line vote. In that case, the president won't have only himself to blame but he will have himself to blame in part.
Marcus is a Washington Post columnist. She can be e-mailed at marcusr@washpost.com.
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2009, 10:20 AM   #2
SteelersinCA
Team Owner
Supporter
 
SteelersinCA's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 2,537
Gender: Male
Member Number: 9302
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: GREAT Op/Ed Piece on Sotomayer Confirmation Hearings...

She's a Latina, aren't we supposed she has better judicial insight than a white man?
SteelersinCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2009, 01:11 PM   #3
KeiselPower99
Living Legend
 
KeiselPower99's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Parkersburg West Virginia
Posts: 3,583
Gender: Male
Member Number: 8552
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: GREAT Op/Ed Piece on Sotomayer Confirmation Hearings...

Im kinda tired of being told shes a smart latina and deserves the job cause the messiah nominated her. She is as left as you can go and a racist to boot But hey Im white and dont agree with her so I guess Im the racist.
__________________
]
KeiselPower99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2009, 02:11 PM   #4
revefsreleets
Living Legend
 
revefsreleets's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Akron, Ohio Home of LeBron James
Posts: 15,403
Gender: Male
Member Number: 5353
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Re: GREAT Op/Ed Piece on Sotomayer Confirmation Hearings...

Actually she's not that far left on that many things, but there ARE questions. Seriously, what did we expect from Obama? In fact, it could have been FAR worse.

The Dems have the firepower to get her confirmed. It's one liberal for another, and the conservatives still maintain a slim 5/4 advantage, so we're still okay for now...
__________________
Official Steelersfever Arians Nuthugger
revefsreleets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2009, 04:17 PM   #5
Fire Haley
Banned
 

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 10,359
Member Number: 763
Thanks: 53
Thanked 1,098 Times in 768 Posts
Default Re: GREAT Op/Ed Piece on Sotomayer Confirmation Hearings...

It's a dog and pony show.


GOP Won't Block Vote on Sotomayor Nomination

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...071601455.html
Fire Haley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.1 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.0.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Navbar with Avatar by Motorradforum
no new posts