Up is now Down: "Graham hailed for comments, vote on Sotomayor"

[stevedeshazer]

http://www.kansascity.com/444/story/1353614.html

<snip>

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., drew praise from across the country Wednesday for his speech explaining his Senate Judiciary Committee vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Graham, a second-term senator and military lawyer from Seneca, S.C., was the only Republican to back President Barack Obama's high court pick Tuesday in the judiciary panel's 13-6 confirmation vote.

"I gladly give her my vote because I think she meets the qualifications test that was used in (confirming Justices Antonin) Scalia and (Ruth Bader) Ginsburg," Graham said.

Editorial writers from newspapers as diverse as the Greenville (S.C.) News and the Los Angeles Times said Graham was eloquent and gutsy at the hearing.

"It was a profile in statesmanship, if not courage," wrote the Los Angeles Times.

</snip>

That's funny, I thought he behaved like a disgusting maggot working both sides of the fence.

Amazing how quickly the "news media" forgot what Little Huckleberry Hound Dog said a couple of weeks ago:

"If I'd said such things about the superiority of a Caucasian male, I'd have had my head handed to me."

Right.

[elocs]

1. Let's honestly look at the quote and substitute "Caucasian male" for "Latina woman".

"I would hope that a wise Caucasian male, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life".

Your assessment of Graham may be accurate, but to be honest, if he had said the above there would have been a huge uproar here at DU and elsewhere. He would have had his ass handed to him.

My own senator Feingold voted for the nomination of John Roberts and it ultimately seems he is in agreement with Graham that if a person is qualified, then they should be confirmed, politics aside. Progressives need to look to the future because Graham's stance will be brought up the next time a conservative is nominated with whom they have big problems with but is otherwise well qualified for the Supreme Court.

Are we saying that when a president is elected to the victor goes the spoils only when it is a Democrat?

[hfojvt]

3. I could not figure out how Roberts was considered qualified

It seemed to me that Roberts had the least experience of anybody nominated to the court in the last 50 years and not only was he nominated to the court, he was made Chief Justice. And please do not mention President Taft. Taft had 13 years of judicial experience compared to just two years for Roberts.

Feingold said he was impressed because Roberts is really, really smart, but you sure cannot tell that from his SCOTUS decisions.

Sotomayor is far more moderate than Roberts is, so I am not sure how liberals are getting any spoils here. To be comparable to Roberts, Obama should have appointed the head lawyer from the ACLU or the SPLC.

[elocs]

8. I think the bottom line here is that if a nominee is qualified, then they should be confirmed.

They should certainly be subjected to hard questioning, but neither Democrats nor Republicans should refuse to confirm an otherwise qualified candidate just because they do not like their politics. I think that is also the stance that Senator Feingold takes.

[stevedeshazer]

4. 'Are we saying that when a president is elected to the victor goes the spoils only when it is a Dem'

No, we are not.

I don't, however, recall Sen. Feingold being 'showered with praise' for voting for John Roberts.

[elocs]

7. Feingold did not vote for confirmation to be showered with praise,

but rather to do what he saw was the right thing in the same way that he voted against the Patriot Act. He doesn't jump through anyone's hoops which is why he will never rise above being a U.S. senator, but here in WI I am sure he will be reelected quite handily each time he runs.

[Luminous Animal]

5. If Graham had said that but had prefaced it with this...

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment...

And now the punchline...

I would hope that a wise Caucasian male, with the richness of his experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life".


We all would have laughed our ass off.

[elocs]

6. You insert a long preface before the altered Sotomayor quote,

while I simply substituted "Caucasian male" for "Latina woman". Not exactly apples and apples there.

[bluestateguy]

2. He talked the talk and then didn't walk the walk

If he thinks I'm going to shower him with praise, he'll be waiting a long time.