It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republicans rebelling against party's attacks on Sotomayor

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Republicans rebelling against party's attacks on Sotomayor


www.latimes.com

Reporting from Washington -- While prominent conservative activists are hurling epithets at President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, more and more Republicans are telling them to chill out.

Senior senators and GOP strategists are trying to steer the debate over Sonia Sotomayor away from the apocalyptic battle cries of conservative icons Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh in favor of a more measured conversation about the legal philosophy and qualifications of the first Latino to be nominated to the court.



GOP looks for alternate routes to block Sotomayor's path
Sotomayor nomination
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Apparently Sen. Cornyn is trying to be a voice of reason in the GOP. While the extreme right wing is pandering to the party faithful.

I think that Cornyn knows that without the Hispanic vote the GOP is in real danger of becoming the minority party forever.

As I recall the GOP did best when the anti abortion platform appealed to Latino Catholics.

To alienate a large and powerful voting block seems foolhardy on the Part of the right wing.

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Yes . . . pandering for votes


Pathetic, as usual. If people like your stand, they will vote for you. There should be no need to try and "win" any votes.

They should state what they believe in, and leave it to us.

This lady needs to be blocked from being on the highest court in the land. SHe has no place there.



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
But does this disagreement on the attacks on Sotomayor signify a rift in the GOP? Can the Republicans be an effective force is they are constantly bickering about the right tactics to win support of the electorate?



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Do the research into what this woman stands for, and has built her legal basis for the majority of her opinions and rulings on... It goes all the way back to Princeton.

I'll give you a hint: Disarming the American public. Couple her with Eric Holder, the gun grabbing AG, and you've got a knockout combo for Gov't. v. We the People/ Second Amendment.

Seriously... Look at her record. Abortion is not the agenda. Her membership in La Rasa isn't the issue (if proven... I haven't seen it with my own eyes yet)...

This woman is coming to ensure We the People are disarmed.

March in the stormtroopers, this town is being most uncooperative... (cue sound of jackboots and Stukka dive bombers track).

EDIT: Saw the other post by whaaa... PARTY IS NOT THE AGENDA!!! (Sorry, forgot that one... The biggest distraction of all!)

[edit on 29/5/09 by cbianchi513]



posted on May, 29 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The usual Republican suspects who long to be loved by the Democrats and the media are at it again.

How about this advice for Republicans. Go out and call her extremely qualified...then vote against her. That is exactly what Obama did when he voted against Alito and Roberts. Then all they have to do is say they were following the standards set forth by Obama himself.

All kidding aside. Sotomayor is a flat out racist, and an opponent to the 2nd Amendment.

Republicans better not roll over for Obama. He selected the most divisive pick on purpose. Let's make him pull out his backup pick.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
But does this disagreement on the attacks on Sotomayor signify a rift in the GOP? Can the Republicans be an effective force is they are constantly bickering about the right tactics to win support of the electorate?


You aren't serious, are you? I mean, you aren't just now noticing a rift in the republican party, are you? That party was subjected to a hostile takeover by the NeoCronies... er, umm, I mean 'NeoCons' some time ago, and I won't say they've been steering the party to the left, but they ARE steering it toward a huge, centralized government based on buying votes with bailouts and handouts, and taking the cash to do it from the rest of us at an exorbitant rate. Sounds mighty democratic to me. That's why I left the party, and continually scream that I don't see enough difference between the two parties to spit at.

Ms Sotomayor's difficulties with firearms are worrisome. Not because she thinks we shouldn't have them, for I never asked her permission in the first place, and don't plan on asking in the future. No, it's worrisome because of her stand that the US Constitution doesn't apply to states or localities, as if they weren't part of the union. That seems problematic. The document itself is pretty clear on what applies where. For instance, it says CONGRESS shall not do this or shall do that. THOSE powers are clearly restricted to, or limitations on, the federal government. Other areas are not specific, and so apply more broadly. For instance the second and fourth amendments are both applicable everywhere, as they aren't restricted by the language to the federal level. So when they allow a locality to violate the second amendment, a precedent is set. What then when your local police chief or governor decides it's ok to kick in your door, and ransack your house without a warrant, or even probable cause, maybe haul you off to jail without due process? Remember, the precedent has already been set. I view that as problematic, but I don't know if you do. Perhaps not.

Further, the SCOTUS is tasked with examining issues of constitutionality. That would imply that those justices should have a working knowledge of the Constitution. So far, her rulings have amply demonstrated that she does not possess such a knowledge. If she did, 60% of those rulings would not have been overturned at higher levels. That, too, seems problematic.

Her gender and race have no bearing whatsoever on her ability, and shouldn't even be considered, but for some reason they are. I hear Obambies constantly trumpeting gender and race, as if those were the determining factors. She has done it herself. I would think Constitutional knowledge should trump whether one goes to the men's room or the ladies' room to relieve oneself, or whether one was born poor, or the shade of one's skin. I hear not a peep out of the Obambies concerning her Constitutional knowledge, but they positively gush concerning the irrelevant factors. Perhaps they are aware of her lack of qualification, and are trying to smother it over with irrelevancies?

I have NO respect for ANYONE who would support a candidate because he 'looks like me' and not bother to check the candidate's qualifications for the job. I have even less respect for politicians who pander to such shallow cretins.

nenothtu out



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:26 AM
link   
Smart Republicans are probably happy with this choice because they know her gun disarmament agenda is highly unpopular and will win them the next election.

I'm guessing they think she's going to shoot herself and the Dems in the foot.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flighty
. . .
I'm guessing they think she's going to shoot herself and the Dems in the foot.




Nice one!

It can be argued that Obama won because of his race . . .

Just sayin'



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Gad, as a woman I was appalled at Glenn Beck's projecting onto Obama the words "chick lady"! "Chick lady". He reminded me of a weird/inebriated relative making a buffoon of himself at a wedding reception. Then the lowbrow antics of another man dancing with a flower in his mouth, mocking an erudite woman. I would say this nation is continuing its downward spiral into looking more like a nation of philistines each day, but that might be interpreted by too many as a Biblical reference.
God, I miss Bill Buckley.




top topics



 
4

log in

join