News on Sotormayor, Cheney, (Maybe) Palin Coming Up
This last week was relatively slow in political news. There was speculation about Sarah Palin’s motives when she announced her resignation on July 3, but other than that, nothing huge. So of course the week I won’t be able to blog is the week when all the news is bound to break. Here’s a quick teaser of what’s coming up this week:
More Speculation About Sarah Palin: As if enough wasn’t going to happen this week, the on-going Sarah Palin resignation saga will continue. If some people get their way, the very so imminent indictment will be announced and Palin will go down in flames. Or she’ll pursue presidential ambitions. Or create a third party. Or maybe all of these things at the same time. Who knows?
Dick Cheney’s Secret CIA Program: In another continuing saga, one about the CIA alerting key members of Congress to its activities, Reuters reports that former Vice President Dick Cheney allegedly ordered the CIA to keep secret a program to kill or capture members of Al-Qaeda. The reasons for the order are unclear at this point. The issue this time probably won’t be about what was done (because who’s seriously going to object to the goal of the program?), but how it was handled. Expect the Democrats to get all upset again over “being misled.”
The Sotomayor Hearings: Perhaps some of the biggest news will be the Senate hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Is she a far-leftist whose votes will bring us ever closer to the Obamameister’s goal of socialism or is she just a squishy moderate with a flair of identity politicking? Is she a racist of the AmeriKKKa variety, or was she simply mistaken in the Ricci ruling? How about abortion? Will the Democrats hammer her on this? And will they stump around Capitol Hill calling on on their fellow members to give up-or-down votes? You’ll find out this week.
Even though I’ll be away this week, I’ll try to keep up on the news, and provide some Tweets on my thoughts (see the sidebar).
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
huge surprise that Sotomayor will be up on the stand – with racist worries
Low and behold out comes concerns about Cheney.
and to add additional deflection to his failure for Domestic Economics – out comes a “review” of Bush policies on the Taliban.
Just think how many lefties will be going – ooo look what the right hand is doing….
There is no basis to call Sotomayor a racist – the supreme court is ardently right-wing and activist, ready to ideologically revamp legislation that has stood the test of time, so compared to them she’s not further from some imagined reasonable center.
The idea that some smooth operators decided to do the legally inescapable thing and have a gander at the previous administration’s record in order to take attention from Sotomayor (who will be approved anyway with quite little fuzz) is pretty comical.
But it’s funny how commentators who rarely challenged the right-wing activism and careless agendas of the SCOTUS before now have decided Sotomayor is a threat to the integrity and thoughtfulness of the institution. Please. Compared with the decisions of the SCOTUS in recent times Sotomayor is mellow at worst. But when the goalposts are ceaselessly pushed to the right she might look a bit scary to some who only listen to the tendencies of the blogosphere.
Care to even attempt to back that up?
You may find it comical, but the timing is ever so – Obama-like.
Once again – back it up. Since we haven’t had a far right wing nominee – good luck but do back up what you are claiming – or try too.
You got your homework cut out.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=63a3f690-9b97-46a1-aa78-659ef7f8f124
“What the court was saying is that it wanted to revisit a 19-year old precedent that barred such corporate interference in the electoral process. That 1990 ruling upheld what has been the law of the land since 1947, when the Taft-Hartley law banned independent expenditures by both corporations and labor unions.
To get a sense of just how extreme (and, yes, activist) such an approach would be, consider that laws restricting corporate activity in elections go all the way back to the Tillman Act of 1907
It is truly frightening that a conservative Supreme Court is seriously considering overturning a century-old tradition at the very moment when the financial crisis has brought home the terrible effects of excessive corporate influence on politics.”
That’s just one example. The “conservative” (but judicially liberal) members of SCOTUS are ready to pursue right-wing wet dreams despite the principle of letting previous decisions and legislation rest. David Souter, labeled a liberal, was actually a real judicial conservative who let skepticism and the text of the law steer his actions. The labeling and warnings against Sotomayor are mostly hypocritical and skewed in nature. The people criticizing her has not had problems with the activism and agendas of the irresponsible conservative members of SCOTUS. Their authority on matters of judicial and legislative prudence is doubtful.
“You may find it comical, but the timing is ever so – Obama-like.”
You honestly think Obama would stick out his neck in order to get the approval of impatient progressives and left-wing blogs?
LOL! I said back it up Garland, not cut and paste left wing propaganda. but the fact that it frightens you is extremely good to hear.
The SCOTUS has gotten more liberal since GWB took office.
If you recall we had the left crying that SCOTUS during 2000 election was extreme right wing. Later they said it was perfectly balanced court when Roberts was nominated. (nobody got appointed inbetween).
And here you go – take your time.
http://www.scotusscores.com/
As is proven – over the entire history of the SCOTUS – it has been just barely right of center.
Just like America.
He’s trying to deflect the attention (again) from his failed policies.
It’s pretty darn obvious.
Should probably write down the moment the Lefties said it was a perfectly balanced Court. It was one of the rare times they were honest and correct with the American public.
The SCOTUS has gotten more liberal since GWB took office.
Yes, Alito and Roberts are much more liberal than Rehnquist and O’Connors.
O’Connor’s voting record was as a moderate or swing vote. Is anyone calling Alito a moderate?
This is from 2005.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html?_r=1&scp=9&pagewanted=print
“One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more “liberal” – Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens – vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled “conservative” vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.”
Yeah, so the ones with the agendas appear to be the right-wingers. They are willing to overturn precedents and standing legislation in order to make the GOP purr – hypocrites. In short, they’re being liberal with the law in order to be conservative. The liberals are merely “liberal” because they uphold what is already there.
(Edited to remove personal attacks)
No, this is how it’s going to work out. Franken is going to laud Sotomayor while criticizing judges the right wing likes, she’s going to be appointed for life and she will be superior to Scalia or Rehnquist in the sense that matters.
“For all the talk of “modesty” and “restraint,” the right wing Justices of the Court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections, and discovering new constitutional rights: the infamous Ledbetter decision, for instance; the Louisville and Seattle integration cases; the first limitation on Roe v. Wade that outright disregards the woman’s health and safety; and the DC Heller decision, discovering a constitutional right to own guns that the Court had not previously noticed in 220 years. Some “balls and strikes.” Over and over, news reporting discusses “fundamental changes in the law” wrought by the Roberts Court’s right wing flank. The Roberts Court has not kept the promises of modesty or humility made when President Bush nominated Justices Roberts and Alito.”
“Conservative” judges being liberal with the law, basically going against the grain of the very philosophy of conservatism in order to satisfy sheer bias, applying social engineering and agendas to Americans. So, are you going to relent and admit that I was right or shall we keep this dance going?
If you bring something tangible to the table to look at we can look at it. You’ll have to get off the loony left’s websites though.
Back it up Rudi – or just another drive by partisan hack job of yours?
(Edited to remove personal attacks)