2009.07.05
Editorial: Senate shouldn't delay confirmation vote
Senate shouldn't dally on confirmation
Ricci ruling offers no reason not to confirm Sotomayor, and other court action, or lack thereof, argues for a swift confirmation vote.
Last week's Supreme Court reversal of an appeals court decision joined by Judge Sonia Sotomayor will make thin gruel indeed if conservative Republicans hope to dish it up to argue against Senate approval of President Obama's high court nominee. In fact, another of Monday's court actions makes it imperative that the Senate act quickly on her confirmation. If the hearings, set for two weeks from now, turn up no more serious objections than already have surfaced, the Senate should hold a confirmation vote.
Read more.
RSS feed 
Demcrats in control: Senate shouldn't delay confirmation vote
Republicans in control: Senate shouldn't rush confirmation
Comment by Henry — July 5, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Republicans in control: Learn to like it suckers!
Democrats in control: You're not playing fair!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 5, 2009 @ 7:27 pm
I think we've learned in recent months hasty government action is almost never a good idea. Let the process follow its normal course, and let all the questions be answered. Don't let recent decisions that appear "too conservative" alter the normal process. Let's make sure we get a sound justice.
Comment by The Professor — July 5, 2009 @ 10:18 pm
We'll never have "sound justice" as long as judges are appointed by politicians.
Comment by Ed H — July 5, 2009 @ 10:42 pm
as always, obama thinks everything needs to be done NOW, its an emergency, they need to take anothe rlook at this lady and her opinions
Comment by pammala — July 6, 2009 @ 9:26 am
yeah we have election cycles of 1.5 years for people serving 4 years..yet a lifetime appointment should be signed, sealed delivered in 3 months.
Comment by BUD — July 6, 2009 @ 11:32 am
BUD, is that so out of the ordinary?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 6, 2009 @ 11:57 am
Sandi..more importantly..right and/or logical?
Comment by BUD — July 6, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
I absolutely agree, Professor. Let the process run its course. Any time someone is pushing to get something done quickly makes me wonder what they are trying to hide.
Comment by Patrick — July 6, 2009 @ 12:28 pm
It's not Congress's job to judge her opinions. Surprisingly there are some still in office that aren't attorneys, and in any case they wouldn't be privy to the details of the cases she ruled on.
Their only job is to determine her qualifications for the job, and all the grandstanding and pontificating only serves to let a bunch of blow hards "go on the record" about whatever their pet issue is. Her eventual confirmation won't be affected, and the only real result will be the wasted time and energy.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Glad to see that you all are now for the right and logical way of doing things.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 6, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Kristen, why woould members of the judicial commitee not be privy to the details of cases ahe may have ruled on?
Comment by BUD — July 6, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Really Bud...assuming they were not sitting in the courtroom listening to argument, you're willing to believe they'd read the pages and pages of transcripts?
Come on.
Comment by Kristen — July 6, 2009 @ 2:33 pm
Kristen..the SENATORS MIGHT not..but their staffers sure will..especially on decisions later overturned.
Comment by BUD — July 6, 2009 @ 4:20 pm
GREAT guest column today from Charles Krauthammer "Conservatives get Activist". I was bowled over and can only add, yeah, what he said! THANKS!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 6, 2009 @ 10:24 pm
Kristen said:
"It's not Congress's job to judge her opinions."
Then what exactly IS Congress' job in the vetting process of justices?
Comment by The Professor — July 7, 2009 @ 7:46 am