In the end, she ascends
The GOP's minimal options for blocking Sotomayor
In the end, she ascends
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
I'm sticking with the Sonia Sotomayor story for the rest of the week, in case anyone wants to tune out now. As with all Supreme Court nominations, the initial flow of news is simply too copious to ignore. But here's the bottom line on this nominee:
Barring some stunningly adverse and unforeseen revelation (such as, she employed an illegal immigrant and didn't tell the White House; or, she didn't pay her taxes and didn't tell the White House), it's a virtual certainty that she will be confirmed. The Republican right will slash away, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh will stay in hyperbolic overdrive, conservative legal groups will raise a lot of money, GOP senators will furrow their brows and ask probing questions in committee, but in the end, she ascends.
This process will take months, but the numbers are inescapable. She needs only 51 votes on the Senate floor, and there are 59 sitting Democratic senators. She can be blocked from the floor via parliamentary maneuver if the Republicans stage a filibuster, but sustaining it would require 41 senators. Good luck with that. There are only 40 Republican senators. Would the two moderate Republican women from the blue state of Maine vote to sustain a filibuster? Would Republican Mel Martinez, an Hispanic who has already warned the Republicans about the political hazards of blocking Sotomayor, vote to sustain a filibuster?
And would other Republican senators dare try to mount a filibuster, and risk being exposed as hypocrites - given the fact that, back in 2005, so many of them publicly assailed the tactic of blocking judicial nominees via filibuster?
Here's Nevada Sen. John Ensign, at the time: "Filibustering of judicial nominations is an unprecedented intrusion into the longstanding practice of the Senate's approval of judges...the filibuster has never been used in partisan fashion to block and up-or-down vote on someone who has the support of the majority of the Senate."
And New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg: "Judicial nominations have the right to an up or down vote in the Senate." Filibustering "is inconsistent with over 200 years of tradition in the Senate and distorts our system of checks and balances."
And Louisiana Sen. David Vitter: A judicial nominee can't "even get an up or down vote on the floor? That's not fair. That's not fair in the minds of ordinary Americans."
And Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch: "What's wrong with taking a (floor) vote up or down? The Senate can't confirm nominees if senators can't vote for them."
And Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby: "I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed.
And Texas Sen. John Cornyn: Citing "200 years of consistent Senate and constitutional tradition," he supported "an up or down vote for all presidents' nominees, whether they be Republican or Democrat."
And Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell (the current minority leader): "Let's get back to the way the Senate operated for over 200 years, up or down votes on the president's nominee, no matter who the president is, no matter who's in control of the Senate. That's the way we need to operate."
More than a dozen others said much the same thing.
Actually, you have to feel a little sorry for those guys. They rushed to assail the evils of the filibuster in 2005 only because the outgunned Democratic senators were using the tactic to block 10 Bush judicial nominees. (And, absolutely, the hypocrisy goes both ways. Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, while defending his party's efforts to block those Bush picks for the lower courts, insisted in 2005 that the filibuster tactic "has been essential to America's checks and balances"...whereas, back in 1995, he had assailed the filibuster as a "dinasour" and "a relic of the ancient past.")
Nevertheless, these Republicans are all on record defending the sanctity of Senate floor votes; they'd cement their '09 image as the practictioners of No if they tried to block Sotomayor with the filibuster tactic they so recently condemned. They're free, of course, to fume about her on cable TV and in the blogosphere during the summer season, but when it comes time to count the votes, their success options will be minimal.
-------
I just wrote this freelance piece about the demise of the newspaper foreign correspondent, a trend I briefly mentioned here a few months back. Granted, this journalistic topic seems unconnected to national politics. However, as the best TV series in history (that would be The Wire) makes abundantly clear, everything is connected.
The strategy of blocking Miguel Estrada 8 years ago has paid great dividends for the Democrats. They suffered no backlash, and prevented his ascension to the high court. Instead, we have Sam Alito. If not for the Dems blocking of Estrada, there would be no discussion of Sotomayor. We'd be talking about some left handed lesbian amputee of Asian descent being the nominee, to try to score points with other voting blocs. Sotomayor will get pressed on her quirky judicial philosophy, and she'll have the opportunity to explain the context of her racial statements, and she'll be confirmed 98-2. One of the dissenters will be Ted Kennedy because he'll press the wrong button. Once on the court, Sotomayor will make an apt replacement for Souter's weak legal reasoning and Alito will make her look foolish.— Mr. Smith
tom: here are the stories behind the quotes in context you asked for. The "policy" quote : http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/26/republican-national-committee-republican/rnc-claims-supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-s/ ... and the latina women comment http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/may/27/judicial-confirmation-network/Sotomayor-comment-Latina-women-versus-white-men/— still_independent- Still Independent- Isn't your remark a bit disengenious as Bush's nominees were not given an up or down vote because of the threat of a fillibuster?
- tom: and as for reversals, according to the best records I could find, Alito had 100% of the majority rulings he authored that were reviewed by the Supreme Court reversed. Of course, much like the Sotomayor statistics, it's meaningless. He had two reviewed, both were reversed. Sotomayor, at the appellate level, had six reviewed. She had three reversed, two upheld, and one is pending. For the record, the Supreme Court's reversal rate in 2008 was 85 percent, 61 percent in 2007, and 72 percent in 2006.— still_independent
- swedesboromike: No, not at all. The "Gang of Fourteen" existed to prevent the possibility of a filibuster of supreme court nominees. It was true of some judicial nominees, but NOT supreme court nominees.— still_independent
- There are some polling issues going on for liberals. That is why Richard Poll-man is not including them in his column. According to Ramussen's daily tracking poll the numbers who strong disapprove and strongly disapprove of Obama has closed steadily. His strongly approve and somewhat approve rating is down to 56%. By 11% the Country favors keeping Guantanomo open. And only 45% believe Sotomayer should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Combine this with the bluster from Korea, record numbers of unemployed, and a floudnering economy I do think that most of what you are going to get for liberals for the forseeable futre is racist accusations. The more they can keep away from reality the better off they will be in terms of trying to minimize declining poll numbers.
- Still Independent- the threat of a fillibuster held many of Bush's court nominees at bay for years. You are arguing a technicality. Just for Shi*s and giggles I would have made them all sleep cots 24/7 and actually fillibustered.
- CD75: this is a stupid point to argue, but you're you, so why not. The usage of Hispanic (and it's derivation) to describe the Iberian peninsula has not been in common use for hundreds of years. Other government agencies, like the OMB, specifically excludes Portugal from "Hispanic". Other government agencies actually exclude Spain. The US census lumps hispanic and Spanish together, but treats them separately. What's your point? I'll go with the modern dictionary, thank you. "adj. - 1. Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America. 2. Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture. n. - 1. A Spanish-speaking person. 2. A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent." Ask a person of Portuguese descent if they would ever call themselves "Hispanic". The first thing they would point out is that they don't speak Spanish, a general requirement for "Hispanic".— still_independent
- swedeboromike: maybe we're in violent agreement. Yes, several of Bush'd judicial nominees were held at bay. However, none of his SUPREME COURT niminees were, and that's what we were talking about.— still_independent
- CD75: your solution to North Korea is to tell the Russians and Chinese that they have to "act like leaders"? That's your "act tough" plan? Wow.— still_independent
- tom: you'd set our relations with Japan back many years even offering them nukes. The Japanese public remains very strongly behind the "Three Non-Nuclear Principles", adopted by the diet in 1967. That being said, Japan could have nukes in a few months if they wanted to. The have literally tons of Plutonium, a uranium enrichment plant, and the technology to do it - they just don't because there people are vehemently against it. Oh and by the way, we'd be violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty bu giving Japan and South Korea nukes.— still_independent
- I'm glad I don't go through life as angry as some of the people on here. Congratulations Sotomayor, you've earned this.— TU Owls
Comment removed.- tom says to counter North Korea, Obama "should offer nukes to South Korea and Japan." tom, you such a wuss! He should MAKE South Korea and Japan TAKE nukes! Get some cajones, man!— Djoko Pritza
- still_independent, I have to correct you - you missed the most belligerent part of CD's proposed fierce and powerful response to North Korea - he thinks we should tell them it will "greatly affect the USA's relationship with them". That is ever so much more scary than Hillary Clinton threatening "serious consequences", don't you think? And here I was thinking CD was going to come out for first-strike nuclear-armed ICBMs...where's the value in being a wingnut if you're not willing to back it up with insane behavior? He needs to take some lessons from the Cheney/Bush administration...— yoda
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
