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.
"risk being exposed as hypocrites" - that never seems to deter the repubs.— potus
Am I missing something here? Didn't the Democrats fillibuster Bush's nominees? This game of Democrats and the MSM villifying the opposition is all very silly. I don't doubt she has the votes. I would view the abortion lobby's concern as a ruse. Once again there is way too much concern on the part of the Democrats about what Republicans think. They must be looking at some alarming polling data on the issues and decided to circulate the talking point memos to all surrogates in the media and government to make this appointment the story of the day for as long as possible. Tragically for the Democrats I think they are going to be derailed by the conduct of the North Koreans.
Comment removed.- George Bush was an idiot on North Korea. Obama is now following the same path at a more dire time. History repeats itself. Calling Bush out for his knuckleheadness does not change that fact that Obama is messing this up too and endangering all of us. Obama is the President now. He said his diplomacy would make us safe. The exact opposite is happening. That is because North Korea (and the world) preceive our young President and a wimp.— CD75
- USA#1- There is no good solution for Korea. No one wants to refight that war. China for one would be left with millions of fleeing refugees. We'll probably get more sanction and more UN resolutions. The same things that Clinton and Bush tried are being tried by Obama. Once in a while it's good to take your political hat off. What would your solution be?
- Jananan- How is mentioning a bunch of names prove racism? What is your example? What is your proof?
- Comment removed.
- When Clarence Thomas was nominated we didn't get he's unqualified, we got, he's an uncle tom, he sexually harassed women (totally unfounded), pubic hair on soda cans. Did I miss anything. So please get off your high horses about the GOP, the democrats are no angels.— DadofThree
- Eric in CA: it has been proven that North Korea has sold or shared nuclear technology with Iran and Syria. I am sure that these two fine, stable and honorable countries would never share that info with terrorists. I am also sure that North Korea would never put a bomb on a ship off of the USA and then shoot it into our country, or worse, sneak it into the USA and use a truck. Stop being so naive.— CD75
- CD75- The left wants to avoid all the pressing issues like N.Korea and the economy and use this appointment as some sort of race baiting whipping post. They want Sotomayer, a women who's appointment is certainly assured, to be the story of the day for as long as possible. Right now I have decided that for at least the forseable future all we will get from this regime is cries of racist, racist,racist, racist with some Bush bashing thrown in for good measure.
- Tom: "...since I am just a dumb ignorant conservative." You said it, not me.— Djoko Pritza
- tom, I'll get back to you later on that context (have a ballgame to coach).— Djoko Pritza
- mjp_Pratt: The national conservatives are making an issue of Sotomayor to whip up the base and raise funds. The righties on the site are doing it because they believe it. Sheep.— Djoko Pritza
- Djoko- The righties are pointing to her judicial decisions and public comments from pre-written speeches at Duke Univ. and Cal-Berkely. She believes in judicial activism and racial superiority. Her decision to discrimintate raises concerns of well. I must have missed the part where the left just shut up and confirmed Alito and Roberts. It is all too funny. LMAO
- Mike, that is a tough question. I don’t think China wants all of those refugees. I don’t think with two wars going on that we need a third. China is not going to want our Army and Navy over there. If you take the nut job out, his son may be worse. Some how we need China and Russia to get him under control. Wish I had an answer.— USA#1
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
