Thread: 3 GOP senators come out against Sotomayor

3 GOP senators come out against Sotomayor
By Associated Press | July 28, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor is still expected to be confirmed.


WASHINGTON - On the eve of their panel’s vote today, top Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee announced yesterday that they would oppose Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, joining a growing list of conservatives ready to vote against the judge who is virtually certain to become the first Hispanic justice.

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the committee’s top Republican, and Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, its second-ranking member, both said that Sotomayor left them doubting her pledge of “fidelity to the law,’’ and wondering whether she would let personal biases and prejudices interfere with her rulings.

Just one Republican on the committee, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has said he will vote to confirm President Obama’s first nominee to the high court.

“Her experience, however well-rounded, and background, however inspirational, is not enough,’’ Sessions said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Grassley said he still feels burned by his support for Justice David Souter, whom Sotomayor would replace if confirmed and who turned out to be more liberal than former President George H.W. Bush expected.

Senator Mike Johanns, a Nebraska Republican, also announced yesterday he would vote against Sotomayor.

www.boston.com

I was listening to a show that stated the Supreme Court was NOT meant to have attorneys as judges. Wake up America and have we learned a lesson from the experience of having only attorneys in the Highest Court in the land.

And I was speaking to a friend today and was told about some courts in which you don't have to be an attorney.

INTERESTING!

Originally Posted by vmonkey56

I was listening to a show that stated the Supreme Court was NOT meant to have attorneys as judges. Wake up America and have we learned a lesson from the experience of having only attorneys in the Highest Court in the land.

And I was speaking to a friend today and was told about some courts in which you don't have to be an attorney.

INTERESTING!

That is interesting, vmonkey56. I've never heard that before. Do you remember what show it was on?

In fact, I'm so used to judges, including SC judges, being attorneys, I guess I assumed they almost had to be an attorney first, in order to insure they knew the laws, the legal system, all the legaleze language, etc.

I think it would definitely be better in many ways if SC judges weren't attorneys, but how would, say, an accountant or physician or business owner suddenly become a judge, and know enough about the legal system, legal precedence, legal research, reading legal documents,etc. It usually takes a lot of schooling, and then years of legal experience to learn all that.

Very interesting idea.

Just one Republican on the committee, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has said he will vote to confirm President Obama’s first nominee to the high court.

This Senator Graham from S. Carolina, and Senator Grahamnesty are one in the same, right?

Maybe if the attorneys had to explain in common language to a judge we the common people would understand the writing mess and messages in coded in the writings of attorney.

Originally Posted by builditnow

Just one Republican on the committee, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has said he will vote to confirm President Obama’s first nominee to the high court.

This Senator Graham from S. Carolina, and Senator Grahamnesty are one in the same, right?

that would be correct