Brownback Becomes Third GOP Senator To Announce He Won’t Vote For Sotomayor
Brownback Becomes Third GOP Senator To Announce He Won’t Vote For Sotomayor
Yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) “became at least the third Republican” to announce that he will vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court:
Mr. President, judges do not make law, and under no circumstance should they be under the impression that they do. Judge Sotomayor sees judges as lawmakers — as both umpire and player. [...]
I wonder how Alexander Hamilton would respond. I think he would wholly disagree with that interpretation. Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s writings and statements lead me to believe she is a proponent — a clear proponent — of an activist judiciary. I cannot support her nomination. I will vote “no” when it comes before the full Senate.
Watch part of his floor speech:
During the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito in 2006, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) lamented to the judge that there were “those who have already decided to vote against your nomination and are looking for some reason to do so.”
At the time, however, no Democrat had announced plans to vote against Alito; only Republicans had made up their minds to support him. This time around, Republicans — like Brownback — are the ones who are rushing to announce their opposition to Sotomayor, even though Senate Republicans have promised to give Sotomayor a “fair opportunity to provide full and complete answers” about her record.
Last week, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) also said that his vote to oppose Sotomayor was a “foregone conclusion” 11 years before she was even nominated for the Supreme Court, citing his opposition to her in 1998. He also blew off a scheduled meeting with the judge. As early as May 28, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) came out and became the first Republican to oppose Sotomayor, saying, “I do not plan to vote for her. … I voted no in 1998. … Since that time, she has made statements on the role of the appeals court I think is improper and incorrect.”
Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) also blew off his meeting with Sotomayor. The judge, who has been “[h]obbling along with her leg in a cast,” was 10 minutes late. Impatient, Corker said he didn’t feel like waiting on the injured judge: “I decided to proceed on to the next meeting.” In the wake of the press attention, Corker rescheduled the meeting. After the meeting, Corker said that he is “reserving judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair and thorough hearings process.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Irrlelevant slug. These guys vote no on everything and I do not understand why I see them being covered by the media as if they are important. The Republican Party is an obstructionist party and they do not matter.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:02 amSenator Brownnose should STFU.
You can’t say ‘Unfortunately, Judge Sotomayor’s writings and statements lead me to believe she is a proponent — a clear proponent — of an activist judiciary.’ while supporting judicial activism on the last 3 appointees.
IOKIYAR
June 25th, 2009 at 10:03 amHe is adhering to the GOP platform of the Party of NO.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:05 amHe marches quite well.
Who cares what this idiot does. He wasn’t going to vote for anyone unless Bush selected the person. NEXT…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:12 amGo for it dumbasses.
Tiny little tent shrinking to sub atomic particulate size….
June 25th, 2009 at 10:14 amWho Cares?
Brownback is irrelevant. His vote is of utterly no consequence.
Sotomayor is, in fact, irrelevant, too.
She’s not going to change the balance of the Court one iota, unless it is to push it further right in its track toward anti-democratic authoritarianism.
What matters, to the extent that it matters at all, is that one Puke member of the Judiciary Committee carry the nomination to the floor of the Senate. There are 7 Pukes on the committee: Sessions, Hatch, Cornyn, Kyl, Grassley, Coburn and Missy Graham. They’re the only Pukes which matter in this process…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:14 amOklahoma and Kansas residents keep re-electing these turds and continue to wonder why they are viewed and mocked as clueless neanderthals ………
June 25th, 2009 at 10:15 amThe Republic tent has shrunk to the size of Mount Rushblow’s pant tent on a Dominican vacation.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:15 amI decided republicans were idiots 25 years ago…and have never needed to look for a reason, they just keep haplessly giving me a ton of ammunition….
June 25th, 2009 at 10:16 amThis just announces publicly that he is either stupid or believes the American voter is stupid (or maybe a little of both). The statement about judges “making” law that his referring to is taken out of context. Anyone with half a brain recognizes that in context, Sotomayor was actually expressing the opposite of what Brownback is suggesting – that she does NOT desire to “make” law from the bench.
So, either he is unable to understand written English, or he assumes Americans can’t or (most likely) that Americans won’t read the context.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:20 amJust in case anyone/everyone forgot : Brownstain there was one of Harriet Miers’ biggest supporters ; and this clown believes anyone cares about his views or finds him to be a credible critic on possible future Supreme Court Justices ?
What an arrogant and ignorant jackass………
June 25th, 2009 at 10:23 amFine. Don’t vote for her. We’re not going to swing Brownback’s vote, and he’s not going to sway our opinion that Sotomayor should be selected.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:23 amIf Sam Brownshirt had announced he was going to vote for her, then I would be stunned. This announcement? A pathetic cry for attention, because he’s fully cognizant of his own irrelevance.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:23 amMr. President, judges do not make law, and under no circumstance should they be under the impression that they do.
um…
yesterday on TODAY, retired supreme court judge sandra day o’conner explained how appelate judges’ rulings DO become law…
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/31522489#31522489
June 25th, 2009 at 10:26 ami’ll try to find the transcript, but wanted to get that in before the trooll war drowned the thread…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:27 amWhat ignorant fool still believes that judges that are NOT on the Supreme Court do not set policy.
Of course they set policy. Every time their is gray area where a law has not specifically been written to deal with a case, judges set precedent. That is why previous cases are cited in courts because someone set a precedent.
It’s their job! The Supreme Court on the other hand does NOT set precedent, they determine Constitutionality, which may render the same effect.
However, the Supreme Court cannot override Sotomayor’s previous judgments. She does not decide Constitutionality on the Appeals Court and they ONLY decide that. They don’t work the same way.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:28 amWho wants to bet that this dipshit hasn’t read any of Sotomyayor’s writings?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:29 amPseudonym Says:
Anyone with half a brain recognizes that in context, Sotomayor was actually expressing the opposite of what Brownback is suggesting – that she does NOT desire to “make” law from the bench.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:20 am
____________
I’m not sure I can agree with that. At least, I didn’t see in her statement a desire either way. It was more a statement of fact. What I believe she was saying, and totally agree with, was that judges at the appellate level DO make policy.
No, they don’t write and pass laws in the legislative sense, but by setting existing laws against their understanding of the Constitution and judicial precedent, they do make policy.
That’s the whole point of a Supreme Court. It’s not their job to decide the outcome of the cases that come before them based on the law. It’s their job to decide the outcome of the law based on the cases that come before them.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:29 amOklahoma and Kansas! Need I say more?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:30 amEvery time a judge rules on a case, the “make law”. I believe the term is “precedent”. Past rulings are ALWAYS refered to to determine new rulings in similar cases.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:31 amI wonder how Alexander Hamilton would respond.
HAMILTON: What is an ignorant fool like Sam Brownback doing in the United States Senate?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:33 amI’ll be willing to bet, right now, that Sotomayor, once confirmed, will vote with Scalia more often than she does with Ginsberg…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:35 amAs early as May 28, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) came out and became the first Republican to oppose Sotomayor, saying, “I do not plan to vote for her. … I voted no in 1998. … Since that time, she has made statements on the role of the appeals court I think is improper and incorrect.”
Yeah , because your B.A. in Journalism from Kansas State University makes you an expert on the subject of appeals courts ?
WTF ???????????????????????????????????
June 25th, 2009 at 10:38 amWith so many Republican Senators having already made up their minds on the nomination, I guess the concern that Jeff Davis Sessions voiced about “rushing the process” is kind of moot now, huh?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:41 amWell, comming from a guy who believes the earth is only 6000 years old and humans walked with dinosaurs, this is no suprise.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:44 amAs early as May 28, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) came out and became the first Republican to oppose (insert name of Democrat here), saying, “I do not plan to vote for (insert name of Democrat here).
June 25th, 2009 at 10:46 amMCMetal Says:
Yeah , because your B.A. in Journalism from Kansas State University makes you an expert on the subject of appeals courts ?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
____________
Hey! >:-(
Don’t go hating on all of us journalism majors just cause of one turniphead like Brownback…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:46 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
MCMetal Says:
Yeah , because your B.A. in Journalism from Kansas State University makes you an expert on the subject of appeals courts ?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:38 am
____________
Hey! >:-(
Don’t go hating on all of us journalism majors just cause of one turniphead like Brownback…
June 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
Brownstain has a Juris Doctor from the University of Kansas ; Pat Roberts is the one with the journalism major ……
June 25th, 2009 at 10:51 amI don’t think you will have to worry about that too much today. Since one of their Freeper terrorist associates just got busted, the Republican insurgent trolls are lying low today. I’ll bet there is some major anxiety over at Free Republic right now.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:52 amIt’s BROWNBACK. This is no surprise.
I wish he’d been so “discerning” with Alito and Roberts — the judges far less qualified than Judge Sotomayor.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:00 amMCMetal Says:
Brownstain has a Juris Doctor from the University of Kansas ; Pat Roberts is the one with the journalism major ……
June 25th, 2009 at 10:51 am
____________
Well, fair enough but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s a turniphead!
June 25th, 2009 at 11:01 amZooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
It’s BROWNBACK. This is no surprise.
I wish he’d been so “discerning” with Alito and Roberts — the judges far less qualified than Judge Sotomayor.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Roberts is the “dream judge” for the establishment ; he always sides with the wealthy white guy and/or with the government…………
He’s a Howdy-Doody looking twit………..
June 25th, 2009 at 11:02 amWhat more do you expect? The Republicans have well earned the title of: “The Party of NO.” It is the failure of the Democrats to start waging war on their opposition and failure to cooperate in the governance of this country that scares me.
The President has waited enough and has amply demonstrated that he seeks greater bi-partisan cooperation. He has been rebuffed at every single instance. This is one reason why the Republicans have fared so badly in the polls. However, it is not enough to sit back an hope that the public will recognize the Republicans for what they are. It is also necessary to call out each act of obstructionism and to hammer home that the Republicans and their corporate allies are seeking to continue their rule despite losing the Presidency and Congress.
The Republicans are making in roads on public perception concerning the economic recovery program, health reform and other policy areas. The tactic has always been the same. Raise misleading and deceptive arguments like the partial scoring of the health reform program or the Bush involvement in creating the greatest share of deficits. They then provide an alternative program that is short, repeats their talking points and is bereft of costs. The Republicans then cry foul when the administration only caves part way (size of the stimulus program, one payer system [possibly public program alternative] or bankruptcy reform as evidencing a lack of bi-partisanship.
It is time to organize against this topic. Yes, the public will remember the tag line of budget deficits and compare it to the failure to have arrested increasing unemployment rates (due to the failure to enact a sufficient stimulus package. Yes, the public will buy into the false and misleading arguments of government control of health care – we never point out that the insurance companies already exercise incredible control over medical decisions by the doctors.
However, we will not seize the initiative, gain consistent ground in addressing or national problems and will hand back control of the government to the Republicans when the people see the failure of half measures enacted to appear bipartisan.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:03 amLook at that picture above again.
Brownnose is either:
1. Constipated
2. Still pissed that Obama is President
3. Just farted
June 25th, 2009 at 11:07 ampax Says:
——————————————————————————–
Oklahoma and Kansas! Need I say more?
June 25th, 2009 at 10:30 am Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
June 25th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Zimzone Says:
Brownnose is either:
1. Constipated
2. Still pissed that Obama is President
3. Just farted
June 25th, 2009 at 11:07 am
All of the above. ;)
June 25th, 2009 at 11:14 amAt least Brownback made reference to Sotomayor’s “writings and statements” — implying that he went to far as to review them before making up his mind. This puts him a couple points head of Inhofe, who apparently made up his mind about Sotomayor 11 years ago.
It would have been more convincing, however, if he had actually given some examples of “writings and statements” that clearly pointed to Sotomayor’s alleged judicial activism.
I’m also guessing that Brownback hasn’t met with Sotomayor, since he’s no longer on the Senate Judiciary Committee. So much for giving her a fair opportunity to provide full and complete answers.
Brownback appears to be Inhofe — just packaged slightly less absurdly.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:15 amAnd the sound arguments for doing so is…
…
…
*crickets*
June 25th, 2009 at 11:21 amBrownback is just trying to fill the obvious “leadership” void in the GOP. By doing what all GOP “leaders” do. Scream “NO” to anything other than “Cut Taxes”.
So, we’ve got Palin (maybe), Huck. Brownback, Pawlenty and Mitt to look forward to in 2012? Oh yeay.
GOP leadership by NO method is easy. Makes for good headlines, whips up their base and leaves plenty of time to go “on hikes with a big stance”
June 25th, 2009 at 11:33 amHeh. How I would *LOVE* to find out that this constipated moron is having an affair with his secretary/aide/masseuse/nanny!!!
June 25th, 2009 at 11:37 amJust HOW, not in the sense of the procedure, mechanism or device, but HOW STUPID as in HOW MUCH, is this buybble thumper?
Roe vs. Wade you moron.
Which the buyble thumpers and GOPiggies are still trying to overturn and make it ILLEGAL
June 25th, 2009 at 11:39 amOh no! We’re down to only 97!
June 25th, 2009 at 11:39 amYou know, if the R’s aren’t going to even bother listening to the nomination hearings, then we might as well skip them and go straight to the floor vote. Like, now. That’s ultimately what they’re proposing here.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:55 amBrownback is incorrect when he says judges don’t make law. If this is the case, why are decisions made in one case used in another? Why do these decisions become codified?
This is pure spite, simple-mindedness, and laziness on the part of these 3 repubicans and any others who use these talking points to oppose Sottomayor, and the most striking thing I see is that they have no concern for their decreasing support among Latino voters.
I guess they figure polarizing Palin, smarmy Huckabee, or Mitt (the base won’t vote for a Mormon) Romney will be good enough. It also seems they would like Cheney or Newt, too.
IMO, excellent choices./snark
June 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pmGood, good, loose the entire Hispanic vote, Republicans!
Way to go!
June 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pmDo these scum bags even wonder why their approval numbers are so low?
June 25th, 2009 at 12:31 pmThe repiggie party = pale, male and stale.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:56 pmWho the hell is this Brownstain character and why is he relevent?
June 25th, 2009 at 1:11 pmNot surprised by any of these naysayers.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:18 pmSo why even bother with the stage show of confirmation hearings?
The GOP has clearly already planned this out and is using falsehoods.
She NEVER said judges make LAW. She said they make POLICY based on INTERPRETING the law.
This is a fact and is not an opinion.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:20 pmBrownback my a$$. Silverback would be more like it. No, wait… That would be an insult to all gorillas.
Personally, I find Sotommayor a far more qualified candidate than Thomas or Scalia ever were.
The GOP’ers whiney “Party of ‘No!’” schtick is really getting old – way past it’s shelf-life.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:38 pmTheir votes don’t count now, so let’s not count them.
June 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pmIsn’t “Brownback” due for an affair or something? What an ass-wipe.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pmDeadenders. Who needs ‘em anyway?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:22 pmRefusal to consider the transcript of the nomination hearings constitutes dereliction of duty under the “advise and consent” clause of the U.S. Constitution. Brownback is essentially tendering his resignation from the Senate with this announcement.
June 25th, 2009 at 8:48 pmJudges do not write law, but they do set legal precedents that have the effect of law.
In fact, the United States was founded on laws set by precedents. We have become a nation of civil (statute) law but that is not our history.
Another ignorant Repocon shows his gravitas.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:57 pmSince the wingers know how they will vote already, let us have an up and down vote and not waste them time with advise and consent. Let the irrelevant bigots cast their votes nay and let’s get on with business.
June 26th, 2009 at 6:07 am