Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination — 13 to 6

sotomayor.jpgThe Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Sotomayor SCOTUS nomination this morning, in a vote of  13 to 6.

This from Sen. Leahy’s speech covers the Democratic perspective for the most part:

In her 17 years on the bench there is not one example, let alone a pattern, of her ruling based on bias or prejudice or sympathy. She has been true to her oath and faithfully and impartially performed her duties as set forth by the Constitution. As a prosecutor and as a judge, she has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over any other. She testified directly to this point, saying, "I have now served as an appellate judge for over a decade, deciding a wide range of constitutional, statutory and other legal questions. Throughout my 17 years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interests of impartial justice."

And this sums up the GOP perspective:

Last week, the NRA said it would consider senators’ votes on Sotomayor when it grades political candidates for its voter guides. That move, Democratic aides said, was likely to deter some Republican senators who were considered possible Sotomayor votes.

Coverage of the various vote speeches from committee senators can be found here.

The nomination now heads to the full Senate for debate and a vote. 

 
21 Responses to "Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination — 13 to 6"
tejanarusa | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:09 am 1

Well, sing Hallelujah!

Just heard this on the radio. natch, Christy’s already on it.

Can we use this vote as a lesson to Baucus (spit) and Rahm and anybody else who is still talking about bipartisan ship?

And, now, for Dawn Johnson. Past time.


MrWhy | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:10 am 2

Step by step.

I presume we won’t be seeing Dawn Johnsen’s nomination confirmed this week. Any chance of a recess appointment?


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:11 am 3

There’s a recap of the vote in the linked post above where I was liveblogging the hearing. Kyl was dealing with leadership issues for the GOP — which was noted at the top fo the hearing — so his vote was by proxy via Sessions. But Cornyn and Coburn were at the hearing and left before the vote, leaving Sessions to cast it for them on camera.

A bit odd, I have to say, considering it’s a SCOTUS nomination. Rude or avoiding cameras for the vote, do you think?


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:12 am 4
In response to MrWhy @ 2

Had an article on that last week. Johnsen’s nomination not likely to come up for a vote until after the August recess, sources tell me. And the WH says no recess nomination to Roll Call.


BargainCountertenor | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:21 am 5
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 3

Leadership issues?

Like how to fill the leadership vacuum in the Regooplican party?


tejanarusa | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:22 am 6
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

Jeebus. Sure, no problem, the Dept of Justice runs just fine without its major department heads. Why rush?/s


BargainCountertenor | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:22 am 7
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 3

I vote for avoiding the cameras.


Millineryman | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:25 am 8

And the WH says no recess nomination to Roll Call.

Off course not. The WH can’t perform without it’s bipartianship fetish.


AZ Matt | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:27 am 9

The pr0-nunchuks lobby is outraged I tell you! Just outraged! The freedom to whack the hell out of other is endangered!!

*g*


vicky | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:28 am 10
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 3

Just the house repubs showed no backbone during the birther meme killer resolution, these sen(at)ors left sessions holding the baby.

Do you have the vote split ?


Christy Hardin Smith | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:30 am 11
In response to vicky @ 10

It’s in the prior post — here you go:

Roll call vote upcoming. Vote total is 13 to 6.

Kohl — Aye
Feinstein — Aye
Feingold — Aye
Schumer — Aye
Durbin — Aye
Whitehouse — Aye
Klobuchar — Aye
Kaufman — Aye
Specter — Aye
Franken — Aye
Sessions — No
Hatch — No
Grassley — No
Kyl — No, by proxy vote from Sessions (C-Span showing empty chair)
Graham — Aye
Cornyn — No, by proxy vote from Sessions (C-Span showing empty chair)
Coburn — No, by proxy vote from Sessions (C-Span showing empty chair)
Leahy — Aye


vicky | Tuesday July 28, 2009 09:36 am 12

Thanks. So, only Lindsey was the only sane one ? And La Raza is wondering why they haven’t heard from the repubs today for their annual conference. Hopefully they got the repub message loud and clear.


tejanarusa | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:03 am 13

And La Raza is wondering why they haven’t heard from the repubs today for their annual conference

Is that a literal reference, vicky?. Have they invited some of these guys and just been stiffed?


RevDeb | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:06 am 14
In response to MrWhy @ 2

you shouldn’t have to make a recess appointment when you have strong majorities of your party in the Senate and the House.


vicky | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:14 am 15
In response to tejanarusa @ 13

Yes, Greg Sargent : La Raza pissed off at repugs going awol for their annual conference despite their invite to that twit, steele and 3 goopper govnors. None of them turned up.

http://theplumline.whorunsgov……/#comments


tejanarusa | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:30 am 16

I see from the link that the spokesman went so far as to say:

The Republican Party not being here may demonstrate a lack of commitment to our community.”

Can we all say, “duh!”

Thanks for the comment. Storing the info away for the coming gubernatorial campaign here in Texas. heh.


Hugh | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:43 am 17

Interesting that the “centrist” “bipartisan” Grassley voted no. The Republicans are out and out crazy. Bipartisanship just enables that craziness. I wish the Democrats would get a clue.


vicky | Tuesday July 28, 2009 10:44 am 18
In response to tejanarusa @ 16

My pleasure. Hopefully Tx turns better in 2010 & 12.


beth meacham | Tuesday July 28, 2009 11:04 am 19
In response to vicky @ 15

Why would La Raza expect the ‘pubs to meet with a group they’ve declared to be a terrorist organization?

Issue the invite, sure. But don’t be surprised when you don’t hear back.


Rayne | Tuesday July 28, 2009 12:26 pm 20

You know what’s really sad? We’ve had to suffer the indignations of hacks in the last administration’s eight years, hacks which have been hand-reared and vetted by a member of this judiciary (like Kyle Sampson, Brett Tolman, Jeff Taylor…).

And he can’t be a big enough man to make it right by voting for a far more qualified and seasoned jurist like Sotomayor.

Eff you, Orrin Hatch.


Rayne | Tuesday July 28, 2009 01:14 pm 21

I suppose after that crabby remark I left I should leave a little lagniappe.

Bet the Peanut will have a trip penciled in on her calendar in the near future


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close