******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Toomey Says "Yes to Sotomayor"

Like I said, with regard to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, in my prior post Yes To Sotomayor. Here's an excerpt from reliably conservative Pat Toomey's Op-Ed today:

When John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans argued that they should be confirmed based on their impeccable qualifications and mainstream jurisprudence. Now, Democrats are in power, and the same standard should apply....

If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process....

Ideology is important when it comes to electing public officials. In a state such as Pennsylvania, where voters elect judges, ideology can play a legitimate role in judicial selections. But in our federal constitutional framework, judicial nominations are shielded from voters.

In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president. When a president of one party is elected, the proper role of the opposing party is not to go on politically charged ideological campaigns against judicial nominees. It should be limited to determining whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream....

We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide "advice and consent," not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.

I still prefer my construct: "But at the end of the day, we are not they, and we always should remember that. And be thankful."

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. "But at the end of the day, we are not they, and we always should remember ..."

    that we lost.

    When you get tired of losing, let us know and maybe we can put together a winning effort.

  2. With respect, it seems you are assuming judicious behaviour on the part of the nominee. If, though, their ideology requires them to legislate from the bench, then how can you do anything but vote no?

  3. We didn't lose because we stuck to principles, we lost because they were abandoned for the "sake" of winning. Specter v Toomey is a perfect example. As a PA voter, I was quite disenchanted with Arlen Specter. In 2004 I volunteered for the Bush campaign in PA and received endless persuasive material making the case the only way to win that seat was to rally behind Specter. I fell for it and voted for Specter. When the going got tough in the Republican party Arlen got going.

    There are many reasons why we lost the last two elections, I can't think of an instance where sticking to our principles was the root of failure. Despite the numerous ways the court is politicized, we see its members behaving civilly towards each other. Who doesn't wonder how Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Scalia are best buddies? There is a lesson in there somewhere, I am pretty sure.

  4. IF Supreme Court nominee belonged to the KKK would that be an ideological issue to be overlooked?

  5. The author mentions Ricci case as if it only raised ideological questions, whereas the real problem is how Sotomayor ruled incorrectly, and in a blatant way. How can anyone say anything about her "impeccable qualifications" is frankly beyond me. At least talk about "solid qualifications" or something.

  6. "The author mentions Ricci case as if it only raised ideological questions, whereas the real problem is how Sotomayor ruled incorrectly, and in a blatant way."

    Exactly - Jennifer Rubin at Commentary:

    "One of the more troubling aspects of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court is the degree to which her testimony attempted to conceal or misrepresent her own record. On the topic of Ricci alone, she repeated again and again two falsehoods. First, she insisted that she had not deprived plaintiffs of their day in court because they had filed for an en banc review. Not so. She is taking credit for the sua sponte action by her colleague Judge Cabranes, who dug the case out and insisted that the full circuit consider the matter. Second, she argued that her decision was determined by Second Circuit precedent. Wrong again.

    In sum, Sotomayor’s testimony was fundamentally dishonest — an effort to conceal her problematic and highly relevant work as a judge. Those senators who chose to confirm her have reset the bar for Supreme Court nominees to a new and dangerously low level. The message here: if you have enough senators of the president’s party in the Senate, you can spin any story you like and get away with it."

  7. Toomey and other Republicrats are foolish for thinking that they will gain any ground by proving that they are "reasonable."

  8. Obama admitted that Roberts and Alito, were perfectly qualified yet he could not support them on ideological grounds, Biden went the next step, and accused Alito of being some right wing
    extremist because of that Princeton club. And they won, that's the lesson.

  9. Hmmm, based on the intelligent comments from your readers, I think I will just pass up the articles in the future and proceed directly to the comments section.

    They're right. And you're not.