Senator Leahy on 1998 Sotomayor Nomination

Senator Leahy spoke about Senate delays in considering the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. In his remarks he alleged that Republicans were holding the nomination for fear that President Clinton would later appoint her to the Supreme Court.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• C-SPAN
• senate
• senator
• leahy
• 1998
• sotomayor
• court
• appeals
• clinton
• supreme

[whoo689]

Lol! Even when she was nominated to a lower court, the Republicans still thought it necessary to obstruct? Idiots. They probably called her nasty shit too, only with different statements.

[GHFF77]

I was not implying that Inhofe was the President Pro Tempore. I was implying that he was presiding as President Pro Tempore that current day of that current session of Congress.

[Boobalopbop]

You ARE aware that the Constitution has Amendments right?  That comment is not as ignorant as I think right?

[nader85021]

inhofe was not the president pro tempore. President pro tempores rarely reside over hearings, instead junior senators, are put in, so they can learn more about the rules and how everything works in the senate.

[GHFF77]

LOL one of my Senators, Senator Jim Inhofe was presiding as President Pro Tempore that day. I don't ever remember that. It's been a long time since the Strom Thurmond days.

[Saetta]

Senator Leahy is clearly senile. Watch him at the introduction of the hearings for Judge Sotomayor. He mispeaks and cannot keep his thoughts straight. He keeps flubbing the infinitive, to swear. His time to quit politics has come.

[qwertyman129]

What? The judiciary does not interpret the Constitution? Of course it does! It's the executive branch that enforces, and the judiciary that interprets!

And the reason it needs to be interpreted is because it's not always clear. Example: the interstate commerce clause. How far does it go? A judicial interpretation can determine that.

[vinnykster]

The Founders were very intelligent and knew what the hell they were doing. The Constitution is very clear and is not a matter of opinion. Dems are "Grand Standing" here .. Yes if it were a Rep pres .. Reps probably woudl be too. Leaders need to put aside "loyalty" to their party. What matters is the people and serving them and what they want. Unfortunatly "politicians" are just that and only care about themselves. We need more Ron Pauls. Thank God Adam Kokesh and Rand Paul are running for 2010!

[vinnykster]

Judges job is to ENFORCE the Constitution- NOT INTERPRET IT. The Constitution is CLEAR and written in plain English and is not at the Judges "Discretion". It is to be ENFORCED.. PERIOD! If you can't do that Sonia .. and it sounds like you can't and will not.. you should not be confirmed. It's sickening how the Dems kiss her ass. I mean the left/right paradigm doesnt matter anyways .. But whatever Reps did in the past doesn't excuse confirming a judge that wont enforce the Constitution.

[qwertyman129]

Well, she's had 4 reversals now on 6 cases where the SC granted cert. But what you've overlooked is the fact that she's written over 300 opinions while on the bench. So overall, she's overturned a little more than 1% of the time. So instead of 6:4, it's more like 300+:4.