Friday, July 31, 2009

Lamar's Vote

Lamar Alexander decided yesterday to break with the Republican Party, and likely with the wishes of many constituents yesterday in announcing his vote in favor of President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

"Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be
different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendments rights, I will vote
to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament,
character and intellect to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States
Supreme Court.

"In 2005, I said on this Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator
Obama and half the Democratic Senators to vote against John Roberts - a superbly
qualified nominee - solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama
described as Roberts' 'overarching political philosophy' and 'his work in the
White House and the Solicitor General's office' that 'consistently sided' with
'the strong in opposition to the weak.' Today, it would be equally wrong for me
to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not 'on my side' on some

The problem with Lamar's logic in this situation is not his consistency. He is quite correct in presuming that it would be right to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Lamar is extending a courtesy to the Democrats that they have not extended to any of us, however. These same sorts are the very ones who destroyed President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork-who like both Roberts and Sotomayor was highly qualified-for no other reason than politics. Barack Obama voted against John Roberts because he didn't like his judicial philosophy. Yes, elections have consequences, but political turnabout is also fair play.

There is a larger issue at stake, however, and that is whether President Obama should be allowed to upend the social and political fabric of this nation without any opposition. One Supreme Court nomination is not where the saga of this administration is going to end. Barack Obama is determined to destroy the very foundations of our Republic, and do so with the people allowing it. Our United States Senators should not merely stand idly by while our own President brings this country to ruination. They have a right and a duty to oppose every facet of the President's agenda of evil, taking all appropriate opportunities to do so. If Lamar Alexander believes as I do, and as all truly patriotic Tennesseans believe, that Barack Obama's plan for America is the most wicked scheme ever devised in the 233 year history of this country, Obama must not only be given opposition, but every political chance must be taken when such situations arise to bring his administration to the total and complete political destruction that it so richly deserves.

Evil must be opposed at all costs and in every legal fashion possible. THAT is why Lamar Alexander should not support Sotomayor's nomination. It isn't about Sotomayor, it is about the man who appointed her.

Labels: , , , ,


At Friday, July 31, 2009 1:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

22 Democrats voted for John Roberts despite his misleading and evasive answers.

John Roberts had less than 2 years experience as a judge before being nominated to become Chief Justice. His political philosophy was very well known, having been a member of both the Reagan and Bush I White House. Roberts, along with Alito and Clarence Thomas have been the most activist judges on the Supreme Court in recent memory. Each of them have voted to over-ride the express intent of Congress more than any justices on the current Supreme Court and moreso than any other Supreme Court justice in recent memory. Roberts rulings strongly suggest that he perjured himself when testifying before Congress.

Sonia Sotomayor, on the other hand, was nominated to the Federal bench by Bush I in 1991 where she served until 1998 when she was elevated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. She has more judicial experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice. her record shows a respect for judicial precedence and respect for the roles of the independent branches of government. In the decision she joined in Ricci, she upheld both existing precedent and the express intent of Congress in enacting the underlying law. The Supreme Court, in overturning the decision, ignored its own precedent and the express intent of Congress and substituted their own beliefs as to what the law should be.

Evil indeed!

At Friday, July 31, 2009 2:53:00 PM, Blogger Steve Mule said...

Pres. Obama is not evil. He's Black. That's what really bothers you, a true Paleo-conservative son of Dixie.


At Friday, July 31, 2009 6:00:00 PM, Anonymous Tim N said...

Stick a fork in Alexander, he's done.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page
Profile Visitor Map - Click to view visits
Create your own visitor map