Axelrod: A Sotomayor Filibuster Would Be Shameful Politics (VIDEO)

Barack Obama's senior adviser said on Sunday that if Senate Republicans were to attempt a filibuster on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, it would be a shameful attempt at political retribution.

Appearing on CNN's State of the Union, David Axelrod repeatedly downplayed the opposition to Sotomayor as a "side show" and "diversion" that failed to account for the lengthy and accomplished resume of the appellate judge.

Showed video of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell saying a filibuster may be on the table because Obama supported the parliamentary procedure in votes on Justices Roberts and Alito, the president's right hand man was even more forceful.

"The question is not whether it could be done it is whether it should be done," said Axelrod. "Based on her record, it plainly should not. She has been confirmed twice by this same United States Senate, once unanimously and another with strong bipartisan support. And what I hear Senator McConnell saying is that for political retribution, that there might be a filibuster and that would be a shame. I don't think, with the serious issues that are facing this country and facing this court, I don't think Americans have much of an appetite for that. Look at her record. Make a judgment on her record. Her record is outstanding and she is a great American story and everyone can be proud of and everyone can have faith in. they ought to confirm her."

The remarks come at a time when Sotomayor's confirmation is looking increasingly likely. A questionnaire filled out by Obama's court nominee did little to damage her chance for confirmation, though Senate Republicans have expressed, in recent days, sustained concern over her now-infamous "wise Latina" comment. Asked if the President knew of Sotomayor's repeated use of this phrase, and whether it affected his opinion of the nominee, Axelrod replied:

"I don't think it's changed his view on that. But the interesting thing is, I think that the Senate was aware of it when they confirmed her for the U.S. Court of Appeals because some of those speeches occurred before her confirmation in 1998."

Comments

[Manchesterian]

I am thankful that President Obama has David Axelrod in his corner. I fear for his safety less when David A. has his back.

[tnkeating]

Idgits, all politicians will say anything, do anything, and pay anything just to stay in power or take power from some other carpetbagger whos been in power. It doesn't matter weather they are democrates or republican or even independant, there job is to keep us confused and argueing so we don't pay too close attention to what they do behind our backs. Watch, listen and really pay attention

If Pro is the opposite of Con, then to Progress is the opposite of Congress

[biabouman41]

The name: Party of NO really suits the Republicans. Their only response to anything is: just say NO. No health care, no bipartisanship, no help for NO, on and on. And now, for insufficient reason they say NO to a highly qualified Supreme Court candidate.

[timberdoodle]

Obama has put one more nail in the Republican's coffin with this nomination. The GOP just can't help themselves when it comes to women and minorities. The latter simply aren't equal to the white male in the eyes of the purest of the Republican Party and the best thing that could happen is for them to go against her confirmation.

Once this has been done more and more women and minorities will be alienated and lost forever to the GOP.

[JulieSA]

That is completely false.

[kasinca]

I challenge a wingnut to tell me one constructive sentence uttered by one rethuglican in the past twenty years. All they do is lie and obstruct. They are incompetent.

[tnkeating]

You can't handle the truth

[JulieSA]

Do you think childish namecalling is constructive?

[1murillo]

Julie,

kasinca is not "childish namecalling." kasinca uses "wingnut," "rethuglican" and "incompetent" as descriptors.

Her main point is that the GOP on a regular basis threatens or uses obstructionism as a strategy.

[Jazzman323]

They should use the past confirmation hearings of Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Bork as guidelines on how to handle the Sotomayor hearings.

[1murillo]

Jazzman,

'Guidelineing' Alito and the rest is a silly strategy for discussion of Supreme Court nominees. Sotomayor will be approved because she has an excellent resume. Filibustering a sure loss would weaken the party even more.

[libmenace2012]

Why? Oh, thats right, she is hispanic. You can't legitimately critic her work without being labeled "racist".

[1murillo]

libmenace,

Your post isn't clear, but you suggest that a legitimate critic of her work would be labeled "racist." A legitimate critique would investigate her 17+ years on the bench, over 3,000 cases, her 2 previous confirmations by the US Senate, her other work in the legal profession, her work at Ivy League institutions and more.

The lack of any such critique shows that the GOP has very little negative arguments to truly raise against her.

Notice, that even the most virulent opponent of her nomination will begin with something like, "She's obviously a qualified judge and has done a very good job, but ..."

If there are criticisms of her record they have not been made public.

[notyouraveragebear]

Mr Axelrod:

The repiglicans have always specialized in shameful politics. It is at their very core.

[darker]

REPUBLICAN
DIRTY POLITICS
to say the very least.

Republicans offer nothing but OBSTRUCTION & DESTRUCTION.
Enough already.

Republicans' actions PROVE that they deserve to be
completely disempowered until they begin to
RESPECT AMERICA and hardworking Americans.
They still REFUSE to do so even now!

[jesseandrews]

People there is not going to be a filibuster, it is politics as usual. In 2005 and 2006 it was the same in 2006 Kennedy got up on the floor of the senate and called Alito a racist, and the dems threathen a filibuster. She will be ask tough questions and does have to explain her remarks, which was not a one time misquote. She has said the same thing or something like it 8 times accourding to the papers of talks that she has made. These are the papers she turned in to the senate. Is she a racist no but does she have to explain her remarks yes. This is a lifetime appointment and she and any other nominations no matter you nominates them should be vetted and ask tough questions.

[DJ23]

Now it's 8? Gingrich said 4 or 5. Next week it'll be: "She has said the same thing or something like it dozens of times" and on and on and on.

Wasted energy if her record doesn't support the charges being thrown at her.

It will backfire.

[jesseandrews]

No it is what they are suppose to do. I am making an assumption that your are black going by your picture, how would you feel if a white man said something like that about black women or men.

[an observer3]

What do the gop care about shame. They are shameless.

[jesseandrews]

Look at 2006 the did and said the same about Alito it is all politics.

[Ant]

The Dems torpedoed Miguel Estrada's nomination specifically because he was Latino, and they didn't want Bush to get the credit for nominating a minority.
-JulieSA

No one knew anything about him or his judicial philosophy and when asked questions he wouldn't answer them. If you went on a job interview and refused to answer questions that are completely within the law do you think that employer would call you back?

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

There was never a more unqualified candidate. Ethnicity had nothing to do with anything.

http://www.amarillo.com/stories/092403/opi_estradaunqualified.shtml

[JulieSA]

"But five of the eight judges currently serving on the D.C. Circuit had no previous judicial experience when appointed. That includes two of President Clinton's nominees, Merrick Garland, whose Justice Department record was quite similar to that of Miguel Estrada, and David Tatel. In addition, Judge Harry Edwards had no prior judicial experience when he was nominated by President Carter in 1979, and he was younger than Estrada. In addition, several Ninth Circuit judges from California who were appointed by President Clinton, and had your support, had no prior judicial experience. That includes Judge William Fletcher, Judge Raymond Fisher, and Judge Marsha Berzon.

The American Bar Association, which Democrat Senators Leahy and Schumer have referred to as the "gold standard," unanimously rated Estrada "well qualified" for the D.C. Circuit, the ABA's highest possible rating. We think the ABA rating was quite appropriate in light of Estrada's excellent record, including his work as an Assistant Solicitor General in the Clinton and Bush Administrations, his record as a federal prosecutor in New York, his service as a law clerk to Justice Kennedy, and his pro bono work including his volunteer representation of a death row inmate before the Supreme Court. He has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, a figure that few lawyers can match, and particularly impressive for someone who immigrated to this country at age 17 speaking little English."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YjYyOTVjYzhiOTAzMTc0MGQ3ZTY2ZTE4ODU4MDE1MDc=

[JulieSA]

This memo targeting him for his ethnicity was put out before he even went before senators for questioning:

http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0078/judges-1.pdf

[Ant]

And your point is...?

[LMPE]

A filibuster might be seen as another race issue. The Republicans mounted the longest filibuster in history over the Civil Rights Act.

[JulieSA]

Um, no. That was the Dems who did that and the other civil rights filibusters.

[Ant]

It was southern politicians who did that.

[Eoin45]

Julie, you are lying by omission? Yes, it was Dems - conservative Southern dems who deserted the party and became Republicans when they didn't get their way. They understood fully the racist nature of the Republican party at that time.

[biabouman41]

The Dems were in the majority and passed it.

[jesseandrews]

The GOP actually fought for civil rights MLK was in the GOP. I was a young kid during the cities and saw a lot of my friends targeted for being black and if a white kid or person was seen being to friendly to black we were persecuted to. I am a white man raised and born in NC and I proudly say I have black relatives.

[jesseandrews]

meant to say during those times.

[Ant]

I'm not sure about MLK being in the GOP but I know most blacks voted republican up until around the time of the New Deal.

Most of the politicians in the South were Democrats and they were racists and the few republicans in the South were also racists. You and the other poster are trying to turn this into a Democratic vs. republican debate when it was a regional debate. The North voted for Civil Rights legislation; the South voted against it.

[Ant]

I'm not sure about MLK being in the GOP but I know most blacks voted republican up until around the time of the New Deal.

Most of the politicians in the South were Democrats and they were r.acists and the few republicans in the South were also r.acists. You and the other poster are trying to turn this into a Democratic vs. republican debate when it was a regional debate. The North voted for Civil Rights legislation; the South voted against it.

[dphilip]

Well when it comes to "shameful" confirmation processes, you dims definitely know what you're talking about..

[Eoin45]

You certainly know all about dim and shameful.

[englishprof]

If you want a good reason never to patronize MSNBC ever again, look at their webside: "Sotomayor Objectivity is Key Question." This is neocon propaganda masquerading as news. Is the objectivity of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, or Alito a "key question"? Of course not! Their rulings favor neocon positions.

[Eoin45]

If you want a good reasons to keep patronizing NBC, they are Olbermann and Maddow.

[jesseandrews]

If you like comedy.