Sessions To Vote Against Sotomayor

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee says he'll vote against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions says he doesn't think Sotomayor has the convictions to resist the pull of judicial activism once she becomes a justice.

His decision comes the day before the Judiciary panel is to vote on President Barack Obama's first high court nominee. Sotomayor is virtually certain to be confirmed by a vote of the full Senate by the end of next week, becoming the first Hispanic justice.

Most conservative Republicans are lining up against Sotomayor, but a handful of GOP senators are siding with majority Democrats to back her.

Sessions announced his decision in an opinion piece in USA Today.

Comments

[Edretiree]

07:26 PM on 08/21/2009

[BrickSykes]

02:18 AM on 07/29/2009

Plain and Simple: "SHORT MAN'S DISEASE!!""

Brick

[huffingt]

07:26 PM on 07/28/2009

Sure he is a RA T

[christopherflynn]

05:26 PM on 07/28/2009

a session with session is a session of idiocy.....

[Bush-Rolled]

04:34 PM on 07/28/2009

It is a point of honor to be voted against by Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.

[Drash]

04:06 PM on 07/28/2009

No one made a bigger a$$ of himself during those confirmation hearings than Session.

[HKgovt]

08:52 AM on 07/28/2009

Do4days FalseTestimony given underOath toTellTheTruth¬hingBut, provenFalse by9-0 decision of the SupremeCourt in case06-766, convince you there is good reason to vote NO on Judge Sotomayor? She told many Senators of JudiciaryCommittee she holdsLaws passed by Congress&State Legislatures in high esteem&won’t overturn them or legislate from bench unless Laws passed by the legislators&brought by case before the court violates the Constitution and/or SupremeCourt precedent.

Need only look at SupremeCourt Case6-766 to see 9 current Justices all found and ruled Sotomayor did exactly what she claims she’s never done. Court ruled 9-0 that the Judge Sotomayor & 2ndCircuit acted without basis in Constitution & in violation of all SupremeCourt existing Precedents on ElectionLaw. Her testimony couldn't be more false! Proven beyond argument by the decision in Case6-766.

OnDay2in afternoon session of C-SPANtape (http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2009/07/14/HP/A/20823/Senate+Judiciary+Confirmation+Hearing+for+Judge+Sonia+Sotomayor+Day+2.aspx) JudgeSotomayor answered SenatorSchumer at about 01:57:10 "I firmly believe in the fidelity to theLaw"… "I start with that working proposition and apply the Law to the facts before it."
SenatorSchumer continued at about 01:57:28, "And has there ever been a case in which you ruled in favor of a litigant simply cause you were sympathetic to their plight even if RuleofLaw might not have led you in that direction."
Judge Sotomayor answered Senator Schumer at about 01:57:35 , "Never."
ForSupremeCourt opinion See Post2

[HKgovt]

08:42 AM on 07/28/2009

Post2 SCALIA opinion JusticesRoberts&StevensSouterThomasGinsburgBreyer&Alito joining, NY "State...thrice ... displayed a willingness to reconsider its method of selecting Supreme Court Justices. If it wishes to return to the primary system...it is free to do so; but...First Amendment does not compel that. We reverse Second Circuit's contrary judgment."

JusticeKENNEDYwrote with JusticeBREYER concurring, "Rule of law is secured only by the principled exercise of political will. If New York statutes for nominating and electing judges do not produce both the perception and the reality of a system committed to the highest ideals of the law, they ought to be changed and to be changed now. But, as the Court today holds, and for further reasons given in this separate opinion, the present suit does not permit us to invoke the Constitution in order to intervene."

JusticeSTEVENS wrote with JusticeSOUTER concurring, "But as I recall my esteemed former colleague, Thurgood Marshall, remarking on numerous occasions: "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws." "

Should Senators witnessing testimony given under oath "to tell the Truth, the whole Truth” vote to confirm an activist, who falsely testified? Or should our Senators work to bring Impeachment proceedings to remove Judge Sonia Sotomayor from her current position on the 2nd Circuit bench because her commitment to the Law and to the Oath she took is so nonexistent that she falsely testified countless times over 4days of testimony before the SenateJudiciaryCommittee. See Post1 forWhy thisProves SotomayorLIED under OATH!

[JRsNana]

05:47 AM on 07/28/2009

So? A Southern racist Republican isn't going to vote for a Latina nominee. Shocked? Not in the slightest.

[roch20]

05:25 AM on 07/28/2009

Duh; surprise, surprise; this r.a.c.i.s.t., hypocrit has come out of his closet; hellooooo!

[Taz2]

03:29 AM on 07/28/2009

Shocker!

How come there is No Leading Hispanic voice out there??? I never here anything for the Hispanic community, they need to step up and speak out!!

[Weirdwriter]

02:49 AM on 07/28/2009

La de friggin' dah.

[dawnec1957]

02:36 AM on 07/28/2009

I'm Shocked I tell you, SHOCKED! NOT !

[celticjag]

02:16 AM on 07/28/2009

Oh Beauregard say it ain't so! What's the problem, she is not white enough or maybe she is a little bit too Latino for you or could it be that she is a woman? At least you are doing a good job of keeping racism alive. You should be so proud!

[SouthPrairie]

02:11 AM on 07/28/2009

Big surprise. A man of his word, eh?