Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Greg P. Nw Indiana — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:16:51 GMT

I thought Obama's vetting process was tedious...although I'm sure he was actually looking for information, rather than using stall tactics.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Eric, Salinas, CA — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:23:33 GMT

The repugnant ones whine there's too much information to study about Sotomayor and then whine if they don't get it all even though they will fail to look at all of that information. They're only looking for excuses to attack her, they have no intention of giving her a fair hearing. That's okay as they are hanging themselves with their own rope for the next election cycle.

Confirm Sotomayor Now!

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

cindy, las vegas, nv — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:23:43 GMT

It's never going to be enough. The party of NO is going to owe this woman a huge apology when she gets confirmed. I think the way they have treating her is very crappy. Sessions and Graham especially. These two give me the creeps.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

let it be — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:28:44 GMT

The Republicans on the committee would apparently rather face an appointee with no record (and hence no need for them to sift through it) than one with a considerable public record of accomplishment (and two previous confirmations). It must be that they are afraid there might be one item somewhere that some Republican or conservative hardliner somewhere might take offense to, and they don't want a backlash from overlooking that one hypothetical item. It isn't worthy of a public servant.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Jonathan Flint, MI — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:05 GMT

It's a shame that this won't be viewed as being thourough, but rather just GOP partisan game playing. I think it would be beneficial for the country if we had a democrat or two involved in actually investigating her background.

She's going to be confirmed it's not as if it going to hurt her credibility, but it would bolster the perception of democrats as being the reasonable party.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

jawillie Philadelphia, PA — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:29:33 GMT

>>>...Judiciary Republicans...are complaining that the information provided represents just a preliminary culling of seven or eight of the 300-plus boxes of documents that they are demanding.
===========
Translation: "We need more so that we can make up something so we'll have a reason to oppose her other than her being Latina."

http://jawillie.blog.com

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Dave — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:42:20 GMT

This is pure nonsense. Unfortunately, the democrats did it too. Can't all of these little boys and girls get in a room and hash out their differences? Is that too much to ask? Isn't everyone tired of the same old tired game on both sides?

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Pete - Albany, NY — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:42:49 GMT

Why should anyone think anything will appease the G-NO-P. These are the same REpublicans who claim they need more time to review Judge Sotomayor's record to determine if she's qualified and yet have already determined that she's not.

The G-NO-P must not let its mission be thwarted...

NO!
NO!
NO!
OBSTRUCT!
OBSTRUCT!
OBSTRUCT!

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Drew, Cincinnati, Ohio — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:07:57 GMT

Democrats need to push this nominee forward. We already know that about 70% will vote for her nomination. It is time to push the obstruction party out of the way until they have something pertinent to say. The American public has spoken and the Democrats and their agenda won!

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

eagle1776 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:08:04 GMT

The clowns continue their show. They'll harrrumph, posture, cry, carry on, bluster, whine, complain but in the end they'll lose again. They have no ideas of their own and so they want to keep other ideas from being tried. They don't like anyone or anything this Administration proposes. Why? Because they are Democratic proposals and that is enough to just say no. I'll bet that if a Democrat proposed, word for word, a bill once proposed by a Republican there would be some Republicans (looking at you Bohener, McConnel, & Cantor) who would oppose it just because.

These clowns are really full of themselves but in the end they will, once again, be seen for the pathetic individuals they really are.

If they don't say no they must obstruct the will of the people. Standard operating procedure for the G-NO-P.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Juan,Ft Lauderdale, Fl — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:14:20 GMT

Cindy- I agree w/ you that Sessions and Graham are two creepy individuals and you can also add santimonious, self rightous, arrogant and condescending especially Graham.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Jim — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:22:59 GMT

I am opposed to anyone sitting on the Supreme Court who believes that discriminating is the answer to discrimination.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Charles Higgins, Satsuma, FL — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:20:13 GMT

I doubt that a woman with a such a superior attitude will be able to be fair in any trial like the recent case between white and black fire fighters!

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

SOTOMAYOR IS A 'CODE WORD' FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ... — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:30:16 GMT

SOTOMAYOR IS A 'CODE WORD' FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION WHICH IS A 'CODE WORD' INFLATING ONE'S ACHIEVEMENTS.

Sotomayor: More docs, but not enough

Becky Montgomery — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:35:49 GMT

I think if President Obama nominated Jesus Christ for the SCOTUS, the GOP would be against it because he wore sandals, had long hair, and had empathy for the poor. They would probably also call him a socialist, even though they can't tell you why.