Blog @ MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While they try to play Sotomayor’s bias as nothing more than someone from ‘humble’ beginnings making it to prime time even the NYT fish wrap feels compelled to state the obvious. As if a ‘focus’ on ‘diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation’ does not foretell the kind of decisions the nominee would make based on her predispositions to various issues. As illusive as objectivity can be, humans being what they are, a long history on the bench accompanied by an equally long history of expressing personal opinions and how they affect judgment should spell doom for this nominee. But then politics isn’t about objectivity even when the task demands it.

Speeches Show Judge’s Steady Focus on Diversity and Struggle

WASHINGTON — In speech after speech over the years, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has returned to the themes of diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation that have both powered and complicated her nomination to the Supreme Court.

She has lamented the dearth of Hispanics on the federal bench. She has exhorted young people to value immigration. She has mulled over the “deeply confused image” America has of its own racial identity. And she has used on more than one occasion a version of the “wise Latina” line that she has spent much of this week trying to explain.

The CNN report below is an affirmation of the difficulty for the MSM to ignore this nominee’s bias.

Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment a staple of her speeches

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Judge Sonia Sotomayor has spoken for years about how her experiences as a Latina woman have influenced her public and private life.
In her speeches, she often discussed her “Latina soul” and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views. And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach. The line was almost identical every time:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Imagine that. The word ‘objectivity’ appears in an AP report on the opposition party’s take on the SCOTUS nominee.

Sotomayor’s objectivity on bench is key question

WASHINGTON (AP) — The senator leading the GOP’s review of Sonia Sotomayor said the central question in her Supreme Court nomination should be whether she allows personal views to color her decisions.

In the Republican Party’s weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Sen. Jeff Sessions didn’t say whether he thinks Sotomayor crosses that line. But he raised questions that reflect a growing chorus of GOP criticism that the federal appeals court judge sees her role as something more than an impartial umpire.

Of course there is no bias coming from the SCOTUS nominee. Not disclosing a memo about her opinion on the death penalty and suggestion of racial overtones must have simply been a careless oversight. You know, just like Tim Geithner not paying his taxes until nominated for Treasury Secretary. After all, for Sotomayor, what possible significance could an opinion on the death penalty or her various associations have to do with her nomination to the SCOTUS?

Sotomayor Faulted Over Missing Memo

Critics of Judge Sonia Sotomayor seized Friday on her failure to include a 1981 memo opposing the death penalty in her response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire.

The memo, signed by Judge Sotomayor and two other members of the group, listed eight arguments against the death penalty, including that “capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society,” because minorities are disproportionately represented on death row.

And the public certainly shows some peculiar responses to this nomination. More than half are polled indicating they want Sotomayor confirmed. Yet nearly three to one disagree with her decision in the New Haven firefighters case. It is indeed a strange world we live in.

June 2nd…
Slightly more than half — 54% — said they would like to see the Senate confirm the president’s first nominee for the nation’s highest court, according to the results of a Gallup Poll released today. Just 28% of those surveyed said they opposed Sotomayor’s confirmation, and 19% had no opinion, according to the poll conducted Friday through Sunday.

June 3rd…
Of more than 3,000 people surveyed, 71% said they disagreed with Sotomayor’s vote in favor of tossing out the results of a New Haven, Conn., firefighter-promotion test because no blacks or Hispanics qualified.

It’s real simple. Sotomayor has demonstrated her strong bias and is not suitable for the SCOTUS. Case closed. Except for the notion that Obama nominated Sotomayor to throw Democrats a bone since shamnesty may not get on the calendar this year and the nomination helps liberals at the polls. And this is how they select SCOTUS nominees.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Although this blog author could be characterized generally as a fan of Senator Jeff Sessions this is one instance where that favorable impression is tested. Parts of the Sessions’ press release presented below could be judged as an attempt to reassure the public there will be no partisan attack on the SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor as well as encourage Hispanic voters not to vote against POLS who vote against Sotomayor.

At the same time it could be a genuine appeal to remind the public and encourage support of a vigorous vetting of a candidate for such a critical office in our nation’s judicial system.

It is comforting to believe this is a genuine expression of how the process is supposed to work. However, with or without this press release and its sentiment past confirmation hearings demonstrate the difficulty accepting the process as apolitical.

The only amusing thing in this otherwise serious undertaking comes from the fact so many confirmed nominees, including the retiring Justice Souter, have not performed as expected. So how much of this fuss is a waste of time if Sotomayor is ultimately rejected, withdraws or performs not as expected if confirmed?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sessions: Supreme Court Hearings Will Focus On Proper Role of Judge
and Court In American Legal System

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

MOBILE — U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following comments today regarding President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

“The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today is an important step in a constitutional process that includes the advice and consent of the Senate. I congratulate Ms. Sotomayor on her nomination.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s role is to act on behalf of the American people to carefully scrutinize Ms. Sotomayor’s qualifications, experience, and record. We will engage in a fair and thorough examination of Ms. Sotomayor’s previous judicial opinions, speeches, and academic writings to determine if she has demonstrated the characteristics that great judges share: integrity, impartiality, legal expertise, and a deep and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

“Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.

“President Obama has stated his desire to have a full court seated at the start of its next term, a reasonable goal toward which the Judiciary Committee should responsibly and diligently move. But we must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process. Adequate preparation will take time. I will insist that, consistent with recent confirmation processes, every senator be accorded the opportunity to prepare, ask questions, and receive full and complete answers.

“I look forward to the coming months as we move forward with this process. As I told the president this morning, I will do all I can to ensure that Ms. Sotomayor receives a fair hearing before the Committee. I firmly believe that the American people deserve a full and thoughtful debate about the proper role of a judge in the American legal system, an issue that will be central to our review of Ms. Sotomayor’s record.”

The view from this blog is that the House was unable to pass the massive bailout bill because those fearing election defeats voted for the bill. When it failed, Congress in their 12% approval rating mentality decided to hand it over to the Senate as re-election is viewed as not a problem for them. With that in mind this blog finds it reassuring that in the NO vote area below, Senators Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are listed. If memory serves, their voting records on illegal immigration and other issues were respectable as well.

But to be fair, since many members of Congress know who is going to do what before it happens, you could vote ‘no’ with the knowledge that so many others will vote ‘yes’ that your vote only serves to make you look good. But the leaning here is that Sessions, Shelby and DeMint are voting conscience and reason in this case. That is just a guess. Which unfortunately is the best one can do so often in observing politics.

Below is a copy of the roll call vote for HR1424 in the Senate. It is provided here simply as a reminder for those of you keeping score on your reps and what to do wth them. McCain and Obama of course voted for the bill. This blog views both Senators votes as purely political. This again requires a reminder that the choices for President at this point are not ideal but McCain, as viewed from this blog, is the better choice of the two. The reasons why will not be repeated in this post as it would just clutter things up and the reason for this post is obvious. Keep tabs on voting related to the BAILOUT and target members of Congress as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Measure Number:

H.R. 1424 (A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes. )

Measure Title:

A bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide incentives for energy production and conservation, to extend certain expiring provisions, to provide individual income tax relief, and for other purposes.

Vote Summary Grouped by Vote Position

YEAs —74

NAYs —25

Not Voting - 1

In a continuing series of posts on the GOP 24 some alterations and adjustments have been made based on events of the last couple of days. The GOP 24 should have been at least the GOP 27 with the information that was available at first. With the recent defeat of cloture on S.1639 in Roll Call Vote 235, a simple analysis was done here.

There were two bills for amnesty in the Senate this month. The first was S.1348, the famous back room deal between the Bush White House and primarily Senators Kyl, Kennedy, McCain and Reid. President Bush and these Senators as well as many others are in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. The bill they offered reflected that desire. The desire to abandon the rule of law and increase the risk to the United States with reckless legislation for political gain.

That bill was defeated but not without much angst and the largest sustained public outrage to visit Washington in years. Respectable Senators with the sense to understand the implications of blanket amnesty and the dangers it posed fought hard to oppose amnesty through its defeat. Only to be faced with yet another legislative assault from Sinister Harry Reid and his liberal camp along with some NERINOs (not even Republican in name only). S.1639 replaced the previous amnesty bill as the Senate ‘leadership’ continued to ignore the public outcry. Hearing opposition to these bills from both sides of the argument should have been sufficient to call off his dogs but Sinister Harry Reid would have none of that.

There were two cloture votes on each bill. The first of each pair was to agree to or reject consideration of each bill. The motion to consider by invoking cloture was agree to on S.1348. The second of the first pair of cloture votes was to limit or close debate and vote on the bill. That cloture bill was defeated and Sinister Harry Reid withdrew the bill. The same thing happened with the clone amnesty bill. The first of two cloture votes passed and the 2nd failed today.

Based on that last paragraph an analysis has been made in an attempt to list the 100 Senators in terms of their actions on these two attempts at amnesty. The following partial list displays the best the Senate has to offer in terms of defeating amnesty for those millions of law breakers known as illegal aliens or illegal immigrants. Here are the ‘good’ Senators.

(R-CO) Allard
(D-MT) Baucus
(R-KY) Bunning
(D-WV) Byrd
(R-OK) Coburn
(R-TN) Corker
(R-TX) Cornyn
(R-ID) Crapo
(R-SC) DeMint
(R-NC) Dole
(D-ND) Dorgan
(R-WY) Enzi
(R-TX) Hutchison
(R-OK) Inhofe
(R-KS) Roberts
(I-VT) Sanders
(R-AL) Sessions
(R-AL) Shelby
(R-NH) Sununu
(D-MT) Tester
(R-WY) Thomas/Barrasso
(R-SD) Thune
(R-LA) Vitter

Coburn, Cornyn, DeMint, Dole, Hutchinson, Inhofe, Sessions, Thomas/Barrasso and Vitter have probably been the most outspoken on opposition to amnesty. Of that group, Cornyn, Dole and Hutchinson have caused some concern with somewhat vague or ambiguous stands on the position. But certainly Sessions and DeMint receive the most credit for steadfast, continuous, loud and clear, determined and sustained outspoken efforts on behalf of all American citizens.

Beyond that the reason these Senators are given highest honors in the amnesty debate is due to their voting record on the four cloture votes. A resounding NO on all four roll calls was submitted by one and all in this group. You might notice that not all of these Senators are Republican. Several Democrats and an Independent are also included.

It is sincerely hoped that none of these Senators will be offended by the description presented. It is the complete opinion of this blog and all responsibility lands here. The intent was to provide some sort of an approval rating for a fine job on behalf of the American people when other ratings given are so poor. That is not to say the other ratings are not justified. It only means when you lump these Senators in with the remainder of the 100, numbers fall.

One last point on the no votes is this. An assumption is being made here that seems valid. Voting no on the first of each pair of cloture votes is a move to not consider the legislation. Voting no again on the 2nd cloture is to not limit debate and deny the opportunity to vote on passage. This move indicates these Senators realized the bills were so flawed that no quantity of amendments could resolve the problems. There was no sense in discussing or voting on passage for bills that were nothing more than amnesty and the minority party controlled the floor.

The first runners up will be in the next post.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, A Blog For All, The Random Yak, DeMediacratic Nation, 123beta, Right Truth, Big Dog’s Weblog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, , Diary of the Mad Pigeon, The Magical Rose Garden, Allie Is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Nuke’s news and views, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

crossposted at:
Conservative Thoughts

This ought to start cranking up that Congressional approval rating. Senator Jeff Sessions may take the prize for unparalleled determination and tenacity fighting the good fight against illegal immigration and the unjust amnesty aimed at illegal aliens by the liberal fringe. Mr Sessions would be the Ted Kennedy antidote.

If everyone who is overwhelmingly satisfied with Senator Sessions work on behalf of all Americans opposed to amnesty would spread the word, Sessions success this month against amnesty may become contagious. We could use more Congressmen doing this fine work. Thanks again, Senator Sessions. There is congratulations to be bestowed on not just Senator Sessions but this post features his press release and we’ll let him steal the show right now.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Thursday, June 28, 2007

WASHINGTON—U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following comments today after the U.S. Senate voted 46 – 53 not to invoke cloture on the immigration bill:

“Today’s crushing defeat of the flawed immigration bill is a victory for the American people.

“The Congressional Budget Office found that this legislation would have allowed 8.7 million more illegal aliens in the United States over the next twenty years. We would be squandering a historic opportunity to reform our immigration system if we accepted policies that reduced illegality by only 13 percent. We can and must do better.

“As the public learned more about this immigration legislation, it became clear that the bill did not meet their expectations. The American people overwhelmingly rejected it. Senators heard the voices of their constituents and voted accordingly.

“The vote was also a rejection of the heavy handed procedure employed by the supporters of the legislation. It was not a fair process. I have not seen a more carefully scripted attempt to limit amendments and stifle debate in order to move a piece of legislation through the Senate as was witnessed in this case. Senators saw it for what it was and objected.

“Our nation’s immigration system is broken. I believe that any process to fix that system must start with a real commitment to securing our borders and enforcing our laws. I am pleased to work with President Bush as we move forward with a renewed focus on making our borders secure. It would be an enduring legacy for him if he were to be the first President in nearly 40 years to truly secure our nation’s borders.”

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

WASHINGTON— U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following comments regarding the $4.4 billion included in the immigration bill Sen. Reid reintroduced yesterday:

“If we assume that the Administration and the bill’s drafters were serious about their commitment to enforcement, the recent promises of guaranteed funding are unnecessary.

“The only significance of the promised funding is to effectively say ‘we’re going to fund what we already promised to fund.’ The $4.4 billion will not build additional miles of fencing, provide any new technology, hire additional agents or acquire more detention beds than already promised by the President and included in the bill’s provisions that trigger amnesty.

“Let me emphasize that this money will do nothing more than fund the enforcement trigger in the bill, which was already a solemn promise to the American people. The real problem is that the enforcement trigger does not go far enough. It will not adequately secure the border or restore the rule of law.

“The trigger remains very weak. It does not ensure – and the mandatory spending does not provide for – construction of the 700 miles of fencing already authorized by current law. The immigration bill only provides for construction of a total of 370 miles. A mere 87 miles of fencing exist today on our 2,000 mile southern border. Likewise, current law requires 43,000 detention spaces by the end of fiscal year 2007, but the bill’s enforcement trigger provides for only 31,500. The trigger does not require completion of the U.S. VISIT exit system, which is absolutely critical to ensure that foreign workers and visitors do not overstay their visas. To assert that these enforcement items are an assurance to the American people is disingenuous.

“Most significantly, the $4.4 billion will do nothing to change CBO’s conclusion that the bill will only reduce illegal immigration by 13 percent. CBO assumed the bill’s enforcement items would be funded when it published its June 4th cost estimate. If the Senate bill is enacted, CBO projects an additional 8.7 million new illegal immigrants will be in the U.S. in 20 years. These new promises do nothing to prevent that.”