How Republicans can use Alinsky Tactics on Sotomayor Confirmation
Comments (1) The US Senate is a storied place, full of wonderful ritual and deference. It would be amazing to see politcal campaigns run with the same civility that these folks demonstrate to each other. If you had a chance to watch any of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings today, you heard respectful discussion from the Republican Senators.
Lindsay Graham has bent over backward to find any reason for Sotomayor to convince him that she deserves his vote. He even stated on a FoxNews interview with Greta van Susteren that he believes that the Senate’s role is to provide advice on Judicial appointments, and since Obama won, he gets to pick unless there is a serious problem.
The Republicans have always allowed the Democrats to use Alinsky tactics against them, and they get rope-a-doped EVERY TIME.
This vote is the GOP’s chance to finally let the Leftards get a dose of their own medicine and still hold their heads up high. Pull out your Alinsky playbook and turn to Rule # 4 Make the enemy live by its own book of rules.
What rules are those? Why, Dear Leader’s own SCOTUS confirmation rules – that is - the Senate does NOT act as a rubber stamp, as Lindsay Graham is suggesting, but rather the Senate votes a judge up/down based on the political alignment of the judge assuming they are otherwise qualified.
In Obama’s two votes for Supreme Court nomines. he voted against both Alito and Roberts. Take a closer look at the some of the rules the man creates for himself:
Obama Speech on Chief Justice Roberts Hearings:
After lauding Roberts credentials, Obama gets down to business:
The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25thmile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.
In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.
I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.
I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’sOffice, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
Obama speech on Justice Alito Confirmation Hearings:
As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I’m deeply troubled.
But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.
To Obama, the most important thing is KEEPING SCORE and an EVEN SPLIT in the judges decisions! This of course takes no account in the manner or type of cases that Alito orRoberts actually saw – its the requirement of a bleeding heart – plain and simple.
