You are hereBegich, Murkowski Split on Sotomayor
Begich, Murkowski Split on Sotomayor
By Dave Bronson
Contributor
The Alaska Standard
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, has been confirmed by the Senate. Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski wisely voted against Judge Sotomayor, and she explained her vote by detailing Sotomayor’s troubling record. Alaskans should thank Senator Murkowski for standing up for their values on this important vote.
Unfortunately, Mark Begich voted to confirm her. He voted in favor of her confirmation despite the fact that she has one of the most liberal records of speeches and judicial decisions of any Supreme Court nominee in recent history. She has stated that she believes courts are where policy is made, and that judge’s should base their judicial decisions on their gender and ethnicity. She also has a disturbingly bad record on racial quotes and racial preferences, on unlimited abortion on demand, and on the importation of foreign law into U.S. Courts. And she may be the worst nominee in modern history when it comes to the issue of our Second Amendment fundamental right to bear arms.
In his announcement, Senator Begich stated that he “heard from hundreds of Alaskans,” who he explained “believe especially strongly in the 2nd Amendment and our right to bear arms.” Despite all that, and her record of activist writings and judicial decisions, Senator Begich concluded that “I am convinced she will not be an activist justice.”
Forgive me for not being equally convinced. Sotomayor sat on the Second Circuit panel that held in Maloney v. Cuomo that “it is settled law . . . that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose” on the right to keep and bear arms. While Sotomayor promised to “keep an open mind on the incorporation doctrine,” she remained hostile to this fundamental right during her confirmation hearing.
That led the National Rifle Association to oppose Sotomayor back in July due to her “hostile view of the Second Amendment.” While condemning her approach to Second Amendment issues, the NRA reasoned that “[i]n her Maloney opinion and during the confirmation hearings, she deliberately misread Supreme Court precedent to support her incorrect view.” Given the NRA’s announcement that it will factor in Senators’ votes on Sotomayor’s confirmation into its ratings, it appears that Senator Begich should have thought more carefully about his decision to cast a “yes” vote.
Whatever he promises about protecting access to firearms, I hope his constituents will take notice that it is now clear he is just another Washington liberal who will go along with efforts to restrict our fundamental rights. How else can we interpret his support for a Supreme Court nominee who has been so radically dismissive of the Second Amendment?
For now, Senator Begich can rest knowing that Sotomayor’s Supreme Court decisions will not start coming down for several months. But public perception in Alaska that Senator Begich is biting the hand that feeds him will have damaging political consequences down the road, when her judicial opinions do start becoming public records. Those opinions will show her true liberal judicial activist colors on so many issues of importance to Alaskans. And Begich should not be surprised to see his support among Alaskans plummet just like his NRA rating.
Isn't credit one of the culprits that got us into this financial mess we find ourselves. The "Cash for Clunkers" deal just promotes more credit (interest) for those who can't afford more credit (interest). I for one will keep my "clunkers" because the gas is cheeper that the interest and the payments on a new vehicle.
Her record is actually fairly balanced. And she is far more experienced that any judge currently on the bench. The point you try to make have been refuted.
My understanding of the statement you are regurgitating is that she is actaullly correct on the nature of appellate and the only folks acting like they are upset are really using the statement to manipulate you and play it for some political gain Laws are not always written with the full understanding of there impact and consequences. Courts of appeals, of which the Supreme Court is one, are used to clarify these laws. Defacto they are determining the impacts of the laws, or setting the reach of the policy that the laws are to implement. Determining or making policy. It really is a no brainer. That is what the entire court of appeals is about. "She was saying something which is the absolute judicial equivalent of saying the sun rises each morning.It is thoroughly uncontroversial to anyone other than a determined demagogue."
And in the Maloney case, I think she really does have a Constitutional leg to stand on. That is why the issue will come before the Supreme Court. It comes down the the issue whether the feds have the right to impose on local government. Carefull here. "In the gun rights case that has conservatives up in arms -- Maloney -- Sotomayor joined a panel in affirming a lower court's ruling that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the states. Alliance senior fellow Megan McCloskey said this decision was recently validated by a 7th Circuit ruling from conservative judges Frank Easterbrook and Richard Posner." I am sure the "activist" judges on the Supreme Court will overrule, but they are playing with fire.
Mostly I think that liberals will be more disappointed with this pick in the long run. I think she will remain fairly middle of the road. But Obama will get at least 2 more shots to get it right.
When I hear people, call Sonia Sotomayor a possible activist judge I can only laugh and I think to myself, do you mean like the George W. Bush appointees? John Roberts, and Samuel Elito, whom are shells for the ideals of giving corporations the same rights as individual people under their interpretation of the constitution. I cannot believe that people act like they are shocked at the ideal of the court being assembled of two different political perspectives among the members, and it is no secret that whoever has the most justices on their side controls the court. It is amusing however to see the Neo-Cons call it activism only when the Judge has a differing viewpoint.
you'd be wearing a coolie hat and eating rice, if you're lucky. Now that's funny and I don't care who you are.
is firing on 3 of your 8 cylinders, and you think you run "just fine". Your idealism is polluting the environment. Do you have rabies? Is that view point constitutional? Because of rabies...USA gets Sotomayor, and you need Obama care. To bad so sad, whats your epitaph?
Mr.Hole why is it that you want to attack me every time I write something? I really wish you would stick to the issues that I bring up and not use insults as your counter point. I am aware that your side is all about misleading and living in a world of hypothetical situations, but I live in a world a facts and reality, so next time please try and address me like an adult not like a republican, and for once in your life try and be pragmatic rather than your constant state of being a cynic.
It's hard not being cynical when we have the epitome of affirmative action (trying to) leading our country, apologizing to our enemies and presumably giving away everything a great deal of us have worked our blanks off of for and swiftly enacting his professed plan of socialism.
Come on!?!
BHO, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Chris Dodd, John Kerry and company. They're all stinking rich and they want and play to - Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Progressivism, Race Card, etc.............................................................
Who's really in control of this country?
When we're all freezing in the dark, you'll change your mind.
you make me feel smart. If you believe in Obama, that's your first problem! I don't mean to be cynical, I just see the chips in your windshield. Your staring at the chips and missing the rest.
You are one strange dude, I have yet too see you bring up a single point that holds any weight. As far as enjoying debating me, well we have to actually have a intelligent dialog based on facts, not you thinking your warped ideology is reality and counter everything I say with played out talking points, in order for it to be considered debating.
Nice try though :-)
On the real how do you feel about Cash for Clunkers?
There should be absolutely no tax dollars used for any reason as long as this government has a deficit. When the government takes my money, diminishes my net wealth, passes that money to special interest, I see a political party buying votes. Your vote? Our constitution is based on equality. How is it equal when I am responsible for my financial health. Where others have no other interest except to make babies they cant afford or to get high. Why should I pay for their clunker? Or anything for that matter? I see the non profit, churches, use to manage welfare through our donations. That was the intent for non profit. Now we see non profit being funded as vehicles for special interest promoting a political party. Acorn, vote buying! Like health care. Free housing. Free food. Free transportation. Free sex change. Why is it free? I work, its not free to me. That brings us to the point, if you believe in what the government is doing and you vote for these things you are the problem. These things will consume the USA until our enemies over take us. Thank you for your support in socialism.
"When the government takes my money, diminishes my net wealth, passes that money to special interest, I see a political party buying votes.."
Ah, you mean like the $787BILLION that Bush/Paulson demanded and got from Congress to pay off/save the big banks? That kind of political party? And then there's the 2 wars costing us BILLIONS per month, only Afghanistan of which is legitimate. But then I bet you had a different opinion last year.
Bush was an idiot for the bail out. Bush was an idiot for no child left behind. Bush was an idiot for the boarders. I respect Bush for the FACT that he kept America safe. Sounds like the UN is your type of government, all talk no action. Remember we were attacked and our enemies want to kill the infidels, that's you! Why don't you go buy your blood oil for your subaru, and send your money to Sierra club to stop ANWER drilling. If this is you, you are a traitor.
If you are against the $4500.00 credit toward a new vehicle that is being introduced by the Democratic congress and Democratic president Obama, than I would hope it would be safe to assume that you were just as vehemently opposed to the $17,500.00 credit that was introduced by the Republican congress and Republican president Bush for a vehicle that exceeds six thousand pounds.
I can really see you as one of these T-baggers who shows up to the town hall meetings just to try and disrupt the process of democracy, not going to have a civil debate about the true issues, going to act a fool and try to stop the factual truth from being discussed.
Much better post though I can start to see your perspective a little clearer, even know I don’t agree with your premise I can say I see where you come from.
installing a president by influencing masses of misguided people through the expenditure of millions of dollars by the media and big business (wall street and the auto manufacturers to list a few) and continuing to do so by holding "town hall" meetings to push the message and agenda (for government control) at these same people.
When the left protests against the government, it's their constitutional right. When conservatives don't agree with the government pissing away their hard earned money, they're "t-baggers". Stop misrepresenting your so called facts. The credit you're alluding to was intended for FARMERS and FARM equipment. Unfortunately, there were opportunists that immediately discovered a tax loophole in the credit and ran out and bought Hummers. IDIOTS. I hope they're still paying for their GM pieces of junk. That credit was not an affront to continue to pay off the auto manufacturers and unions for their campaign support and was peanuts compared to the billions of latent dollars being harvested at our expense.
The only reality and facts that you live with are in your own mind. Most of us regard this condition as fantasy, psychosis, delusional behaviour, etc. Spend a little time in the fresh air or at least breath into a paper bag every now and then.
I'm going to take a chance and say that your misquided liberal rants are pretty entertaining (and scary). Why don't you just chant the verses from chairman Mao's little red book. Who's the fool?
republican or democrat I do not want any unnecessary spending. I want the government to keep us safe from foreign enemies, maintain a strong dollar. Develop our resources for jobs. Give us the ability to achieve the economy to raise our family on our own merit. Without government interference. Me as a T-bagger has the same right as those that spoke against the war on terror, prove your point. When you gain on your issues by taking my wealth, I have a problem with that. It seems you attack me because I don't want to give it to you, and I attack you because you want to take it. Go figure???? Who is being extorted? I want my FREEDOM, do not take it. Obama's change is socialism. Your for that?
you are malignant. You will be the death of Alaska as we have known her.
I am glad to know that you know as to what Alaska was in the past. Mark and Obama in the current form will destory Alaska and America as we have known it. As long as you support this distruction of Alaska by Mr. Begich and Mr. Obama then you will never see Alaska again as it was.
will chemo work? Will we die in six years?
Mr. Begich is showing us chapters of his true liberal colors.......... I see many more votes like this one and even worse........... Health care is next, I wonder if he has even looked it over.....? The President has vowed to destory the current system. I do not want Mark to make my medical choices for me.