When Jeff Sessions Voted for Sonia Sotomayor

— By Steve Aquino | Wed May 27, 2009 1:12 PM PST

On October 2, 1998, the full Senate voted on Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed her nomination 67-29; all of the nay votes came from Republicans. That's not much of a surprise.

But just a few months earlier, in March 1998, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 16-2 in favor of Sotomayor's nomination, with only Jon Kyl and John Ashcroft, both Republicans, voting against her. The Republican committee members who voted for Sotomayor included Strom Thurmond, Orrin Hatch and Jeff Sessions, but each of whom flipped his vote when Sotomayor's nomination went to the full Senate. (And when President George H.W. Bush nominated her for an open distict court spot in 1992, the Judiciary Committee—then chaired by Joe Biden—and the full Senate unanimously approved her nomination.)

So what happened between March and October 1998?

Republican senators have been blocking Judge Sotomayor's elevation to the appeals court for a highly unusual reason: to make her less likely to be picked by Mr. Clinton for the Supreme Court, senior Republican Congressional aides said in interviews.

[...]

Senate Republican staff aides said Trent Lott of Mississippi, the majority leader, has agreed to hold up a vote on the nomination as part of an elaborate political calculus; if she were easily confirmed to the appeals court, they said, that would put her in a position to be named to the Supreme Court. And Senate Republicans think that they would then have a difficult time opposing a Hispanic woman who had just been confirmed by the full Senate.

In other words, politics happened.

Go Figure, between putting a stopper on idiotic Cap-and-Trade and the ratification of essential Universal Health (as implemented in ALL other developed countries) the money at issue is staggering!!!

The magician flourishes his wand, and all eyes follow that hand (al-Qaeda & Sotomayor)—in fact, the other hand is the one to watch!!!

How is it that under Cap-and-Trade the Energy Industry simply passes-on Higher Costs directly to the consumer—with no decrease in emissions!!!

Instead, institute a Cap system, with 0-interest Govt. loans when necessary…

Here Read:

+ The Case Against Carbon Trading / Transnational Institute:

–”…Citigroup’s Peter Atherton confessed that the European Union’s Emission Trading Scheme had ‘done nothing to curb emissions.’ He admitted, ‘Prices up, emissions up, profits up …’ Who wins and loses? Coal and nuclear-based generators–biggest winners. Hedge funds and energy traders–even bigger winners. Losers … Consumers!”

+ Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States / Government Accountability Office (GAO):

--“If the universal coverage and single-payer features of the Canadian system were applied in the United States, the savings in administrative cost alone would be more than enough to finance insurance coverage for the millions of Americans who are currently uninsured.”

+ Single-Payer Protests Challenge Democrats / Washington Post, 06/06/09:

--“The White House and Democratic leaders have made clear there is no chance that Congress will adopt a single-payer approach -- named for the idea that a single government-backed insurance plan would pay for all Americans' medical costs -- because it is too radical a change.”

+ The Truth About Drug Companies / Mother Jones:

“… Angell attacks major pharmaceutical industry -- whose top ten companies make more in profits than the rest of the Fortune 500 combined -- for using “free market” rhetoric while opposing competition at all costs.”

Why not Universal Health Care with a $25 deductible after the first annual visit?

So…--divert our attention to the radicals Al-Qaeda and Sotomayor!!!

+ Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize / LA Times:

--“President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.”

+ In College Thesis, Sotomayor Appeared to Support Puerto Rican Independence / Wall Street Journal:

--“Ms. Sotomayor was born in the Bronx of Puerto Rican parents … she dedicates her paper ‘to the people of my island … there has been … a growing Americanization of the island.’”

Yet, Anti-American or not, Sotomayor isn’t even a real issue here…

Consider how The Civil Rights Act of 1871 was enacted to provide protection against the misuse of power (the KKK), yet in O’shea v. Littleton (a federal class action by African-Americans against racially-motivated illegal acts by two state judges) the Supreme Court held:

“The Complaint fails … to allege an actual case or controversy”

Though the Dissent Opinion stated:

“These allegations of wrongdoing clearly state a case or controversy.”

That Court held:

“None of the named plaintiffs is identified as himself having suffered any injury in the manner specified.”

Yet the Dissent stated:

“The charges concerning the named plaintiffs are as follows …”

Then that Court’s Train Completely Jumped theTracks:

“Past exposure to alleged illegal conduct does not in itself, show a present case or controversy … if unaccompanied by any continuing, present adverse effects.”

Nope, I’m not a lawyer either (you don’t have to be to “understand” such drivel) another Supreme Court case reads:

“The Forest Service does not deny that the checkpoint was impermissibly operated … The mere fact that the checkpoint was used at the 1996 gathering was unconstitutional cannot alone give Ms. Parks standing. We do not think that the use of checkpoints in 1997, 1998, and 1999 is relevant …”

Here consider how the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires each federal agency to consult with the Secretary of the Interior to ensure that any action funded by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or habitat of any endangered or threatened species. A subsequent rule limited the scope; environmental groups sued…

Bottom line, the Majority held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue—but the Dissent related:

“Congress has found that a wide variety of endangered species of fish, wildlife and plants are of ‘aesthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.’ Given that finding, we have no license to demean the importance of the interest that particular individuals may have in observing any species in its habitat …”