Comments about ‘Bennett opposes Sotomayor’

Is he simply going to vote no, or is he going to put a hold on her confirmation?

This is not a big surprise, but, Mr. Bennett, all the supreme court judges legislate from the bench. That's why right now it's always a 5-4 decision. You can't convince me that the judges don't take into account their belief system when making rulings, especially since it always turns out a 5-4 vote, straight down party lines. You're only voting no because her views aren't in line with your own.

"Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, said Friday he will oppose the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, saying he dislikes her record on gun rights and her statements that judges may consider international law when interpreting what he says is an "inspired" Constitution."

Maybe if he read the Constitution he may actually know what she was talking about but it's clear that this idiot doesn't even bother reading it otherwise he would know that it says "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" and "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

Or in other words it grants the Courts the authority to interpret the Constitution in respect to any legal issue arising under the Constitution or laws and treaties of the United States. So Bobby needs to get a brain and learn how to read.

Bennett is a worthless partison shill. Never met a Democratic proposal he couldn't say NO to.

I suspect if he weren't up for re-election, he would vote for her. But he has to play to the gun lobby to protect his job. The senate hearings have been a farce; she has 3000 judicial decisions on record and they can't find one to object to (ligitimately); they can only accuse her of being a racist for some remark back when.

At least Senator Bennett can make some correct decisions.

While it would be great if a Latina or Latino were appointed to the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor's career as a lawyer and a judge shows that she does not believe in equality under the law. She believes that the playing field must be tilted in favor of minority groups. It's one thing to require minorities to be treated equally. It is another thing to allow reverse discrimination for the sake of enforcing equality of results. Equal protection is not about ensuring equality of results but equality of treatment under the law. Her ruling in the Ricci case shows her philosophy that discrimination is fine, as long as it is discrimination against the right group. That's wrong.

I'm also concerned about indications that she believes in a "living constitution," which means that judges impose their own views. It strikes at the heart of the rule of law, because it substitutes one person's view of what the law ought to be for simple application of the law as it is. That is no different than a tyrant king.

Senator Bennett is right to vote against her.

Though I don't live in Utah I support Senator Bennett's decision. I feel that she is racist and discriminatory towards all not of her race. Her comments and other things disqualifies her in my book. International law has no bearing on the US Constitution. Those treaties mentioned are basically those binding us to support certain countries in case invaded. I feel the recent treaty that President Obama did with Russia will set the US Military back and endanger this country in the years to come. That is my opinion. I would vote against her to. Too bad the democrats have a 60-40 majority that basically doesn't allow for a filerbuster. If it was closer to where the repubicans could filerbuster her confirmation would be in jeapordy.

The judicial power extends to the point of ensuring that the law is executed as it is written by the elected representatives of the people!! The Constitution gives no power to the judiciary to “legislate” or act as “moral arbiters” as they all too often do. Your argument is a sad commentary on the abject failure of many of our citizens to properly understand the Constitution and its framers intentions. Senator Bennett is right to oppose an activist such as Sotomayor and there are many in our judicial system who should have been similarly opposed!! If you truly value freedom and liberty, you should vehemently oppose any judge such as Sotomayor who considers it their privilege to “make law” by judicial fiat.

Too late--- I wonder what Bobby Bennett would do if it wasn't an election year?? But he is involved in a permanent campaign anyway so I guess it doesn't matter..
Time to retire old man.....

I hope all the RE-PUBLI-CONS will take notice on how I stand-up for them. I hope they will pay me back by VOTING FOR BOB.

REMEMBER!

VOTE FOR BOB!

Since the Supreme Court overturns 75% of all federal cases it hears (according to multiple sources, including the Arizona Republic) her record of being overturned is basically in line with the norm. Senator Bennett's statements appear to be political pandering. Ironically, that implies he is not taking his Constitutional responsibilities seriously, nor following a strict interpretation of that inspired document.

He votes no for her. I vote no for him.

I am sorry but you don't sound like the sharpest tool in the shed either. Otherwise you would realize that he is not questioning the fact that they have the power to interpret but rather her way of interpreting. I.e. the way she interprets gun rights and the way she think international law is okay to use when interpreting.

If Sotomayor was white or a man, she wouldn't be in this situation anyway.

Good ole' "Bailout Bob". Doing his best to stay relevant with the election coming up. NO, as in none, Supreme Court nominees can, or ever will, satisfy everyone. The President is now a Democrat and unless we Repubs. come up with some VERY COMPELLING REASON why she shouldn't be confirmed, Obama gets to appoint whomever he likes!


We conservatives need to pick our battles, and this isn't worth the fight. I think Bennett knows that but he just likes to stay in the news!

Bennett will vote? BTW, grass is gree, water is wet and he will school Chaffetz.

with the Senator's opposition to this candidate. I take no part in partisan politics, nor do I have an opinion about Senator Bennett's record--I'm not from Utah. BUT the Constitution should be either interpreted as written--or legally changed. Legislation is the province of the elected representatives of the people under our Constitution. It is not the place of the judicial branch to legislate. And this candidate has shown herself to be both radical in her interpretation of law AND prejudiced in favor on one particular race. Prejudice is prejudice--and it's wrong. Equal treatment under the law is what our Constitution promises us, not special treatment for whatever group is currently in favor.

So, NO, NO, NO to Sotomayor!

Come on 'inspired'? It is just a piece of paper....

Thanks, Senator Bennett. Based on her past decisions and comment's, Ms. Sotomayor is obviously biased in her judgments from the bench and not suitable to sit on the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, partisan politics will rule in this case and confirmation is a done deal.

It isn't international treaties we have signed that are the problem. For the last several years, judges have been taking the laws of other countries into account - not treaties, just internal laws of other countries. Why on earth should the SC make a decision based on international popular opinion, expressed by a certain number of countries passing similar laws FOR THEIR OWN populations, over the plain meaning of OUR constitution? Bennett is right here. You don't like the Constitution, fine, change it, but don't override it as if it didn't exist.