Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Baucus &Tester vote for SOTOMAYOR SCOTUS

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
    Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
    http://www.gunowners.org



    Thursday, August 6, 2009

    The Senate easily confirmed the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only 31 Senators took seriously their oath to uphold the Constitution and voted against this radical anti-gun nominee, with 68 voting for confirmation.

    All the Democrats in attendance voted for Sotomayor, while nine Republicans joined their ranks.

    The Republican Senators who voted for Sotomayor were: Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Christopher Bond of Missouri, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, Mel Martinez of Florida, George Voinovich of Ohio and Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine.

    Many Democrat Senators campaigned on a pro-Second Amendment platform, yet voted to confirm a nominee who does not believe you have a fundamental right to self defense or an individual right to possess a firearm.

    Placing the prerogatives of President Obama over their constitutional "Advice and Consent" duty, many so-called pro-gun Senators reneged on their promises to voters that they would support the individual right to keep and bear arms.

    The common refrain heard in the Senate before the vote was: "The President deserves his pick."

    Of course, Senator Barrack Obama did not hold that view in 2006, when he opposed President Bush's pick of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Then-Senator Obama said:


    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.
    Thankfully, we are seeing more and more Senators stand up to Obama's radical agenda. You will remember that GOA encouraged you to lobby other gun groups so that gun owners across the country could speak with a unified voice in opposition to Judge Sotomayor.

    We were hugely successful in this endeavor! News reports credit the gun lobby's strong and unified opposition to Sotomayor as resulting in at least three NO votes from Senators who were previously undecided or in favor of the nominee. Even that figure is probably low, considering that 31 NO votes is a lot better than three NO votes (in the case of Justice Ginsburg) and nine NO votes (in the case of Justice Breyer).

    One of the fence-sitting Senators who voted right today was Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. For the first time in his 33 year Senate career, Hatch voted against a Supreme Court nomination. You may remember that Hatch even supported Obama's pick for Attorney General and voted to end the filibuster on Harold Koh, the radical choice for the State Department counsel.

    But faced with mounting pressure from grassroots in his state, Sen. Hatch broke with long-standing tradition regarding his support for Supreme Court nominations. Today, he voted against Judge Sotomayor.

    "I feel very badly that I have to vote negatively -- it's not what I wanted to do when this process started -- but I believe that I'm doing the honorable and right thing," Sen. Hatch was quoted as saying in Newsday.

    Thank you, everyone, for putting the heat on your Senators. President Obama would do well to interpret 31 NO votes as a "shot across the bow." With his approval ratings plummeting, the president's next Supreme Court pick may have to be far more in the mainstream.


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    We are not losing the Heller 5 in this appointment. There would be a hell of a lot more heat if one of the Heller 5 was facing an appointment.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    We are not losing the Heller 5 in this appointment. There would be a hell of a lot more heat if one of the Heller 5 was facing an appointment.
    and your statement means it is ok if Congress approved someone who is not qualified for the job and is UNFIT to hold any govt job at any level of govt whether elected, appointed, or hired

    1. sexist - by her own statements

    2. racist - by her own statememts

    3. does not uphold the U.S. Constitution based on her court decisions

    4. rules on cases based on her mindset not the Constitution

    5. does not believe the right of self defense - by her own statements









  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    IDAHO COWBOY wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    We are not losing the Heller 5 in this appointment. There would be a hell of a lot more heat if one of the Heller 5 was facing an appointment.
    and your statement means it is ok if Congress approved someone who is not qualified for the job and is UNFIT to hold any govt job at any level of govt whether elected, appointed, or hired

    1. sexist - by her own statements

    2. racist - by her own statememts

    3. does not uphold the U.S. Constitution based on her court decisions

    4. rules on cases based on her mindset not the Constitution

    5. does not believe the right of self defense - by her own statements







    What are you going to do about it other than sit and complain on a website?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Gray Peterson wrote:
    IDAHO COWBOY wrote:
    Gray Peterson wrote:
    We are not losing the Heller 5 in this appointment. There would be a hell of a lot more heat if one of the Heller 5 was facing an appointment.
    and your statement means it is ok if Congress approved someone who is not qualified for the job and is UNFIT to hold any govt job at any level of govt whether elected, appointed, or hired

    1. sexist - by her own statements

    2. racist - by her own statements

    3. does not uphold the U.S. Constitution based on her court decisions

    4. rules on cases based on her mindset not the Constitution

    5. does not believe the right of self defense - by her own statements







    What are you going to do about it other than sit and complain on a website?

    1. What did you do about it ? if anything ?

    2. Myself and many others exercised out First Amendment Rights, before and after the vote - contacting various Senators by e-mail, phone, fax.

    3. Voting for SOTOMAYOR was a violation of their Oath of Office, failure to protect and defend the U.S Constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic.

    4. Are you a troll ? or just apathetic

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aEg28n4IRU

    49 years ago opinion on so called liberals 1960, what would this individual think and say today

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaPA8fGeRUc&feature=related

    The REPUBLIC, RIGHT & WRONG, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w86QhV7whjs&feature=related

    Citizenship - Are you a commie, or a citizen?

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    Well, our Senators did not vote for the racist, anti-constitutionalist, sexist, "Judge"?



  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    296

    Post imported post

    Wyocowboy wrote:
    Well, our Senators did not vote for the racist, anti-constitutionalist, sexist, "Judge"?

    Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah did GREAT !

    Montana did very poorly both Baucus and Tester both democrats voted for / YES on SOTOMAYOR.

    Montana is a great State, but I always wonder whythey elect anti liberty, anti freedom, anti constitution,pro federal govt controlSenators

    wait and see how Montana votes in 2010 and 2012.

    Is the problem apathy ?

    or

    a silent majority that is afraid to speak out and vote what they really think ?





  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Newcastle, Wyoming, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I think it may be a little of all of the above. I also think it is time for Montana to take back their state. I know we face the same problem in certain areas of Wyoming, coincidentally, the same areas that have the most problems with open carry.

  9. #9
    Regular Member LeMat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalispell, Montana, USA
    Posts
    162

    Post imported post

    IDAHO COWBOY wrote:
    Montana is a great State, but I always wonder whythey elect anti liberty, anti freedom, anti constitution,pro federal govt controlSenators.........
    Because the gigantic influx of anti liberty, anti freedom, anti constitution, pro federal gov't leftist liberals from the east and west coast have us outnumbered by a huge margin.

    They want to "get away from it all", but end up bringing it here.
    "Never belittle someone for carrying a small firearm. Commend them for carrying a firearm."
    -OpenCarry.org member MAC702

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •