Her refusal to answer was clearly an answer, and clearly an attempt to avoid a situation where she would have to lie so blatantly that it could not be ignored.

You are right. She is a liar, and if I understand you correctly, you are also right in that it could easily be much worse.

As with Republican response to other bricks in Obama’s statist wall, even though we cannot ultimately stop anything, it is important that we remain the party of “no”. For the time will come when we will have to answer for it if we do not.

I am sure Hatch and most of the GOP will not repeat the past, but not sure how big will be our vote against her. It needs to be huge.

So we bloody her terribly, oppose strenuously, and make a mockery of her obvious bigotry and activism, making sure we make the connection that *this* is what Democrats think the courts should be like.

But ultimately, she passes.

[My understanding is that the senate's rules allow the majority can at least bring tie committee votes to the floor (and even those that lose the committee vote), but I could be wrong.]

Estrada, as I understand it, was denied a floor vote by the then democratic majority.

The Senate may exercise its advise and consent function by doing nothing. There is no requirement of a floor vote, but I do accept the precedent of the Gang of 14 compromise to only filibuster and deny a floor vote for “extraordinary circumstances.”

And given that most of the legal community accepts the liberal living constitution activist theory of judicial interpretation as mainstream (though less so than it was 20 years ago before Bork and the Fed-Soc movement), we can’t say Soto is extraordinarily unacceptable.

Now, to me, such a judicial philosophy is anathema to the Oath and grounds for Impeachment, much less not a grounds to vote against her.

But, no matter if we did defeat her or cause her nomination to be pulled, the replacement would be a stealth nominee that would vote the same on the court.

I do wish she would be defeated on a floor vote, but given the balance of the court and my long desired hope that Americans could finally become educated on how vile are the democrats on judges, I think the best chance we have is what we are doing now in the hearing and for her to be barely voted in with dem votes and for her to be hung around the dems’ necks in 2010 and 2012, complete with ads and sound bites.

[See my latest and feel free to recco if deemed worthy (smile). I am under contract for my columns this week with several major newspapers.]

latest

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/15/sotomayor-as-toto-deny-or/

Here was the first

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/12/sotomayor-sessions-on-race-and-judicial-activism/

If I am to understand right, there is a long-standing Senate rule that at least 1 opposite-party committee member must vote ‘yes’ to get her out of committee. For decades that vote was guaranteed to be provided by noted charlie-sierra Arlen Specter.

Is this correct? Or close?

What they did to Miguel Estrada (and many others) means I give her no quarter. None at all.

“Sotomayor Hits Back Hard at Racial Charges”

I’d stake a year’s pay on the bet that if this had been a Republican nominee the headline would have read:

“GOP Nominee Hammered for Racist Remarks”

What a joke.

see here

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/15/sotomayor-as-toto-deny-or/

and here incl comments thereunder

http://www.redstate.com/gamecock/2009/07/12/sotomayor-sessions-on-race-and-judicial-activism/