Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Confirmed Yes Votes (0):

Confirmed No Votes (5): James Inhofe (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Unknown Votes (94):
AL: Shelby (R), Sessions (R)
AK: Begich (D)
AZ: McCain (R), Kyl (R)
AR: Lincoln (D), Pryor (D)
CA: Feinstein (D), Boxer (D)
CO: M. Udall (D), Bennet (D)
CT: Dodd (D), Lieberman (ID)
DE: Carper (D), Kaufman (D)
FL: C. W. Nelson (D), LeMieux (R)
GA: Chambliss (R), Isakson (R)
HI: Inouye (D), Akaka (D)
ID: Crapo (R), Risch (R)
IL: Durbin (D), Burris (D)


IN: Lugar (R), Bayh (D)
IA: Grassley (R), Harkin (D)
KS: Brownback (R), Roberts (R)
KY: Bunning (R)
LA: Landrieu (D), Vitter (R)
ME: Snowe (R), Collins (R)
MD: Mikulski (D), Cardin (D)
MA: Kerry (D), S.P. Brown (R)
MI: Levin (D), Stabenow (D)
MN: Klobuchar (D), Franken (D)
MS: Cochran (R), Wicker (R)
MO: Bond (R), McCaskill (D)


MT: Baucus (D), Tester (D)
NE: E. B. Nelson (D), Johanns (R)
NV: Reid (D), Ensign (R)
NH: Gregg (R), Shaheen (D)
NJ: Lautenberg (D), Menendez (D)
NM: Bingaman (D), T. Udall (D)
NY: Schumer (D), Gillibrand (D)
NC: Burr (R), Hagan (D)
ND: Conrad (D), Dorgan (D)
OH: Voinovich (R), S.C. Brown (D)
OK: Coburn (R)
OR: Wyden (D), Merkley (D)


PA: Specter (D), Casey (D)
RI: Reed (D), Whitehouse (D)
SC: Graham (R)
SD: Johnson (D), Thune (R)
TN: Alexander (R), Corker (R)
TX: Hutchison (R), Cornyn (R)
UT: Bennett (R)
VT: Leahy (D), Sanders (I)
VA: Webb (D), Warner (D)
WA: Murray (D), Cantwell (D)
WV: Rockefeller (D)
WI: Kohl (D), Feingold (D)
WY: Enzi (R), Barrasso (R)


I will update this regualry. Will better format the unknown vote list tomorrow.

This pick surprised me. I know nothing about her (no surprise there), but I would have thought he'd have used this as a perfect opportunity to eliminate the only person capable of stealing the 2012 Democratic nomination from him.

I think it's safe to put all the (D)s in the yes column...since Harry Reid has already said she WILL be confirmed this summer...that means he's a yes...and he can't confirm her without all the (D)s voting yes...

SuperHornet wrote:This pick surprised me. I know nothing about her .

She looks a little bit like the Penguin from the Batman movie...

Baucus and Tester for Montana will follow party line and vote yes.

Col Hogan wrote:I think it's safe to put all the (D)s in the yes column...since Harry Reid has already said she WILL be confirmed this summer...that means he's a yes...and he can't confirm her without all the (D)s voting yes...

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. :p While its very likely most if not all democrats will vote for her, there is the chance that some democrats come away feeling she isnt liberal enough and by putting her on the court it will move it to the right and some democrats may not want that so its possible she loses some dem votes.

Anyway this will provide links to each confirmed yes or no vote much like I did for Sotomayor's confirmation process.

UNHWildCats wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:I think it's safe to put all the (D)s in the yes column...since Harry Reid has already said she WILL be confirmed this summer...that means he's a yes...and he can't confirm her without all the (D)s voting yes...

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. :p While its very likely most if not all democrats will vote for her, there is the chance that some democrats come away feeling she isnt liberal enough and by putting her on the court it will move it to the right and some democrats may not want that so its possible she loses some dem votes.

Anyway this will provide links to each confirmed yes or no vote much like I did for Sotomayor's confirmation process.

Oh, don't get me wrong...I'd love to see several (D)s oppose her "because she isn't liberal enough...

That would most likely lock up the (R)s to oppose, and kill the nomination...

But it won't happen....each and every one of those (D)s will vote for her...some will receive prsidential "offers" to sweeten the deal...and in the end...each (D) will vote for her...

If you disagree...I'd like to place a friendly wager...

Col Hogan wrote:....each and every one of those (D)s will vote for her...some will receive prsidential "offers" to sweeten the deal...and in the end...each (D) will vote for her...

If you disagree...I'd like to place a friendly wager...

I want some of that action too.

[youtube][/youtube]

From what I've heard about her she seems to have a pretty thin resume for the Supreme Court.
* Law clerk under Thurgood Marshall
* Academia, professor at U. of Chicago
* Working with Clinton as associate White House counsel
* Academia, dean at Harvard Law

Don't get me wrong, these are great accomplishments. But she's spent no time in litigation or as a judge at any level. I don't doubt she's a heck of a scholar and well versed in Constitutional Law, but she has no visible track record to show how she would perform as a judge. It seems to me either the pool of qualified individuals is pretty shallow or BO is really working on more diversity in the SC.

She gets major points for this one.

Lindsey Graham - Speaking of the Christmas day bomber, where were you on Christmas Day?

Kagan - Well I assume you are speaking of my position related to detaining, blah blah blah

Graham - No I was asking where you were on Christmas day


Chuckle Chuckle

Kagan - Well like most Jewish people I was at a Chinese restaurant

OL FU wrote:She gets major points for this one.

Lindsey Graham - Speaking of the Christmas day bomber, where were you on Christmas Day?

Kagan - Well I assume you are speaking of my position related to detaining, blah blah blah

Graham - No I was asking where you were on Christmas day


Chuckle Chuckle

Kagan - Well like most Jewish people I was at a Chinese restaurant

Well played Kagan

ASUG8 wrote:From what I've heard about her she seems to have a pretty thin resume for the Supreme Court.
* Law clerk under Thurgood Marshall
* Academia, professor at U. of Chicago
* Working with Clinton as associate White House counsel
* Academia, dean at Harvard Law

Don't get me wrong, these are great accomplishments. But she's spent no time in litigation or as a judge at any level. I don't doubt she's a heck of a scholar and well versed in Constitutional Law, but she has no visible track record to show how she would perform as a judge. It seems to me either the pool of qualified individuals is pretty shallow or BO is really working on more diversity in the SC.

That didn't stop America from electing someone who had no visible track record to show how he'd perform as President.

ASUG8 wrote:From what I've heard about her she seems to have a pretty thin resume for the Supreme Court.
* Law clerk under Thurgood Marshall
* Academia, professor at U. of Chicago
* Working with Clinton as associate White House counsel
* Academia, dean at Harvard Law

Don't get me wrong, these are great accomplishments. But she's spent no time in litigation or as a judge at any level. I don't doubt she's a heck of a scholar and well versed in Constitutional Law, but she has no visible track record to show how she would perform as a judge. It seems to me either the pool of qualified individuals is pretty shallow or BO is really working on more diversity in the SC.

She's Obama's Harriet Miers except that she will get confirmed.
As Solicitor General she is a mediocre 3-2 arguing in front of the Supreme Court. We can do better.

Baldy wrote:As Solicitor General she is a mediocre 3-2 arguing in front of the Supreme Court. We can do better.

Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

Baldy wrote:As Solicitor General she is a mediocre 3-2 arguing in front of the Supreme Court. We can do better.

Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

Well, we'd LOVE to argue her Appellate level overturn percentage. Unfortunately, (much like Obama's experience level) she doesn't HAVE one. So, we're left with guesses....is that really what we want on the SC? Somebody we've GUESSED about?

AZGrizFan wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

Well, we'd LOVE to argue her Appellate level overturn percentage. Unfortunately, (much like Obama's experience level) she doesn't HAVE one. So, we're left with guesses....is that really what we want on the SC? Somebody we've GUESSED about?

Ahem. Read the whole post, silly bear.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself.

I don't know how I feel about having someone with no practicing legal experience on the Court. I think it's in large part overrated, but I like the idea of being able to see someone's track record on the appellate level. I think it's nice to have one, maybe two, justices that come from academia or politics... but on the whole I would prefer a justice that had some background inside a courtroom.

For the record, Chief Justice Rehnquist never served as a judge prior to his appointment as Associate Justice. So let's not act like it's some sort of dis-qualifier.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

Well, we'd LOVE to argue her Appellate level overturn percentage. Unfortunately, (much like Obama's experience level) she doesn't HAVE one. So, we're left with guesses....is that really what we want on the SC? Somebody we've GUESSED about?

Question, I understand to some extent why nominees can't express an opinion on future Supreme Court issues (well actually I don't understand, I think it is stupid) but can they also not answer questions on past decisions? Somebody that knows please explain. In my opinion the hearing process is basically a waste of time unless you like pontification and obfuscation.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

Baldy wrote:As Solicitor General she is a mediocre 3-2 arguing in front of the Supreme Court. We can do better.

Well that's a remarkably dumb way of looking at things.

As a Solicitor General, her job wasn't to write opinions. It wasn't even in her discretion in which way she should argue a case. Her job was simply to defend laws on behalf of the federal government. It wasn't even as if she got to choose which laws she thought were Constitutional and which ones were not. It's a very real possibility that she argued a few of those cases with the belief that the other side had a better case.

A SG's win percentage isn't nearly as useful as looking into an Appellate level justice's overturn percentage -- but even that note isn't exactly foolproof.

There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself. But arguing her win percentage as SG is just downright silly. Which is why it doesn't surprise me that it's becoming a GOP talking point.

Speaking of being "remarkably dumb"...

Her job as a lawyer, not only as Solicitor General, is to argue her client's case to the best of her ability. Her personal "beliefs" or feelings are not only unimportant, but irrelevant. If your "beliefs" argument has any merit, it even further highlights the fact that she is wholeheartedly unqualified.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Well, we'd LOVE to argue her Appellate level overturn percentage. Unfortunately, (much like Obama's experience level) she doesn't HAVE one. So, we're left with guesses....is that really what we want on the SC? Somebody we've GUESSED about?

Ahem. Read the whole post, silly bear.

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:There are valid reasons to be opposed to Kagan's nomination. I'm not a huge fan myself.

I don't know how I feel about having someone with no practicing legal experience on the Court. I think it's in large part overrated, but I like the idea of being able to see someone's track record on the appellate level. I think it's nice to have one, maybe two, justices that come from academia or politics... but on the whole I would prefer a justice that had some background inside a courtroom.

For the record, Chief Justice Rehnquist never served as a judge prior to his appointment as Associate Justice. So let's not act like it's some sort of dis-qualifier.

Hey conks, what's that you guys are always saying about not letting facts get in the way of your feelings??

Grizalltheway wrote:

GSUAlumniEagle wrote:
Ahem. Read the whole post, silly bear.



I don't know how I feel about having someone with no practicing legal experience on the Court. I think it's in large part overrated, but I like the idea of being able to see someone's track record on the appellate level. I think it's nice to have one, maybe two, justices that come from academia or politics... but on the whole I would prefer a justice that had some background inside a courtroom.

For the record, Chief Justice Rehnquist never served as a judge prior to his appointment as Associate Justice. So let's not act like it's some sort of dis-qualifier.

Hey conks, what's that you guys are always saying about not letting facts get in the way of your feelings??

So then, you'd be OK with Russell Pearce (AZ state senator) being elected President because Obama's lack of experience set the precedent?

Two wrongs do NOT make a right, even in your 4th grade-mentality world.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Hey conks, what's that you guys are always saying about not letting facts get in the way of your feelings??

So then, you'd be OK with Russell Pearce (AZ state senator) being elected President because Obama's lack of experience set the precedent?

Two wrongs do NOT make a right, even in your 4th grade-mentality world.

So you think Rehnquist had no business being an associate justice, let alone chief justice, right??

I also like the fact that you use a STATE senator to make that analogy, when Obama was in fact a US senator.

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So then, you'd be OK with Russell Pearce (AZ state senator) being elected President because Obama's lack of experience set the precedent?

Two wrongs do NOT make a right, even in your 4th grade-mentality world.

So you think Rehnquist had no business being an associate justice, let alone chief justice, right??

I also like the fact that you use a STATE senator to make that analogy, when Obama was in fact a US senator.

With boat loads of experience. He sure knows EXACTLY what to do!

Grizalltheway wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
So then, you'd be OK with Russell Pearce (AZ state senator) being elected President because Obama's lack of experience set the precedent?

Two wrongs do NOT make a right, even in your 4th grade-mentality world.

So you think Rehnquist had no business being an associate justice, let alone chief justice, right??

I also like the fact that you use a STATE senator to make that analogy, when Obama was in fact a US senator.

Great. Obama has 151 more days of experience than Pearce.

Now that you've successfully managed to bring Obama into yet ANOTHER discussion that has nothing do with him, care to answer the original question about Rehnquist?