Why can we easily get 100% Democratic vote on a Judge but not Health Care?

[ThomWV]

Puzzle me this, why was it no particular problem to get the Blue Dogs on board for the Vote on Judge SotoMayor, but they remain indistinguishable from Republicans on Health Care.

[phantom power]

1. Because no major corporate lobbies leaned on them to vote against Sotomayor?

[Uzybone]

11. ding ding ding

[kirby]

2. What about the NRA? n/t

[BR_Parkway]

3. No one is writing checks to block a Supreme Court nominee - bribery

pure and simple

[ColbertWatcher]

4. I was thinking the very same thing. k+r, n/t

[jody]

5. IMO less is known about the so called "Health Care Plan" than about Sotomayor. n/t

[dhpgetsit]

6. Opposition to Sotomayor was pure theatrics to appease the idiots.

There was no corporate opposition to her appointment like there is for health care reform.

[flvegan]

7. Money. n/t

[mmonk]

8. $

[timeforpeace]

9. If it wasn't so obviously a giveaway to the insurance industry, it might get more votes.

But it's health insurance reform now, not health care reform anymore. But no one seems to care.

[99 Percent Sure]

10. I've got an even more puzzling question . . .

Why have the critters just voted to allocate $200 million for new Gulfstreams for themselves, according to Jack Cafferty?

Really, your Q is easy - money talks louder than any constituent without it.

[Umbral]

12. Wait and see what happens should a liberal judge get nominated...

I know, like that's ever gonna happen.

[notesdev]

13. Because a judge

doesn't provide funds to a particular lawmaker's district.

Besides, this judge, by all reports, is exactly what the people who own the lawmakers want.

[Vidar]

14. Supreme Court Lobbyists are not nearly so well funded.