Senate Republican strike looms
I wrote a month ago that Senate Republicans, led by Arlen Specter, were threatening a work slowdown if Judiciary Committee chair Patrick Leahy didn’t pick up the hearing pace of President Bush’s judicial nominees.
According to the Committee for Justice blog, there was a “dramatic showdown” in yesterday’s JC hearing:
This morning’s dust-up over judges raged for more than 30 minutes and clearly got under Sen. Leahy’s skin. The Chairman lurched from being defensive to trying to change the subject, but Specter, the ranking Republican, insisted that all 8 of the GOP senators present be allowed to address the obstruction of Bush’s judicial nominees….
The dramatic confrontation bore immediate fruit, as Fifth Circuit nominee Catharina Haynes was voted out of committee. Leahy had been expected to comply with People for the American Way’s demand, in a March 31 letter, that the Committee “not proceed” with her nomination.
Perhaps the most ominous words came from Sen. Sam Brownback when he said “I think we all know where this is headed” – an obvious reference to the bitter and prolonged Senate showdown and shutdown over judges that only Sen. Leahy can head off. Earlier in the week, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned that “Republicans will be forced to consider other options” if the obstruction of judicial nominees continues.
The JC confrontation was preceded the day before by a Wall Street Journal piece outlining the plan:
Mr. Specter says he has recommended that Republicans “go full steam ahead” until Democrats agree to hold confirmation votes. He has in mind a series of procedural stalls that would make it next to impossible for the Senate to get anything done. These could include refusing to accept the usual unanimous consent motion to have the previous day’s deliberations entered into the official record without a formal reading, a process that would take hours. So would reading the text of many bills, which can run to hundreds of pages….
As for Mr. Specter’s plan, there’s no guarantee it will work, as Democrats will denounce Republican “gridlock.” But it has the advantage of getting the issue of judicial confirmations back in front of the public in an election year. It also offers Senator John McCain an opportunity to show some leadership on an issue popular both with conservatives and independents. Some activists still haven’t forgiven him for his role in the bipartisan “Gang of 14” Senators who brokered a deal in 2005 that thwarted Republican efforts to ban judicial filibusters. As for Barack Obama, this would be a chance to show his “post-partisan” campaign riffs are more than rhetoric.
I think the plan will work. Democrats will certainly try to spin, but Republicans have good reason to push their point, as WSJ pointed out:
[O]f the 11 appeals-court nominees awaiting Senate action, seven would fill seats deemed to be judicial emergencies. One-third of the 15 seats on the Fourth Circuit… are vacant.
DC politicians know the American people are tired of this nonfunctioning partisan government. Americans also believe in fairness. The Democrats on both those counts are clearly in the wrong here, refusing to allow a Senate vote on President Bush’s judicial picks, as his constitutional responsibility
[HT: Curt Levey of Committee for Justice; graphic courtesy of WSJ]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How can you tell when senators, who do nothing, start a “work slowdown”?
This is democracy in action?
I think not! This is tyranny by the majority, Democrat Demagogues.
Nope, HisMan, it’s called “checks and balances”, which is how our government is supposed to work.
AHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously?
Arlen Spector?
Arlen Spector, who has spent the last several months worrying more about The New England Patriots coach videotaping signals on the sidelines of FOOTBALL GAMES than politics, is “threatening a slowdown”?
…and you think it will work?
Because God knows, the American people are really pushing for justice to be served in the NFL! We wouldn’t want to do anything to slow THAT down!
Funniest thing I’ve read all day.
Heiro:
Right, just like the Supreme Court shoved Roe v. Wade down our throats was a supreme demonstration of “checks and balances”.
It’s always “checks and balances” when it works in a pro-aborts or liberals favor. I’ll file this one away for later use when the tide turns and it most defintiely will.
Give me a break!
Here’s a Kit-Kat bar for you HisMan. :)
http://www.hersheys.com/products/details/kitkat/images/milk-choc.jpg
Thanks Rae for the Kit-Kat bar. I needed to take a break from writing this massive engineering report where people’s live could really be impacted if I screw up.
On one hand I was so tempted to believe that a pro-abort was going to give me something of value, something I could enjoy, be nourished by, sink my teeth into and depend on.
Ah, but dissappointed again by the promises and cruelty of a left winger when I determined I couldn’t unwrap the image on my screen and eat it. Oh, the pent up rage……..
Hey African-America, do you see the connection?
Got any Hershey bars with almonds? I mean just the “feeling” of seeing the image on my screen makes my mouth water and improves my life and well-being. Perhaps that’s all we should expect from libs? You can’t get water out of a stone (or a computer screen). Can’t derive any moral value or anything of use or substance from a lib is the parallel. The promises of libs are like life insurance policies; you pay and pay for life and then your wealth is redistributed to someone else when you DIE.
Then perhaps I may be “mis-judging”? Perhaps Rae, you know “by deductive scientific reasoning” that I am an old rich white codger and need to lose about 10 pounds and in compassion was fulfilling my “need” to partake of a crunchy, sweet, luxurious Kit-Kat bar while not partaking of its caloric value. If this indeed was yout intent, please accept my humble apology and thank you for the convoluted compassion. I now understand why you are a pro-abort. Can’t we just all get along?
Perhaps if we could just find a way to make a pregnant woman just “feel” like she was having an abortion without really killing a live, infinitely valuable human being, we could end this debate. Oh, Edyt’s artifical womb theory and bodily autonomy……it’s alive…..it’s alive!!!!!!!!!!!!
HisMan said: “It’s always “checks and balances” when it works in a pro-aborts or liberals favor.”
Quoted for truth!
Yes, it’s “checks and balances” when it works in a liberal/pro-abort’s best interests. Furthermore, when it works in a conservative/pro-lifer’s best interests, it’s typically described as “destroying democracy”, “destroying the Constitution”, or “establishing a theocracy”.
HisMan,
I believe Rae is pro-life now.
Perhaps if we could just find a way to make a pregnant woman just “feel” like she was having an abortion without really killing a live, infinitely valuable human being, we could end this debate. Oh, Edyt’s artifical womb theory and bodily autonomy……it’s alive…..it’s alive!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hey!!! That’s not my theory. My proposal is this:
If you find a way to extract a live fetus and re-implant or nurture him or her until viability through artificial means….
I’ll go pro-life.
‘Course, I laid out some rules. Like the person from whom the child’s extracted is not responsible, gives up parenting rights, etc.
It’s LIKE abortion without the death. I thought that’s what you guys wanted? No death?
Or is this all about forcing parental responsibility? Hmm.
@HisMan: Uh, I was just trying to be funny…I was hoping you’d see the humor as well.
“Perhaps Rae, you know “by deductive scientific reasoning” that I am an old rich white codger and need to lose about 10 pounds and in compassion was fulfilling my “need” to partake of a crunchy, sweet, luxurious Kit-Kat bar while not partaking of its caloric value.”
Um…no. It was literally supposed to be just a little joke. A sign of goodwill if you will. Oy. I don’t think that at all.
“It’s LIKE abortion without the death. I thought that’s what you guys wanted? No death?
Or is this all about forcing parental responsibility? Hmm.”
No, Edyt,
It’s about women and men facing up to reality and doing the right thing which is to give birth to the child. If you don’t want the baby, give it to the many, many couples who do.
It’s about facing reality and not stamping your feet and jumping up and down and screaming, “No, I won’t! You can’t make me!”
Grow up you spoiled liberal brats!!
So it is about control and punishment.
That was really revealing of you, Patricia.
No darling Edyt.
It’s about taking responsibility for your actions. The control part occurs before you have sex – sex is designed to make babies (I know that’s a new one for you liberals).
AS for babies being a punishment – that’s the liberal take on pregnancy. Only a liberal would have a distorted view of pregnancy as a “punishment”.
It used to be seen as a blessing in saner times.
Rae-
Ignore HisMan…he’s got a little something shoved way too far up somewhere.
I think it may be his head.
That’s the only reason he takes everything so seriously as to not be able to joke with ANYONE.
Rae:
Just having fun with you. I did get carried away, so I’m sorry. Glad you’re not a pro-abort.
And Lizard….mind your own business instead of sticking it where it doesn’t belong and I start picking on you. Or, are you going to tell me you are an ex-pro-abort too and I’ll have to open mouth, pull out foot?
You guys want me to be funny? I can do that. Watch.
Q. What does a pro-abort say on his death bed?
A. Oh baby, oh baby, oh baby.
How’s that? C’mon help me guys.
Hey Edyt:
Is your pro-abort position about the pain or avoidance thereof? I mean you’d convert to pro-life if the process were different? How does that redefine what a fetus is?
My beautiful (and she really is), wife who has had 5 children says that all men should have at least 1 childbirth experience.
She tries to tell me what labor and delivery is like and she says, “take your upper lip and pull it over your head all teh way to the back of you neck”. Ouchhhhhhhh!
And Lizard….mind your own business instead of sticking it where it doesn’t belong and I start picking on you. Or, are you going to tell me you are an ex-pro-abort too and I’ll have to open mouth, pull out foot?
Noooope, I never have been a pro-abort yo, so I will save you that trouble. And last time I checked, this was a public forum, and I don’t like you picking on Rae and calling her a pro-abort when she’s not. I don’t see it necessary to pick on people for no reason, but you can pick on me if you like. I can hold my own, I’m a big girl now.
I shudder to think who Osama could nominate if he became president.
“I shudder to think who Osama could nominate if he became president.”
I’ve heard rumors that he’s going to nominate Senator Clinton. I don’t believe it.
However, judicial nominations are a HUGE reason I’m supporting Obama over McCain.
@Elizabeth: Well, I think HisMan only knows me from before, when I was pro-choice.
*shrugs*
I shudder to think who Osama could nominate if he became president.
Osama Bin Laden is running for president?
Is your pro-abort position about the pain or avoidance thereof? I mean you’d convert to pro-life if the process were different? How does that redefine what a fetus is?
Yes, but that’s not all. Suppose a woman knows she’ll lose her job or education from being pregnant to term. Or it will strain her relationships. Or she has a medical condition where she can’t carry the baby to term. Or any other number of scenarios.
It’s not about re-defining the fetus, it’s about an alternative to abortion. If there were doctors working toward the alternative which would be about as expensive as an abortion, but would guarantee the life of the child, would you fund/support that? It’s essentially like adoption before birth… does that make sense?
The reason I ask this question is because it shows how pro-lifers really feel about abortion. Like Patricia illustrated, it’s not about giving life to a child… it’s about punishing the woman for having sex and getting pregnant.
And if that’s how pro-lifers really feel… then, well, it’s just very sad.
It’s not about re-defining the fetus, it’s about an alternative to abortion. If there were doctors working toward the alternative which would be about as expensive as an abortion, but would guarantee the life of the child, would you fund/support that? It’s essentially like adoption before birth… does that make sense?
There already is such a thing, and it’s free. A pregnant teen (or a single pregnant woman at any age) can go into a Save a life center (or other such organization), and they can opt to let their child be adopted. The adoptive parents pay the medical expenses for them, drive them to their appts (if need be), and take care of ALL costs necessary to continue the pregnancy. Not only is this affordable for the teen mother, it is absolutely free for them!
Not to mention, they are still able to continue to stay in contact with their child after giving them away, if they so choose.
The reason I ask this question is because it shows how pro-lifers really feel about abortion. Like Patricia illustrated, it’s not about giving life to a child… it’s about punishing the woman for having sex and getting pregnant.
That makes no sense, Edyt. Is a child really such a dreaded punishment in your eyes?
Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sex, not a punishment. And the sooner people start to realize that there really is a connection between having sex and getting pregnant, the better.
Why should people not be expected to control themselves in order to prevent pregnancy?
Would you not expect someone who doesn’t want to become overweight, to avoid eating fatty foods?
Or someone who doesn’t want to get lung cancer, to avoid smoking cigarettes?
Why then, do you think that we are trying to “punish” them, by saying they should know that having sex could result in pregnancy? It’s basic logic.
And why is punishing a baby who didn’t even ask to be conceived by killing it in the most unimaginable way possible, somehow morally better than a woman having to be pregnant for some matter of months as a result of her own actions, and having the option to adopt out the baby, or keep the baby and give the baby a life?
Why do what you know can create a baby, and then be surprised when a baby is created, and then seek to have that baby destroyed for YOUR actions? We who are pro-life simply want to prevent babies from being punished for the fact that they simply exist. We think that they are more special than that, and that they deserve the basic right to life and liberty that all Americans should enjoy!
We are not seeking to punish women. If we were, there wouldn’t be twice as many CPC’s out there as there are abortion clinics, seeking to help women in these types of situations. For example, my Pregnancy center provides food, clothing, formula, diapers, maternity clothing, baby cribs, baby clothes, baby strollers, carseats, rice cereal, transportation to doctors offices, referrals to free medical care, etc. This isn’t the action of someone who hates women and wants to punish them.
There already is such a thing, and it’s free. A pregnant teen (or a single pregnant woman at any age) can go into a Save a life center (or other such organization), and they can opt to let their child be adopted. The adoptive parents pay the medical expenses for them, drive them to their appts (if need be), and take care of ALL costs necessary to continue the pregnancy. Not only is this affordable for the teen mother, it is absolutely free for them!
Not to mention, they are still able to continue to stay in contact with their child after giving them away, if they so choose.
Bethany, hon, I recommend you read my posts thoroughly before you make statements like these.
I said there are chances where a woman cannot carry a child to term, whether for medical reasons, or because she’ll lose her job or education, or because she’s afraid of what might happen within her family… or any number of scenarios where a woman cannot carry a child to term. As an alternative to abortion, I said what if there was a way to extract the child early and either transplant it into a willing mother/surrogate or nurture it via technological means.
Pro-lifers don’t seem to like this alternative for some reason, even though it would guarantee the life of the child.
I’m asking: Why?
I don’t consider children punishment, no. Like I’ve said multiple times before, I think children are wonderful. That doesn’t mean a woman should be forced to have them.
It’s not always about control. Sometimes a woman finds out after she’s already pregnant that she has a medical problem and cannot birth the child. Sometimes a mother may want to have a child but halfway through the pregnancy goes through a traumatic experience (perhaps a divorce) and does not want or cannot take care of the child anymore.
If you truly believe in the right to life, then you should be in support of this idea. Because after all, then the child can be nurtured by someone who CAN and DOES want to care for them… and since these CBCs can provide so much for these children… what is wrong with my idea?
Bethany, hon, I recommend you read my posts thoroughly before you make statements like these.
I said there are chances where a woman cannot carry a child to term, whether for medical reasons, or because she’ll lose her job or education, or because she’s afraid of what might happen within her family…or any number of scenarios where a woman cannot carry a child to term. As an alternative to abortion, I said what if there was a way to extract the child early and either transplant it into a willing mother/surrogate or nurture it via technological means. Pro-lifers don’t seem to like this alternative for some reason, even though it would guarantee the life of the child.I’m asking: Why?
Well, for starters, those aren’t truly “cannot” situations. They are responses based on temporary fear which is irrational and not logical.
Those women all “CAN” carry to term. They simply are afraid to for those reasons you described above, and they are selfish reasons. (all about the woman and how SHE might feel- never once considering the baby or anyone else).
Secondly, no such technology exists to transplant children from one womb to another. I’m sure if it did exist, and did not involve killing embryos and older children in order to succeed, we pro-lifers would support it.
I don’t consider children punishment, no. Like I’ve said multiple times before, I think children are wonderful. That doesn’t mean a woman should be forced to have them.
Natural childbirth cannot be forced. It requires no force to allow a pregnancy to continue.
Abortion on the other hand, always requires force.
It’s not always about control. Sometimes a woman finds out after she’s already pregnant that she has a medical problem and cannot birth the child. Sometimes a mother may want to have a child but halfway through the pregnancy goes through a traumatic experience (perhaps a divorce) and does not want or cannot take care of the child anymore.
Her not wanting the child after a divorce does not change the baby from a baby to a piece of garbage to be disposed of. How insulting.
Sometimes a mother may want to have a child but halfway through the pregnancy goes through a traumatic experience (perhaps a divorce) and does not want or cannot take care of the child anymore.
okay, just so you can read this and understand the way I read this from my point of view, change your wording slightly:
Sometimes a mother may want to keep her baby, but when her child is 1 year old, she goes through a traumatic experience (perhaps a divorce) and does not want or cannot take care of the child anymore.
(your implication being that the woman “cannot possibly be expected to take care of that child”)
Oh and just to add to clarify… in the case of life of the mother, if a woman’s life is TRULY endangered by continuing a pregnancy, even when abortion was illegal, the doctors did whatever was necessary to save these women, including if necessary, abortion.
I believe that if it comes down to the mother’s life being threatened by a pregnancy, the doctors should do everything they can to save BOTH lives involved. If during this process the life of the baby is ended, it should be looked at as a regrettable outcome and not the intended result.
Losing your education or job or dying are all selfish reasons?
I don’t think it’s “selfish” to want to learn, to want to work and make money to support yourself, or to want to live rather than die trying to produce a child.
And Bethany, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop pointing out all the problems with the scenarios I gave as examples. They’re just examples. If you want to read about some of the reasons why women have had abortions, check out this blog. Then you can judge those women, not a hypothetical situation.
Sometimes a mother may want to keep her baby, but when her child is 1 year old, she goes through a traumatic experience (perhaps a divorce) and does not want or cannot take care of the child anymore.
(your implication being that the woman “cannot possibly be expected to take care of that child”)
Yeah, those kids end up in foster care. Your point?
Losing your education or job or dying are all selfish reasons?
I don’t think it’s “selfish” to want to learn, to want to work and make money to support yourself, or to want to live rather than die trying to produce a child.
And Bethany, I’d appreciate it if you’d stop pointing out all the problems with the scenarios I gave as examples. They’re just examples. If you want to read about some of the reasons why women have had abortions, check out this blog. Then you can judge those women, not a hypothetical situation.
Edyt, I go to that blog regularly. And I am well aware of the problems that exist and make a woman feel desperate enough to want an abortion. This is precisely why I volunteer at a pregnancy center which is there specifically to help women like these.
You are trying to solve the problem with the wrong solution.
Instead of saying, Well they may lose their job, so they have to abort.
Why not say, They might lose their job because they’re pregnant? What an outrage! Those companies should not be allowed to fire a woman for becoming pregnant!”, and then take action to prevent women from having to deal with that type of situation, because it is a sexist problem, wouldn’t you agree?
They are worried that they might lose their education due to pregnancy? Why does that make you feel that WE should be the solution, and not instead direct your attention to the colleges and say, Hey, you should not be able to make a woman feel FORCED to have an abortion. Where is the “choice” in that!?
Just imagine that one day, my boss at work tells me that after a year of working with him, he thinks that I can’t stay there anymore because I just got married, and he can’t have a married woman working for him. I say, what? My being married doesn’t affect my ability to work for you, why would you fire me for this?
Would you say, “well, obviously, divorcing your husband would be a good solution to this problem, so that you can keep your job, and it’s okay that you were pressured to do it, as long as you still have the right to divorce”.
Or would you say, “That boss is wrong and should not be allowed to make such decisions and make you feel forced to be single in order to continue working for him”.
Do you see how you are focusing your attention on the part of the situation that is NOT the problem, rather than on the part that IS the problem?
This may not be the best example -forgive me, I’m tired, and had a long day- but I am sure you can understand my point.
And again, there has ALWAYS been an exception for the life of the mother, no matter whether abortion is illegal or legal.
Bethany and Edyt (Starting 3:40 PM: on……)
Excellent, discussion!
Edyt, Dealing with an unexpected pregnancy requires a woman to re-think her priorities. Giving birth to the baby must become the first priority. People like Bethany who help women in these situations are invaluable!!!! Instead of condoning abortion, we need to let women know we are willing to find a solution that they and the baby – can live with.
Bethany, you made great points and I wholeheartedly agree for the most part.
In fact, part of the reason I am pro-choice is because women HAVE been discriminated against for having and bearing children. Getting pregnant as a teen or unmarried person is something that is looked down upon. Having children in the workforce leads to employers paying those women less and giving them fewer benefits. This is not right!
Unfortunately, part of the problem is that both sides (pro-lifers and pro-choicers) cannot agree on various issues.
For example, many people are against sex before marriage. This leads to those do have sex before marriage feeling guilty and shameful, especially if an unwanted pregnancy results. Because of the way others have handled sex before marriage, pregnancy before marriage also becomes shameful and a “punishment” to the person who feels bad for having sex.
It’s not the child’s fault and the child should not be punished, but in order for the mother to escape judgment, she would rather abort. If that judgment was eliminated, perhaps she would not be driven to abort, see what I mean?
On top of that, there’s no “punishment” for the father. In many cases, he can run off and escape all judgment completely! This is because often women are the ones who are told to be virgins until marriage, while men are looked at in a positive light when they have sex with (multiple!) women.
If we really want to address abortion, we need to change a lot of things in our society.
First of all, women need equal rights and both people need to take responsibility for producing the child. Men shouldn’t get an out!
Secondly, the work place and schools need to accept and provide for women with children. Children should not be an additional burden to the working woman. Instead, work places and schools need to become more child-friendly.
Third, we need to stop the way we judge people for their actions, particularly sex before marriage. I believe we should encourage people to wait, but I don’t believe we should punish people who do not. That’s counterproductive.
Once those issues are addressed, then I believe we can re-look at the issue of abortion and see what we can do about it. But we haven’t reached that point yet. :)