Obama to appoint Johnsen during recess?
UPDATE, 5/24, 6:15a: Someone wrote the obvious yesterday: Obama has to make a recess appointment with a Democrat majority?
_______________
On May 13 Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he didn’t have the votes to confirm Dawn “pregnancy is slavery” Johnsen to head the Dept. of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel. Seems her überliberal ways have gotten in her way.
Now word is fellow überliberal, Barack Obama, may appoint Johnsen to the position during the upcoming Memorial Day recess, bypassing the Senate. This would allow Johnsen to serve until the end of 111th Congress (January 2011), at which time she would have to be renominated and redo Senate confirmation proceedings. CQ reported today:
During the 110th Congress… Reid vigilantly scheduled pro forma sessions to prevent President George Bush from making recess appointments of nominees that Democrats found objectionable….
But with… Obama in the White House, the NV senator has ceased that practice. Now Republicans are bracing for the possibility that Obama could use next week’s Memorial Day break to make a recess appointment for embattled nominee Dawn Johnsen…..
Such a move could be particularly contentious as the White House prepares to announce its pick for a coming Supreme Court vacancy.
Republican Orrin Hatch of UT, a former Judiciary chairman who still sits on the panel, said it would “create a lot of irritation….”
Such a move, with all its accompanying publicity, would also redraw attention to Obama’s radical pro-abortion position. It’s becoming apparent that every time Obama instigates a fight with pro-lifers, abortion becomes less popular. And with each fight Obama becomes more branded.
So while I, of course, don’t want Johnsen to get the DOJ position, its trade-off would be riling Republicans re: the Supreme Court fight as well as spotlighting once again how radical Obama and his friends are on abortion.
Another skirmish Obama might win while continuing to cede the war.
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.
“Such a move, with all its accompanying publicity, would also redraw attention to Obama’s radical pro-abortion position. It’s becoming apparent that every time Obama instigates a fight with pro-lifers, abortion becomes less popular. And with each fight Obama becomes more branded.”
For the above reason I hope Barry does this. He’s going to appoint a pro abort anyway, may as well do it the underhanded way.
Democrats are such hypocrits.
This Dawn Johnsen gets upset when terrorists are interogated but is Ok with partial birth abortion. She’s worse than that hypocrite catholic blogger Mark Shea.
BS”D
Has anyone else noticed the inconsistency between Dawn Johnsen’s calling pregnant women “losers in the contraceptive lottery” and the Obama administration’s support for contraception as the alleged “common ground” solution for reducing the “need” for abortions? With the Pill having an 8% failure rate and condoms 15%, does anyone in their right mind think the way to reduce the number of abortions (or the desire of some women to seek them, from Obama’s viewpoint) is to increase the number of people, especially teenagers, playing the “contraceptive lottery?” Johnsen actually makes the case for abstinence over contraception with this turn of phrase, even if the Left does not get it.
Steve,
Excellent point. Remember that abortion and contraception are Big Business. Promoting abstinence doesn’t increase revenues for drug companies, hospitals, Planned Parenthood. These are the winners in the contraceptive lottery.
Stephen, women very rarely follow through with abstinence. The small minority of women that don’t use birth control account for half the abortions. There chances in the “contraceptive lottery” are even worse than those that don’t use birth control properly.
Emma,
You would have to talk to the women I know who followed through and also their husbands who also followed through.
Virgins who marry…..why is that so hard for some to comprehend?
It just doesn’t happen much.
Didn’t Sigmund Freud say that repressing one’s sexual urges was bad? He had a strong influence on the West, and Americans have become more extroverted. Let it all out! Be yourself!
Christians stress personal discipline. We are naturally evil, not good. Our evil nature can only be overcome with God’s help. Sexual urges are not intrinsically evil, but our corrupted natures invariably give in to the temptations presented by naked bodies.
So clothes are necessary and good. And not only clothes, but other wise restrictions. Society used to have conventions as to the proper mixing of the sexes, what they could do together and when (courtesy, proper time and place). Parents used to set curfews and monitor friendships. Governments used to issue meaningful marriage licenses and enforce meaningful divorce laws. Churches used to award something similar to a scarlet A (though they would be wrong to treat adultery as an unforgiveable sin).
We have not evolved; we have devolved. Now we are yahoos. And we kill our kids so that we continue to have fun.
Thankfully, the majority in my group of churches are chaste. They do abstain until marriage. Their parents typically organize Christian schools. (And you have to understand, there are these Christian schools, and there are those Christian schools. They aren’t all the same.)