God Save Me...

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee did their thing. I swear I was going to watch and I started but then...I fell asleep. There ought to be a law that prevents this from happening twice in the period of a year because it is just so much a waste of time.

In any case, I did hear some of the Senators speak and I read what some of the others said...and I have a few thoughts that might surprise you...

Here is a transcript of the remarks given by Senator Biden yesterday. For those of you who have never been here before, he is my guy--the guy I want to see become President. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything he says...

I like Biden's view of the Constitution. I know many of you don't but we've managed to get along relatively well in spite of that fact...

I like the idea that the Constitution is a "civic bible." That it was "intended to endure for the ages to come and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." (For the record, that is not a Biden quote it is a Marshall quote. Wouldn't want any confusion...)

I like that. I get that many don't and I respect that. It is merely a different philosophy and from that philosophy comes different perspectives and views...we can agree to disagree and fight to elect and confirm those that support our views and still respect those of the other guy. I believe it is called civility.

Having said all of that. There were things that Biden said that I did not like at all. Not one little bit.

"And it's also important to note that you're slated to replace the first woman ever nominated to the Supreme Court. We can pretend that's not the fact but it is. And through no fault of your own, we're cutting the number of women in half on the court.

And now, as I said, that's not your fault, but I think it means that have to take -- at least speaking for myself -- a closer look at your stands on issues that are important to women."

God save me from men who want to protect me and treat me different because of my gender.

Issues that matter to women are the same issues that matter to men. Know why? Because we are all citizens of this country and issues that affect one of us affect all of us. Want another reason? Men care what happens to women because men have mothers and wives and daughters.

I don't need a special Justice on the Supreme Court to represent my interests. I need qualified Justices that will apply the law and ensure justice for all of this country's citizens.

That doesn't mean I don't like it when qualified women achieve positions of power. I do. It is nice to see qualified women succeed if only to prove to those out there who don't think we can be Justices of the Supreme Court that we can. We can do pretty much anything with the noted exception of writing our names in the snow.

That, however, is not a reason to put someone in a position of power. It is not merely enough to get the job. You have to do the job and do it well to be worthy of my respect.

So I wish that Senator Biden would cast his vote without giving thought to how well Justice Alito will represent women, because that isn't really in his job description.

Also, every time some well-meaning man tries to help my gender he sets us back. The day no one thinks we need special consideration will be the day I know we are truly equal.

So, while Senator Biden is still my guy, I respectfully disagree with his position on this aspect of the confirmation hearings. I have faith that he will come around.

Chris

More on the Alito Hearings: Michelle Malkin, The Political Pitbull,

Comments

[jestplainol'bill]

special treatment? hah. can you get me a cuppa coffe?

[HC]

Chris

You might not care about your right to choose, but a lot of women and men do and that is what he is talking about.

[Chris]

But see you made my point--you said a lot of women and men do--and if the conservative right is to be believed all anyone ever thinks about is the abortion issue--so why did he have to go an say issues important to women? I don't need him or you or the Democratic Party or the Christians looking out for what they think are my interests--he made this specific to women and the only women I know who walk around listing this as their top issue are those who have facial hair and walk around with coat hangers in case they stumble upon an impromptu protest and women who spend all day infront of clinics clinging to fetuses in jars as presentation props--so if he wanted to list this as an issue specifically important to women he should have put crazy infront of it--I am much more concerned with Education and security and the economy than I am with abortion--I told you before--give it back to the states--it will be the death of the conservative movement and I live in New England where I'm pretty sure we can have abortions up until the child turns 21--oh--and by the way--I don't need one--sorry HC, you and I part ways on this but I bet you are liking Biden more and more--which is cool with me :0)

[HC]

Chris

I believe you are right that giving the abortion Issue back to the states would kill the conservative Movement. But, Conservative Judges who anti-choice are often use the commerce clause in the Constitution to overturn laws passed by Congress that Conservatives hate, but the Average Citizen supports. A few laws that the Conservative Movement would like to overturn are Environmental Laws, Minimum Wage Laws, Social Security and etc. In other words, the Conservative Movement will use Judges to make laws that they could not get pass in Congress. Hum, where did I have heard that before?

Actually, the Commerce Clause SUPPORTS the enactment of national laws around the environment and the minimum wage, so I don't see how you can make that argument, HC.

[HC]

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_in_exile

"According to the same article, reinstating provisions "exiled" from the Constitution would mean "reimposing meaningful limits on federal power that could strike at the core of the regulatory state for the first time since the New Deal. These justices could change the shape of laws governing the environment, workplace health and safety, anti-discrimination, and civil rights, making it difficult for the federal government" to act on these issues. Rosen considers this to be a form of judicial activism, though his opponents would argue that it was merely reversing decades of accumulated activism.

Rosen argues that one of the most important provisions of the Constitution in Exile is limitations on the interstate commerce clause, which were undermined by the Supreme Court's "expansive interpretation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce... extended to include any activities that might affect commerce indirectly" during the New Deal. "In 1995, however, the Supreme Court began taking tentative steps toward resurrecting some of the constitutional limitations on the regulatory state that had been dormant since the 1930s. In controversial 5-4 rulings [primarily, United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison], the Court limited Congress's power to ban guns in schools, for example, and to punish violence against women, holding that the laws did not involve commercial activities and therefore couldn't be justified by Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce." (A later decision in Gonzales v. Raich, in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy - integral parts of the Lopez and Morrison majorities - joined, seemed to show the limits of the court's willingness to curtail commerce clause power.)[2]

Most jurists who are identified with the Constitution in Exile call themselves Strict constructionists or Originalists"
_______________________________

The righties have told us that they want Alito because he is an Strict Constructionist or Originalist. I am taking them at their word so I am opposing Alito.

[Laura Howard]

- "A few laws that the Conservative Movement would like to overturn are Environmental Laws, Minimum Wage Laws, Social Security and etc. In other words, the Conservative Movement will use Judges to make laws that they could not get pass in Congress."
HC - where have you heard that before or where have you witnessed it before? Because that is the basic move of the secular progressive movement. How many judges do we see day in and day out making ridiculous rulings that overturn the actual law. They could never rely on the ballot box to get their views into mainstream America. i.e. same sex marriage, religion and so on.

So if the abortion issue would be the "death" of the conservative movement, why are you so worried about keeping Roe in tact. You say out of one side your mouth to give it back to the states and surround it with some arrogant statements and supposed facts, but yet you will fight to the death to keep it where it is. I would think that you would be more for killing the conservative movement and proving all your statements that supposedly speak for the majority. I am sorry if i am really not seeing any real confidence here. The conservative movemement WINS at the ballot box each and everytime.
This bloviating that conservatives will turn back time on wages, environment and social security is a crock of crap. Hey let's look at the Dow for yesterday shall we?

[HC]

"So if the abortion issue would be the "death" of the conservative movement, why are you so worried about keeping Roe in tact."

Because I believe a women's right to choose should not be played for political gain. I know some on the right can not understand that moral value.

If you do not understand the "Constitution in Exile" that the Hard Conservatives Leaders believe in, then I say research do your research.

By the way the Clinton economy was far superior to this Jobless Wageless Recovery of bush.

A Fun Fact from:
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050307-mon.html

Unfortunately, the quality of hiring remains decidedly subpar -- dominated by those toiling at the low end of the pay spectrum. Moreover, an even bigger hole remains in the US labor market: Despite generally sharp increases in productivity since 1995, there has been no discernible pick-up in real wages. The character of America’s recovery has shifted from jobless to wageless -- with profound implications for both the economy and financial markets.

[Chris]

Hi Laura, let me answer for HC even though I am the one who believes that it would be the death of th conservative movement...

HC worries about the poor woman in Arkansas who can not afford to leave the state to obtain an abortion--he worries that we separate some people out and exclude them from the opportunity to obtain what he feels is a right..

me, I don't care--I am tired of being saddled with this issue...conservatives want Roe overturned? that works for me--abortion and poverty are highest in the red states--you guys can deal with the rise in births and the direct result of which will be the need for you guys to find a way to care for and educate all that many more people...I'm gonna sit here and wait for you guys to cry Uncle...

thanks for commenting,
Chris

[Laura Howard]

HC - if you do not want a women's right to be played for political gain, then why do we constantly have to hear about this issue whenever a canidate is up for election, re-election or in a hearing? I am so confused about how you don't want to politicize this issue when it comes up in every debate. I want Roe to be reversed because i believe that it should be put to legislation and passed by our elected leaders in Congress. Whether it is on a national or state level. To the average person, all we see from the democratic side is that abortion is their number one issue. That Roe or Casey is the cornerstone of all women's rights. That is where I have a problem with democrats fighting so hard to keep these rulings in effect. Maybe not to you personally, but you have to admit that there seems to be fear on the part of the democrats that they don't trust the American people to make this choice. The moral value that you speak of really is about our views of life, not who makes the laws.
As far as the economy goes, I don't want to remind you of what has happened since this administration took over. Secondly, we are at war. Unfortunately we should have been at war during the Clinton admin, but I am going to leave the profanity off of this post and say that only then can we compare apples to apples the economies of both administrations.
PS. Have you seen the unemployment rates. WOW I am definately impressed. Maybe you should be too.

Chris - You make it sound as if we want to abolish the act of abortion completely from the world. Yes we believe that life begins at conception, but are not trying to make it illegal for those who want that choice. Again, the reasons for overturning Roe is NOT to eliminate a women's right to choose, but to mandate it through our democracy not through the courts. We are not trying to shove women into back alleys to get botched abortions by so called Doctors' with rusty tools.

Just to play along, I am pro-life myself. That is my own decision, my choice. I am lucky enough to live in a country affording me my right to make that decision for my own. My neighbor down the street should also be afforded that luxury of his/her decision too. So needless to say, I am not trying to shove my choice down anyone else's throat. I guess you can say we are all for choice.

[JFH]

Chris,

That's exactly the experiment that the pro-lifers want us to try instead of assuming it's all going to be bad. The assumption that people in poverty are the ones getting abortions does ring true with me.

HC,

Alito isn't a "Constitution in Exile" kind of guy, nor are most of us conservatives. Slippery slope arguments don't wash with me.

Finally, I am tired of the cherry-picking of stats ON BOTH SIDES when discussing the economy. Without detailed stats of the curve standard diviation and shape the median wage is meaningless. The dot com bubble created a bubble in IT professionals median wages that needs to be taken into account.... along with a bunch of other factors.

Bottom line, you can ALWAYS find a bear in a growing economy and a bull in a recession; you got to look at the big picture.

[Chris]

Hey Laura--if we were all pro-choice then this issue would be moot. I am simply tired of this debate. There are nuts on both sides--extremists in both camps that make this issue impossible to talk about and to put to bed--I never meant to insinuate that you were trying to shove your opinion down my throat. Truth be told, I am not sure where LIFE begins, but I've been pregnant and I know that at 8 weeks when they show you the thing that will eventually be the heart beat it is something--and the choice to end that something should be a heavy one--having said that I am not comfortable with politicians making medical decisions--abortion still is a medical procedure a procedure performed by doctors and I would prefer my Senators stay out of it--as to the legality of it--I think Roe is bad law and that the issue was hijacked by the Court--however I do have misgivings about the ability of "the people" to rationaly decide the issue given the extremists on both sides. Like any other issue this one is buried in sound bites, rhetoric and political manipulation--but give it back to the states--I'm good with that--then every moderate Republican is going to have to stand up and decide where he or she stnads since you can now be pro-life politically without any consequence--we'll see...I am much more interested in how the Court will decide executive power issues...

and JFH did you mean to say that the argument that the poor in the south do not have more abortions than any other group doesn't ring true to you? If so, check the census data--by the way you can directly follow those numbers to birth control education and highschool graduation rates--but again check the census data

[HC]

HC - if you do not want a women's right to be played for political gain

Laura

Some how I knew you would not understand the above statement.

JFH

I hear the Conservatives say Alito is a Strict Constructionist or Originalist. That is the very definition of a "Constitution in Exile Guy". At least you knew the term.

Chris

I think you described our different views on Abortion perfectly, but do expect the Righties to understand.

[Laura Howard]

Chris -
I have to say that I think I am on the same page with you as far as the government deciding whether or not a medical procedure such as abortion is legal. There are crazies on both sides of the fence we all know that. I would like to say though that I have enough trust in the people to get it through. I know that this is a never ending debate because they said that John Roberts was going to turn back the dial on civil rights, women's rights and minority rights. Still awaiting for that to happen. But like you said it is all sound bites, rhetoric and political manipulation. A never ending debate that will probably be argued by our great great grandchildren.
Thanks Chris, for getting HC's point across.

HC
Somehow I knew you wouldn't be able to explain your statement.

[HC]

"HC
Somehow I knew you wouldn't be able to explain your statement."

Laura

I guess I deserved that and I am sorry for being rude.

[JFH]

Actually, HC, the originalist and strict constitutionalist view points are significantly different. The Originalist view is a cop out, not much better than the "living Constitution" people. If you buy the originalist point-of-view, it's an easy jump to claim that if the "founding fathers" were alive today they WOULD buy into a more liberal argument than they would have based on their existing envirnoment.

My opinion, we don't ammend the Constitution nearly enough... let's address these issues via the original Constitutional process rather than let the judiciary decide what is "Constitutional"

[HC]

JFH

Then let us agree Alito is a Strict Constructionist. A Strict Constructionist is the very definition of a "Constitution in Exile Guy.”

Your own words are those of a Strict Constructionist.

"My opinion, we don't ammend the Constitution nearly enough... let's address these issues via the original Constitutional process rather than let the judiciary decide what is "Constitutional"

While I do not agree with Strict Constructionist opinion, I respect those who are has long they are honest about their agenda of taking us back to the Constitution of the early 1900's.

Then the American people can have an honest debate about how the Constitution should be interpreted. Is the Constitution a living document or document that needs to be constantly amended to catch up with the times.