We wrote in Voting For Barack Obama, Part III
In 2007 and 2008 there has not been one single debate to discuss issues of paramount importance to women. There was 1 forum to discuss gay issues. There were debates geared to Latinos. There were many many debates and fora to discuss issues of concern to African-Americans. In one single day in Iowa there were 2 events geared to the African-American population.
But not one debate was ever held this entire election cycle to discuss issues specifically of concern to women. Not one debate was ever held this entire election cycle to discuss issues from the perspective of women. Not one debate.
Women are the workers in the Democratic Party. Women are the ones who volunteer and make calls and answer mail and send out mail and organize the vans and do the work that keeps the Democratic? Party running. Yet not one debate was considered in forethought or afterthought to ask women what they thought and to ask women what they needed.
The vile Ralph Nader used to denigrate gay and women issues as “gonadal politics”. It appears the Democratic? Party has become a gonadal party – women only needed in the back of the bus, in the kitchen – working – but no place at the table.
Obama has been a lead gang-banger in the misogyny parade
Now, Obama supporters and Democrats appear only to be concerned about Women. Hillary supporters are told: ‘The Supreme Court, Oh, The Supreme Court, Think of the Supreme Court and abortion and blah, blah blah’.
Women are expected to only care about abortion – not their self respect.
The cries for “Unity” are heard in abundance, in full shout, from those that sowed the seeds of division. However, the seeds of division have borne a bumper crop this year.
Democrats like Obama/Dean/Brazille/Pelosi think they can wave the red flag of ‘Supreme Court’ or ‘Abortion’ and women will come running to the aid of the Democratic? Party and forget the misogyny Obama/Dean/Brazille/Pelosi never spoke against while Hillary and her supporters were belittled and denigrated.
As we wrote in Voting For Barack Obama, Part III
No Democrat should abandon the Democratic Party in November without giving serious thought to the consequences. Any Democrat that proposes DEMOCRATS GO ON STRIKE this November must explain why. The issues are important and serious. In subsequent days we will examine, issue by issue, why Hillary can be trusted on the issues and Obama cannot be trusted on the issues. We will examine the proposal that an Obama nomination will force good DEMOCRATS TO GO ON STRIKE.
So, let’s discuss the Supreme Court and the several appointments the next president will make.
Can Obama or McCain be trusted with the several Supreme Court appointments the next president will make? NO, absolutely not.
We will discuss more throughly why Obama cannot be trusted to make Supreme Court appointments when we discuss the abortion issue. But we do know one thing right now – when Obama does something – anything – which people oppose, Obama shouts “Racism”.
McCain as president making a horrid Supreme Court appointment can be fought. Obama would simply peg us all as “Racists”.
That’s what Obama did after all when his judgment on sitting and giving money to the church of Pastor Wright came into question. Obama did not answer why he sat in that church for 20 years while “God Damn America” was shouted. Obama did not answer why he sat in that church for 20 years while the “N” word was used from the pulpit. Obama did not answer why he sat in that church for 20 years while the pastor humped the podium in a sexually suggestive manner in front of all the families cheering in the pews. No, Obama gave a speech on race – lecturing us on racism instead of addressing his own disgusting lack of judgment. Obama plunged us into a discussion on race when the issue was his judgment.
Obama as president would shout “racism” at the first sign of disagreement.
Further, Obama should not be trusted with constitutional issues. Has everyone forgotten Obama’s views on executive authority? Obama does not think Bush has done anything impeachable. Richard Nixon’s former White House counsel John Dean:
It was at that time that Dean expressed the opinion that “Bush is the first president to admit an impeachable offense,” Boxer said.
Boxer called it a “startling assertion” that is “especially poignant,” given Dean’s first hand experience with “the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.” Dean was a pivotal figure in the Nixon White House Watergate scandal.
While White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was asserting Monday that the National Security Agency’s domestic surveillance program was a vital tool in the war against terrorism, a panel assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union was arguing that President Bush should be impeached over the spying program.
“If the political alignment in the country were otherwise, impeachment would be a no-brainer,” said Laurence H. Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard University.
In December, the New York Times disclosed that President Bush had authorized the NSA to tap international telephone calls that included one party suspected of terrorist activity.
Since that time the program’s legality has been debated, especially over whether the president violated the law when he authorized the interception of electronic communications without first obtaining permission from the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court.
Tribe added that wiretapping is not an inherent power of the presidency. “That free flowing inherent power is the very thing we fought a revolution against.”
“It violates the basic rules of the road of how you operate,” said Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “No judge, at any level has signed a warrant for this.”
John Dean, a former White House counsel during the Nixon administration, compared the Bush administration’s wiretapping to the Watergate scandal. “[Bush] has made such a radical reading of his powers, not unlike Nixon. And those who have operated under his behalf have pursued that policy, so it could well end up where we were at the Nixon White House.
“There is no question in my mind that this president has already committed one or more impeachable offenses. This is pretty serious stuff. It’s worse than Watergate.”
Obama, Obama is fine with Bush’s offenses. Obama does not think Bush has committed impeachable offenses. Obama cannot be trusted on issues of executive authority. Obama should not be trusted to make Supreme Court appointments. Obama calls himself a constitutional expert but that is rubbish. To Obama “Impeachment is Not Acceptable:
“I think you reserve impeachment for grave, grave breaches, and intentional breaches of the president’s authority,” he said.
The argument against impeachment that made sense, back in Spring 2007, were practical arguments – not enough time, a distraction, etc. But it is inexcusable for a Democratic candidate to doubt that Bush’s many offenses are not “grave, grave breaches… intentional breaches” of the Constitution.
That Obama does not see Bush’s intentional breaches of executive authority as impeachable should inform all Americans that Obama is not qualifed, has insuffienct judgment and knowledge to make Supreme Court appointments.
Obama is not qualifed and lacks the judgment to be president.
McCain will make bad appointments to the Supreme Court too. But McCain we can fight – rationally and with success. McCain won’t shout “racism” when questioned.
The problem with a McCain presidency and the Supreme Court is not McCain, but Democrats. Democrats who ignored women and allowed Hillary to be attacked, encouraged Hillary to be attacked are now shedding crocodile tears about misogyny. These same Democrats wave the red flag of the “Supreme Court” in order to get women voters (Democrats apparently will still abandon the Latino and white working class voters) to fall in line and vote for Democrats this Fall.
However, why are we voting for Democrats? Will they do anything? Or is the Democratic? Party of Obama/Dean/Brazille/Pelosi asking for votes in order to do NOTHING?
Let’s review a little history of Supreme Court nominations. A Congress with a spine can do wonders:
When Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 (because of a scandal separate from his Chief Justice bid), Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth, a Southern jurist. His nomination was rejected by the Senate by a vote of 45-55 on November 21, 1969.
In response, Nixon nominated G. Harrold Carswell, a Southerner with a history of supporting segregation. The Senate rejected his nomination 45 to 51 on April 8, 1970.
Nixon finally nominated Harry Blackmun for the Fortas vacancy, and Blackmun was confirmed by the Senate with no opposition on 17 May 1970.
Justice Blackmun wrote the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 (we’ll discuss the abortion issue in a later installment in this series of Voting for Barack Obama). Democrats are waving the Roe v. Wade flag to get votes but they are not mentioning that Roe v. Wade was written by a Nixon appointee to the Supreme Court.
Republican President Reagan did not have a spineless Democratic Congress either:
When Lewis Powell retired in July 1987, Reagan nominated Robert Bork. Bork was a member of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia at the time and known as a proponent of constitutional originalism. Bork lost confirmation by a Senate vote of 42 to 58, largely due to Bork’s opinions on many controversial constitutional issues and also due to his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.
Reagan then announced his intention to nominate Douglas H. Ginsburg to the court. Before Ginsburg could be officially nominated, he withdrew himself from consideration under heavy pressure after revealing that he had smoked marijuana with his students while a professor at Harvard Law School. (Contemporary humor had Ginsburg’s nomination “going up in smoke”, with Bork’s having “gone down in flames” earlier.) Reagan then nominated Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97-0.
Bork was an abomination. Democrats defeated the Bork nomination because Democrats actually fought. Justice Kennedy became the major swing vote in Supreme Court decisions. Justice Kennedy also wrote the Court’s opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, a major victory for gay rights advocates.
What does this mean? It means that Senate Democrats with spines don’t need a Democratic president in order to protect abortion rights. If a President McCain wanted to appoint a Justice who is unacceptable Democrats should either refuse to vote at all or vote the appointment down.
If Democrats don’t fight for Democratic values why should we elect them?
The idea of voting for Obama due to potential Supreme Court appointment opportunities the next president will have is not a convincing argument. Obama is not to be trusted. The U.S. Senate will protect abortion rights and keep out suspect appointments to the Supreme Court. If Democrats in the U.S. Senate cannot accomplish that task then they are admitting they are not up to the job and do not deserve our votes.
Democratic Senators will simply have to grow … a spine.
We like Clydes take:
One of the things during election cycles that I used to preach about was how the Republican Party continually used anti-pro choice laws as a way to fire up their evangelical base. They do this by telling the true believers that if they (the GOP) control Congress and the Senate, there will be a constitutional amendment sometime in their life span that will completely outlaw abortions in this country. Of course, we all know the chances of that amendment actually happening are slim to none. The best that the GOP can hope to do is to get a few ringers annointed to the Supreme Court. [snip]
But what you have to remember is that when it comes to pro choice rights, the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans who cater to the anti-choice crowd and probably a lot worse because pro-choicers haven’t gotten shit from the Senate or Congress in quite a while. The male dominated Democratic Members of Congress have shown themselves to be too wimpish to put up a decent fight whether it’s the Iraq War or Supreme Court Judges.
But I honestly believe that when it comes to Supreme Court judges and reproductive rights, they really just don’t give a damn about it one way or the other until election time and they can start dangling the abortion carrot with the usual horror stories about what will happen on the Supreme Court if Republicans carry the day again. I can almost hear them in their offices and in back room caucuses now chortling about how throwing that little carrot will get those bitches into the voting booth one more time. Play it again, BO!
In fact, we’ve already heard the rumblings about how all the women who supported Clinton will come around to vote for BO Superstar because if they don’t then The Supreme Court will be totally dominated by right wing Republicans causing pro-choicers and women everywhere to lose all their rights to doing whatever the deem necessary with their reproductive systems, or in some states even buying birth control.
There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons Roberts and Alito sailed through is because the male dominated Congress didn’t care enough to make that big of a fuss. I mean, if they had actually forced the Republicans into putting forth at least one more moderate judge, how would they get the ladies into the voting booth in the fall?
Yes, I know some of them voted against the appointments. I also know that Obama was about to vote for Roberts until someone tapped him on the shoulder and told him it might not be political expedient what with the presidential election just around the corner. Which pretty much proves what I’m talking about. It’s always an after thought except in an election year. [snip]
The point I’m trying to make is that if women really care about their reproductive rights, then they’ll start demanding more from Congress then simple appeasement. By going into the voting booth every four years and pulling the lever for a Democrat out of habit, then you aren’t doing anything more than agreeing to let the Male dominated legislature control your sex organs for another four years. If you don’t start demanding something more for your vote, if you simply give in again because the Dems are dangling that damn abortion carrot as a threat, if you don’t demand that they do something to protect your rights other than paying lip service every four years, then this cycle will continue to play out from now until eternity. But at least you can still watch Oprah.