When they wanted votes, the Obama Dimocrat Party waved the red flag of abortion and Supreme Court appointments in order to corral women they had treated with contempt in a campaign of misogyny and sexism. Now that it matters however, Barack Obama did not even bother to find out Sonia Sotomayor’s views on abortion:
Some liberal legal groups are raising questions about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, citing her relatively moderate judicial record and her skimpy paper trail on crucial issues like abortion, gay marriage and the death penalty. [snip]
The concern from some liberal groups, however, is that despite her 16 years as a circuit and federal court judge, Sotomayor has not shown her hand on abortion, the death penalty, national security and gay marriage. And she’s not viewed as a major thinker in areas like constitutional rights, executive privilege, civil rights or human rights.
“Vote for Obama” the red flag wavers yelled. “It’s the Supreme Court, stupid” they would say in order to stop the brain from functioning and ignore the historical reality (our precient, right-on-target, June 6, 2008 Supreme Court argument response and why Obama could not be trusted on Supreme Court appointments HERE) regarding Supreme Court appointments.
A Souter in reverse? The red flag ain’t a-wavin’ now that it matters:
In nearly 11 years as a federal appeals court judge, President Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, has never directly ruled on whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion. But when she has written opinions that touched tangentially on abortion disputes, she has reached outcomes in some cases that were favorable to abortion opponents.
Now, some abortion rights advocates are quietly expressing unease that Judge Sotomayor may not be a reliable vote to uphold Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 abortion rights decision. In a letter, Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.
“Discussion about Roe v. Wade will — and must — be part of this nomination process,” Ms. Keenan wrote. “As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin.” [snip]
But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”
Presidents have miscalculated in their assumptions about the abortion views of Supreme Court nominees before. When the first President Bush nominated David H. Souter in 1990 to fill the seat that Judge Sotomayor would assume if confirmed, Mr. Souter was known as a “stealth nominee” with no paper trail on abortion.
But conservative and liberal advocates alike believed that Justice Souter would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, so much so that abortion rights advocates protested outside his confirmation hearing with signs reading “Stop Souter, or Women Will Die.” Then, two years later, Justice Souter shocked the political world by voting to uphold abortion rights.
To hell with the Obama endorsing, Hillary trashing NARAL. Now that it is too late they care about vetting of an appointee. They should have vetted Obama.
We warned women and abortion rights supporters that Obama cannot be trusted.
It was about a year ago, May 31, 2008, that the ultimate treachery occurred when the Democratic Party became the Obama Dimocratic Party and effectively gifted the nomination to Obama. Big Media was a co-conspirator in the treacherous Obama campaign of misogyny and sexism (“the chief victim was Hillary Clinton, not John McCain“).
The tree is known by the fruit. Judge the tree by its fruit.
The fruit is bitter and it is rotten. Ask Ted Rall.
The liberal icon, President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, op-ed columnist for Universal Press Syndicate, author of 14 books, beloved liberal Democrat, seller of anti-George W merchandise, and foolish Obama supporter and demander of votes for Obama, who attacked George W. Bush unceasingly, now says:
In all the ways that matter to liberals, Barack Obama is the second coming of George W. Bush. But in the same way that Republicans project their values of small government and low taxes on a party that doesn’t adhere to them, liberal Democrats project values of being antiwar and pro-civil liberties that they don’t make the slightest pretense of following.
Remember when we were mocked for saying Obama is the Third Bush Term? Now that the same analysis comes from Dimocratic hero Ted Ralls, whose cartoons were republished and lionized every time he (regularly) attacked George W. Bush, there is the usual hypocritical silence from the blue boy PINO Big Blogs.
The PINO Big Blogs and the Obama Dimocratic Party are a mirror image of the George W. Bush Republicans. Ted Ralls however won’t play the game:
Clever guy, Barack Obama. Launches the biggest attack against basic American jurisprudence in history the Friday before the long Memorial Day weekend, figuring that by the time Tuesday rolls around, a hung-over nation fattened on BBQ won’t have noticed.
I refuse to act like the Republicans who stuck by Bush after he crossed the line between garden-variety piggishness to authoritarian psycho. I regret not listening to my libertarian friends who warned me that Obama had dictatorial tendencies. They were right.
Bush was bad. Bush was evil.
Obama is worse than Bush.
Obama is worse than Bush! Little wonder thatTed Ralls is now calling for Obama to resign:
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss. [snip]
Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.
Commentor “anoneros” sums up our feelings:
I don’t want to read this stuff Ted. You and your media cohorts elected this man. You’re responsible for him. You own him — and he owns you (by his own admission). Your are nothing but state-sponsored media. At this point you’re only job is to continue to write fawning articles of adulation. I never read any hard-hitting, critical and substantive investigation of BHO during the campaign. I don’t want to read any of it now, now that it’s too late. To echo the Left during the Bush years: Obama is not my president. But he is certainly yours Ted. All yours.
He’s all yours Obama Dimocratic Party, along with the looting of the American economy and the looting for bankers and GM. He’s all yours.
The stinking rotten B.O. with his Rezko house and his sleeveless rotten Chicago machine wife – he’s all treacherously yours.