Reid's hypocrisy exposed
Over at the confirm them blog:
"“A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there.”
"That’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s puzzling reaction—at a press conference—to today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban. This remark from a man who voted for the partial-birth abortion ban found constitutional today and against an amendment to the bill declaring that “Roe v. Wade was appropriate and . . . should not be overturned.”
Is Sen. Reid saying that he voted for the federal ban hoping it would be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is he saying that he voted for what he believes to be an unconstitutional law? Or was he just hoping that he could score points with the Left by bashing President Bush’s Supreme Court picks, without pro-life voters in his home state of Nevada noticing the contradiction??"
It always seems odd to me how much emphasis that voters whether they be pro-life or pro-choice place on a politician's position on abortion as opposed to the judges that politician will confirm. While Reid voted for the ban, it seems he wanted to have it both ways and vote against judges who will uphold the ban. Democrats are in many ways lucky to have a leader who gets credit from some of the pro-life community for characterizing his position on abortion as pro-life yet who is able to find other excuses not to confirm justices who are thought to either favor restrictions on Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether.
Conversely, pro-life Republicans were lucky to have pro-choice Arlen Spector as the then-head of the judiciary committee as some more informed conservatives such as Hugh Hewitt noted. He was better able to shephard conservative justices through the process then say Orin Hatch and was able to provide cover for pro-choice Republican Senators who wanted to vote in favor of Alito but were afraid of repercussions back home. The same would be true for conservatives with Rudy Giuliani.
I happen to support the Roe v. Wade precedent as I am pro-choice and I see handing the issue back to the states as problematic although admittedly the legal reasoning behind Roe is shaky at best. That said, I would have been happy to confirm Roberts or Alito and while I don't know much about the constitutional arguments in this case and not sure which way I would have voted, it seems perfectfully legitimate to pass this restriction which I don't see as an "undue burden" for those seeking abortions. It also seems in keeping with the majority opinion in this country on this procedure.
"“A lot of us wish that Alito weren't there and O'Connor were there.”
"That’s Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s puzzling reaction—at a press conference—to today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the federal partial-birth abortion ban. This remark from a man who voted for the partial-birth abortion ban found constitutional today and against an amendment to the bill declaring that “Roe v. Wade was appropriate and . . . should not be overturned.”
Is Sen. Reid saying that he voted for the federal ban hoping it would be overturned by the Supreme Court? Is he saying that he voted for what he believes to be an unconstitutional law? Or was he just hoping that he could score points with the Left by bashing President Bush’s Supreme Court picks, without pro-life voters in his home state of Nevada noticing the contradiction??"
It always seems odd to me how much emphasis that voters whether they be pro-life or pro-choice place on a politician's position on abortion as opposed to the judges that politician will confirm. While Reid voted for the ban, it seems he wanted to have it both ways and vote against judges who will uphold the ban. Democrats are in many ways lucky to have a leader who gets credit from some of the pro-life community for characterizing his position on abortion as pro-life yet who is able to find other excuses not to confirm justices who are thought to either favor restrictions on Roe v. Wade or overturn it altogether.
Conversely, pro-life Republicans were lucky to have pro-choice Arlen Spector as the then-head of the judiciary committee as some more informed conservatives such as Hugh Hewitt noted. He was better able to shephard conservative justices through the process then say Orin Hatch and was able to provide cover for pro-choice Republican Senators who wanted to vote in favor of Alito but were afraid of repercussions back home. The same would be true for conservatives with Rudy Giuliani.
I happen to support the Roe v. Wade precedent as I am pro-choice and I see handing the issue back to the states as problematic although admittedly the legal reasoning behind Roe is shaky at best. That said, I would have been happy to confirm Roberts or Alito and while I don't know much about the constitutional arguments in this case and not sure which way I would have voted, it seems perfectfully legitimate to pass this restriction which I don't see as an "undue burden" for those seeking abortions. It also seems in keeping with the majority opinion in this country on this procedure.
posted by The partisan moderate at 10:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home