Reid just "out-Roved" Karl Rove with Miers...

[Sir Jeffrey]

Fabulous strategery too IMO. I'm actually giddy, and I haven't been giddy in a while.

This pissed off conservatives big time. Why?

First and foremost, this proves the point I have argued for years: Republicans do not give a damn about fixing Roe. Never have. It was and will be the ultimate wedge issue. The party leaders have never intended on fixing the problem, but they have actively kept this little tidbit away from their base. Not anymore. When they were given the chance to kill off Roe, they pussed out and they have nobody else to blame. Their base will not forget this for a long time. To them, it is baby-killing period end of discussion, no excuses. Be sure to mention this little fact to all of your conservative friends and family members.

So now you have Conservatives cannibalizing the party leadership demanding a "to the right of Roberts" nominee. How contentious will the Senate debate be from the majority party this time? I can't wait. Let the loonies speak into the camera. Loudly.

Also, Dems will come off as reasonable here, agreeing to confirm a reasonable conservative nominee twice. I know I know, but I still think Roberts won't be nearly as bad as Scalia/Thomas/Rehnquist. I mean, my god, look at what this maniac has done in office for the last five years. I expected someone like Richard Perle with a law degree.

Now you will see the reactionary right wing come out in full force showing their true colors right before the primary season. Sweet.

And of course, do not underestimate that Bush and the Republican leadership are now acting exactly like the Dems have been predicting all along: promoting incompetent cronies into positions waaaay over their head. You think the Dems won't capitalize on this, comparing the effect of crony Michael Brown on FEMA to crony Miers on the SCOTUS?

This is such a fantastic political move for a minority party with no official power. Reid just royally screwed the White House, and I think we should all take a deep breath and enjoy the rantings on the right for the next few months.

[Zen Democrat]

1. What makes you think Miers wouldn't vote to overturn Roe?

She is pro-life, has attended pro-life dinners with Judge Nathan Hecht of Texas (a KNOWN right-wing zealot) -- Hecht is her "boyfriend."

She belongs to a fundie Republican church in Dallas.

She thinks Bush is the the most brilliant man she's ever met.

She calls herself an "originalist" vis-a-vis the Constitution. Who else calls himself an "originalist"? None other than Antonin Scalia.

I wouldn't be so giddy. She's the stealth candidate all right. But she's the stealth Scalia & Thomas candidate.

[BootinUp]

5. fair question, but one comment

I am not sure that just going to a fundie church is proof positive the other way either. Most all of the churches in the deep south are pretty fundie actually.

[FreedomAngel82]

52. My question about this is

why didn't Bush pro-claim she is a pro-life canidate? When the press asked about her stance on Roe V Wade he just said basically "trust me, I know her" instead of coming out and stating publically "She is pro-life". So why did he do that? If she really was pro-life and proud of it (as they are) then why wouldn't he proudly proclaim it or herself in the press conference she did?

[Arkana]

33. Women think differently when it comes to Roe...flame if you must

but I have noticed that. The majority of the anti-choice crowd are faux-moralistic men.

[Sir Jeffrey]

36. See post 28...

and, in addition to the frantic ravings of the republican party base, think about this for a bit:

You are Bush (just for a few moments in this hypothetical, thank god). You are at the lowest point of your political career, probably your life. Your poll numbers are in the toilet. Iraq is a clusterfuck. Katrina unmasked the inept nature of your entire crony govt. Social Security Reform/privatization is DOA. Your entire agenda has been temporarily ( I hope permanently) derailed. Your friends are either indicted, getting ready to be indicted, or unindicted co-conspirators in <name your scandal here>.

Then, poof. You've got the single best chance of anyone in your party's "glorious" history to shore up your base and rally every died in the wool right wing conservative to your side under the banner of overturning Roe. All you need to do is nominate a firebrand, true blue conservative to get the debate off of your criminal friends, Iraq, etc. Your poll numbers would shoot up ten points or so and the debate would be all about Roe for the next year or so...just in time to sweep into the mid-terms.

But, instead of that, you cave in to the Senate Minority Leader. Your party rebels against you en masse. You are openly ridiculed by those who were kool-aid drinkers as of two days ago. You just pissed off the largest subset of your base, also known as the only people in the electorate who still give two shits about you. You have just sealed the fate of the Republican Party for the next election, since abortion has effectively been marginalized as a wedge issue. If nobody trusts republicans to follow through on their signature issues (Disaster response, fiscal responsibility and ending abortion), they won't win.

My point? Bush would be shouting from the rooftops were Miers set on overturning Roe. There would be no need to be secretive about it. COnfirmation will happen even if every Dem Senator opposes (which won't happen).

Before you say "filibuster", know that Frist would go nuclear given the opportunity on abortion...the political payoff for him would be too much to pass up. He was set on going nuclear over some federal nominees a few months ago.

One more point: I liken abortion to Pavlov's experiments. Ring the bell, vote for me. It has worked for decades. You don't create a political problem like this to solve it. You create it to exist in perpetuity...fighting the good fight, if you will. Once abortion is "fixed", there is nothing so divisive that exists in politics that will continue to keep otherwise decent people from voting in their own interests. And the debate has been so wonderfully framed for the republicans that they have it down to whether you support baby-killing or not (which is absurd, but rational thought doesn't enter into it). I have lived all over the South, and I can't tell you how many people I know/met who vote solely on anti-abortion. I am sure you know many like that too.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. Exactly

So true. Exactly. And since the republicans control everything (and everybody knows it) they could've easily done this even without a filibuster since they would've still probably had the votes. Reid has done a brilliant job in my opinion with this. And if she really was pro-life and for overturning Roe V Wade I'm sure their "pro-life" groups would be thrilled to death. Of course on Crooksandliars.com Dobson made a comment that said: "Mr. Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical conservatives, welcomed the nomination. "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," he said in an interview, explaining his decision to speak out in support of Ms. Miers. He declined to discuss his conversations with the White House.... More at http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5450.html

So what does he know?

[elsiesummers]

59. If Roe is overturned the issue won't die for the Rel Right...

They will still be able to use it like Pavlov's dog.

First, although Roe is overturned abortion likely wouldn't be outlawed in every state so they'll still think they'll need congressional leaders to seek an ammendment or legeslation to outlaw it nation wide. This will likely give pro-lifers enough of a win to further motivate them and increase their zealotry.

Second, they will still live in fear of the next Supreme Court nominee being a liberal and the possibility of an unexpected death of one of their conservative supremes. They won't sit quietly until they have every supreme court justice doing their bidding. So this will still be a pavlov's dog issue for presidential elections as well.

Third, they'll be working to have abortion criminalized in every state in the union, which may bring much of the fight to a state level, but it won't stop the fight.

Fourth, all the right wing politicians have to do is focus on gay marriage or prayer in schools or school vouchers or faith based initiatives or the need for religious observance in public life to bring the same set of loonies to the polls. They won't be happy until we are all a bunch of sky god zombies praying together at every public or private place and forking our tax dollars directly over to the church (and it will eventually be "the church" - one church) like a tithe, until the church and state are "like that" (crossing fingers in symbol of closeness).

Those who think that if Roe is overturned the Religious Right voters will quietly fold up shop and stop voting because their work is done don't know enough fundies personally and don't see that instead a win will energize them and we will be even more screwed as they steadily take over and take over all of our rights, one by one, for our own good, as they save all us sinners from the lake of fire.

[davepc]

2. no way! bush/rove is an evil genius and democrats are stupid!

and they PLANNED it to make us THINK we're fooling them, but in reality their double secret double crossing us!

Also, all the outrage from the far right is their doing, and inherently fake, because no one on the right does or says ANYTHING without Karl Roves personal approval beforehand!

Stop giving Democrats credit for fighting a good rear guard action while acting as a minority party at the dawn of the 2006 election cycle!

Blaspheme!

[texpatriot2004]

3. Give em Hell Harry...thank you Senator Reid

www.giveemhellharry.com

[Totally Committed]

4. Bullshit.

I'll believe that when I see the fruits of it. He's anti-choice MALE and probably doesn't give a rat's ass about Roe. He's gotta show me the goods before I trust him again on anything.

[ecoflame]

7. Anti-choice or prolife?

There's a difference to some people. Some people I know who are consistently prolife (birth to death issues) are not necessarily anti-choice. They wouldn't dream of telling someone else what to do or make the decision for them. For themselves, the decision is to be consistent with life issues as they see it.

[Totally Committed]

8. TO-MAY-TO, TO-MAH-TO...

anti-choice is anti-choice.

[Punkingal]

13. I agree with you....

I know Harry, (he's my senator) and I don't trust his sorry ass one bit. He's wishy-washy and conservative.

[Totally Committed]

14. Thank you!

I know a weasel when I see one.

[Punkingal]

16. Power-hungry weasel....

and he doesn't give a damn about us. He supported a former law partner of Kenneth Starr and Ted Olson last year for Nevada District 3. It was sickening!

[LittleClarkie]

6. We can only hope

Except I hope she's not a nut.

[Check12]

11. Would a nut say..

That GWB was the most brilliant man she had ever met??

If so, then GWB has to be the best actor on the planet convincing us all that he is a sandwich shy of a picninc.

[Geek_Girl]

27. She's kissing his ass

[MichiganVote]

9. Roe v. Wade a problem?

You comment that,

"The party leaders have never intended on fixing the problem..."

What problem? Those who support Roe don't view Roe AS a problem. Only people who view Roe AS a problem are those who would deny a female's right to choose.

Pro-choice's only problem is working to maintain the right to a private, legal abortion for females who choose that course.

[BootinUp]

12. I think he was talking about the repuke party leaders. n/t

[Sir Jeffrey]

19. I don't think Roe is a problem...

The problem is that so many good-intentioned people are being led like lemmings based on the fact that:

1. It is a "silent genocide" of abortion, etc. and
2. It is consistently open for discussion, as if we have no inherent right to privacy, which is the fundamental basis for all of our personal freedoms.

Average people have trouble wrapping their minds around number 2, since it is an abstract legal principle that appears to have little bearing on abortion. You can't really convince people to change their minds if they believe number 1. That is why I am so excited by this. It adds number three: We had our chance to end roe and we didn't...and we can't blame anyone else for it.

Re-read what I wrote and it should become clear that I am presenting the issue as a "lemming" would see it. The republican party says X is a problem. We will fix X unlike the godless punk democrats. Then it became "we can't fix 'x' because we don't control this branch of govt." Now they control all three branches and have a chance to fix THEIR PERCEIVED PROBLEM, and they don't.

See my point?

[MichiganVote]

34. I understand your point. I just don't see Roe as a problem.

The problem as I see it is the refusal and resistance that some segments in our society exhibit toward Roe. Abortion will never be fixed, legal or otherwise. They are all on a fool's errand as useless as Prohibition.

[Sir Jeffrey]

39. Absolutely...

and of course, once you're born, the anti-abortionists couldn't give a damn about you.

[MichiganVote]

40. Oh some of them will care about your "soul",

fat lot of good that does when you're poor and starving.

[FreedomAngel82]

56. Exactly

All they care about once you're out is that you're their ideal of a Christian and not making up your own mind about your beliefs. Even though I personally am a Christian when I have kids someday I want to let them choose what they believe or not believe. That's what they don't want. They don't want national health care. They don't want public schools without THEIR religion and nobody else's involved. All they care about is you following their beliefs and being greedy with their money.

[FreedomAngel82]

55. You don't and I don't but they do

As long as it exists they'll see it as a problem. They want to get rid of it instead of figuring out why women have abortions and work on that angle. They don't care it keeps women safe. They don't care about my privacy as a woman. All they want is it gone. And Bush isn't doing it. He's only caring about himself. According to the public who don't believe in stealing elections supposivley "moral values" won this last election and this whole fake idea that Bush can protect them (when he allowed everything to happen by the way) and now they feel duped. Like they support a fraud (which he is) but they believed he was truly an evangelical fundamentalist Christian. Now maybe they're seeing what we've been telling them all along. The republicans will never touch Roe V Wade or they would've with the first judge appointee. If they do get rid of Roe V Wade what else would they have besides gay marraige? That's not enough to get you elected. But as someone else said they've been saying for years "this guy will get rid of Roe V Wade if you support him" and now they have all control over the government and what have they been doing? Making money.

[MasonJar]

10. What are youtalking about? What did Reid do?

[Sir Jeffrey]

22. Link

"Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) urged President Bush to pick White House counsel Harriet Miers as his nominee to the Supreme Court, RAW STORY can confirm.

In a conference call held with liberal bloggers last week, Reid declared that he had told Vice President Dick Cheney and White House Chief of Staff Andy Card that Miers was a good choice for the Court.

"I said, 'I think that rather than rather than looking at the people your lawyer’s recommending, pick her," the senator remarked. "The reason I like her is that she’s the first woman to be president of the very, very large Texas bar association, she was a partner in a law firm, she’s actually tried cases, she was a trial lawyer, and she’s had experience here. I could accept that. And if that fits into the cronyism argument, I will include everybody as a crony, but not her, when I make my case."

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reid_told_Cheney_to_pick_Miers_1003.html

[spooky3]

15. Miers is not in the same incompetent crony category as Brown

and Democrats will know they should be careful here.

She may have no judicial experience, but then quite a few of her male predecessors didn't either. If Dems try to make hay out of this, "sexism" charges will come fast and furious from the right wingers who couldn't care less about real sexism. She also rose, as a litigator, to the top at a big law firm in TX, apparently without the help of daddy and an Ivy league "ticket punch." No mean feat for anyone, especially for a woman facing discrimination. This is relevant experience and a record of success, completely unlike Brown's horse show credentials' vaulting him to the top of a disaster agency.

[Sir Jeffrey]

24. Political junkies like us know that...

and we also know that Warren had no prior judicial experience, and he is one of the best liberal judges we;ve had. But in politics, perception equals reality, and it looks real bad when you just got through with the Michael Brown cronyism charges only to turn around and nominate your personal atty with no judicial experience to the supreme court.

[spooky3]

25. you may be right, but I think the average person won't see it that way.

I think the average person would view it the same way as if a Dem. president nominated John Edwards to the Supreme Court, for example. "Lawyering", especially trial lawyering, and "judging" are probably seen as highly related activities.

I'm not saying this is right or wrong, but like you, am talking about perceptions.

[Sir Jeffrey]

38. I agree with your point generally...

but I think that Miers specifically can be tied to cronyism based on these two points:

1. No experience as a judge...being nominated against the wishes of the vast majority of her party to the highest court in the land. Add extra weight to this point if she dodges questions like Gonzales.

2. You can't discount the embarrasing fact that Miers was Bush's personal attorney. This will be common knowledge soon enough, and for a president with cronyism as one of the biggest criticisms, this is mass political suicide for the Republicans.

Miers is talented, to be sure. Not that I agree with her on anything, but coming from SMU law is no easy feat. Miers on her own wouldn't be that big of a deal. Miers on top of everything else in this political environment is, well, see my OP.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

17. You know why they don't want to mess with Roe?

Because deep down inside they know that IF they get pregnant at 50, or their wives do, or their daughter at 10...THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE DECISION. They are all talk.

[flpoljunkie]

31. Agree with you. They just use abortion to stoke their hard right base.

[blondeatlast]

43. Cha=ching! Even the base is beginning to see they have no intention of

dealing with the abortion issue.

[flpoljunkie]

63. Unfortunately, Molly Ivins says Meirs would vote to overturn Roe.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1005-22.htm

Printer Friendly Version E-Mail This Article


Published on Wednesday, October 5, 2005 by the Boulder Daily Camera (Colorado)

Christian Soldier on the High Court

by Molly Ivins

AUSTIN, Texas -- Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

<>Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism.What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

She is enrolled in the Valley View Christian Church of Dallas, which she attended for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years ago. Among that church's other members is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, considered second only to Priscilla Owen as that court's most adamant anti-abortion judge.

According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind. Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of theology.

[dbonds]

35. I disagree.

They don't want to change Roe because that is the primary reason some of thier base vote for them. If that reason is not there anymore, it lets them vote on other issues that might send them to the democratic party.

[xkenx]

50. DON'T BE SO NAIVE

If Roe is overturned, THEY will do what those with means did before Roe; they found nice genteel places and doctors to take care of their abortions quietly. Only the financially disadvantaged will have to go the back alley/coathangar route.

[lastknowngood]

18. Good choice of words he out roved rove. He did so well I'm becoming

and independent. If they can't even put forth the illusion of being an opposition party I'm not wasting any more of my time with them. Being a democrat who simply parrots the shrub's party line is not my idea of being of any use. NO matter how pissed off the repug rabble get they have nowhere to go, they will just drink the coolaid right up until the enter the ovens and still thank the guards for being members of the party of life.

[illflem]

20. Wouldn't it be a crack up if the pukes are the ones

to vote Miers down

[Sir Jeffrey]

23. That's why I'm giddy. "Send us a firebreather!" "Go nuclear!"

And watch the Reps lose it all in 2006.

[blondeatlast]

44. It could happen, especially if the fundie base begins to realize

that Bushco has no intention of getting rid of abortion.

[illflem]

21. dupe

[Geek_Girl]

26. Don't underestimate the stupidity

of the republican base. They'll fall for it again. They fell for it in the Reagan years they fell for it in the Bush1 years and they fell for it again and my bet is they'll keep falling for it because they are that stupid.

[sunnystarr]

28. I caught part of insHannity on the way home today

He was frantic trying to get his callers to see that Miers was a good thing and to trust the pResident. They weren't buying it. Some called for a filibuster. They don't want an unknown that doesn't have a track record on her views. Most of his callers were calling their Repuke Senators and ordering them to vote against her.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Hannity is just such a loyalist

No matter what, he's there doing damage control.

Even David Brooks and my local guy, a Rush wannabe, aren't that loyal. Dang.

[sunnystarr]

49. I keep wondering what the pricetag is for his loyalty ...

bet it's more than Armstrong got paid.

[KansDem]

58. "...calling their Repuke Senators and ordering them to vote against her."

Hmmmm...both my senators are GOP. Might be a good time to call them and give them the ol' disgruntled Kansas voter act. Might be fun, too!

[pretzel4gore]

29. caligula named his horse to the senate...

that was just the emperor being silly (the horse couldn't speak latin) ...caligula was an old fashioned tyrant who tried to give tyranny a bad name... while george junior is an unelected crank who doesn't really work at being president. Whereas caligula's decrees were honoured despite his insanity, because he was both roman emperor and a living god, bush isn't even the fukking dogcatcher in america and all his doings are ridiculous, compared to caligula, who once went to the seashore and ordered the tide to go out, which it did....

[bigendian]

30. You have a point.

Unborn babies are one thing but corporations are THE thing.

Imagine a bought-off congress passing every bill that the multinationals want. Now imagine a Supreme Court too watered down with pro-biz, anti-worker judges.

You get the picture.

[AirAmFan]

37. With Rethug Ccngressional leadership under scrutiny or indictment,

and with Dubya's poll numbers scraping bottom, this is the PERFECT time for Democrats to stir up deeper splits in the ruling party.

I agree with you. I think Reid's photo-op with Miers today and comment he though "lack of judicial experience is a plus" was too tight an embrace to be other than a kiss of death.

[williesgirl]

41. Pls remember Roe isn't only issue - we need someone with

judicial experience on the court. I would never want to see Roe overturned, but I don't think the Repubs want that either. They'd lose their main election issue with the far right if that happens. I think she's a fox in chicken clothing. She'll be radical on EVERYTHING else except Roe. Shrub's dumbing down of the court will hurt every American in the long run on every issue. Dems need to fight this nomination regardless of Roe.

[Sir Jeffrey]

45. I understand your sentiment, but disagree (politely)...

First, the time to fight was in 2000 with Gore, but he f'ed up by not going for either the statewide recount or allowing the CBC to contest the Florida certification.

Another time to fight was when Kerry had evidence of widespread election fraud but chose to stand down and concede.

Once our "leaders" forfeited these opportunities, in effect they ceded control of our govt willingly to the unelected. With that gift came the power to implement their radical policies. As a weakened minority party, Dems have no effective control over the agenda. Combine that with our poor party discipline (conservative democrats) and you have a broad coalition in Washington that does not represent the will of the electorate.

Had Bush nominated, for instance, one of the kooks he nominated to Federal court that almost caused Frist to go Nuclear, then yeah. But this is not the time to fight on nominees. Miers and Roberts were about as good as we can hope for under a psychotic republican regime with a strong fascist bend to it. We know we aren't getting a liberal, and the Dems don't have the guts to shut down the govt (not to mention the blame that will befall them).

That is what is so politically savvy about this whole deal. The christian right will cannibalize the libertarian/fiscal conservatives over Miers. We don't need to get involved here. We can fight on other fronts more effectively.

And then, in the mid-term elections, we can use this to win back control of at least one chamber of Congress (prob the HR).

I agree with your impulse though...you want to fight no matter what because it is right and people will be hurt because of this.

[mvd]

42. This is strange

But, it's the one sliver of hope I'm clinging to that this won't be a disaster.

[ClassWarrior]

46. Say it with me... THE CULTURE OF CORRUPTION.

NGU.

[bklyncowgirl]

47. I certainly hope that "Vegas Harry" knows what he's doing.

It would indeed be sweet indeed if this was a ploy that actually worked.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

48. After reading the article about Reid and seeing him talk about

Meirs this morning, and having spent some time today trying to figure out what is up with Harry...

All I can say is keeping people, er neocons and rr'ers guessing can't be a bad thing.

[FreedomAngel82]

51. After thinking about it I think so too

Rhandi talked about this briefly today too and she said Reid was being a genius (if it workeds out of course). I think so too. Reid knew that he didn't have the votes since the republicans always vote party-line. They're up for re-election next year and if they want to be back there they're going to have to now vote against her. Rhandi told how Miers is for gay rights just not sodomicy laws. Isn't she also pro-choice? I'm not sure. But at first I was pissed too but now I'm seeing the plan come out. Reid also mentioned she was a trial lawyer who they supposivley are supposed to hate. Now with all the conservatives angry it's a lose/lose situation for Bush. Also, since she is on the White House counsel they can get papers too for things going on (I have read on here Kennedy is already starting that). And hopefully Fitzgerald will be done with his case soon for indictments and Bush won't get another person on the bench. This was supposed to be the nominee to thank the conservative Christians for all their supposivley support in re-electing him (even though he stole majority of the public doesn't know that and thinks it was "moral values"). Bush is now court packing and trying to save his own butt. Roberts I think was for the corporations such as Haliburton and now Miers is to help save his ass with impeachment and the whole Plame/Wilson case. I highly believe that. Why else would he get his personal lawyer when I'm sure there are other canidates out there? And yes this also shows the corruption with the party. 2006 is going to be great! I'm sure there are republicans vowing to stay home next year and in 2008.

[ChiciB1]

53. I Have NEVER Felt That Roe vs Wade Will Be Over-Turned!

It's all the other stuff that has me so very worried!!!

[AJH032]

57. I disagree

I used to agree with your point, that the Republicans have no intention to kill Roe v. Wade because they want the issue to remain a rallying point for their base. I've since changed my mind though. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, the question of abortion would only be turned over to the states, which would keep it very much alive. Also, even if somehow the Republicans got a federal law passed, banning abortion in all 50 states, the issue could easily remain a wedge issue. Just imagine, a Republican presidential nominee years from now, getting onto the stage at their convention, saying "I guarantee this culture of life in America will remain intact, and no Democrat will take away a baby's right to life under my watch." And there you have it, the fundies running to the polls to support that candidate. Seems realistic to me.

[Sir Jeffrey]

61. Interesting take, but...

doing away with Roe at the federal level would preclude any state action to legalize abortion (unless they did it in protest like Alaska and California's medical marijuana laws). The basic premise that we all have a fundamental right to privacy would either be eliminated, limited, or extended to some point prior to your birth. All three of these methods would set a minimum standard that the states must follow. A state could not, for example, take away the rights of a viable fetus if the US Govt recognized that they had the same rights as a newborn. This would equate a mid/late term abortion with murder.

If you are familiar with a different argument on how Roe would be limited or overturned without recognizing some minimum standard for the "pre-born", I have to plead ignorance of it and ask you to explain it to me. I dislike not-knowing stuff like that :)

One more thing: if there was a federal standard made into a statute, it would be awfully easy to tie it to some sort of grant to the states to get them to go along with it (like they did with the minimum drinking age: 21 years or you don't get any money for highways from the Feds). Like I have said repeatedly, if they wanted to do it, it would have been done by now. It would have been done years ago.

[AJH032]

64. I'm not sure that's true

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, I'm pretty sure it would not set a law banning abortion in the states. Unless there's a separate provision in the overturning ruling, I believe it would simply eliminate the federal law guaranteeing the right to an abortion, and thus sending the issue to the states to decide.

But regardless of how an overturning of Roe v. Wade would affect the states, the Republicans could still use it as a wedge issue to bring their base to the polls, whether it's illegal in some places or illegal in all places. See the last part of my initial post.

[Sir Jeffrey]

66. Just read this on Wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_V._Wade

snips (but read the whole thing if you have time)

"Without finding a historical basis for the laws, the Court identified three justifications ...(2) the medical procedure was extremely risky prior to the development of antibiotics and, even with modern medical techniques, is still risky in late stages of pregnancy, and (3) the state has an interest in protecting prenatal life... However, according to the Court, the second and third constitute valid state interests. In Section X, the Court reiterated, "he State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman ... and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life."

Valid state interests, however, must be weighed against the constitutional rights granted to individuals in order to determine whether a law is a constitutional exercise of power. Even though the "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy" the court found support for a constitutional right of privacy in the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Ninth Amendment, and Fourteenth Amendment. The court found this "right of privacy" to be "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

However, the Court determined that "arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive." The Court declared, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

When weighing the competing interests the Court also noted that if the fetus was defined as a person for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment then the fetus would have a specific right to life under that Amendment. However, given the relatively recent nature of abortion criminalization, the Court determined that the original intent of the Constitution up to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 did not include the unborn. It should be noted that the Court's determination of whether a fetus can enjoy Constitutional protection is separate from the notion of when life begins. To that, the Court said, "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Relying on the current state of medical knowledge, the decision established a system of trimesters that attempted to balance the state's legitimate interests with the individual's constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the state cannot restrict a woman's right to an abortion during the first trimester, the state can regulate the abortion procedure during the second trimester "in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health," and in the third trimester, demarcating the viability of the fetus, a state can choose to restrict or even to proscribe abortion as it sees fit."

I take this to mean that TX and other states argued that they have a vested interest in protecting the unborn. They tried to argue that this state interest trumps the fundamental right to privacy, and were shot down by the court. The court came down on the side of the individual. I am under the impression that the easiest and most effective way to ban abortion in all jurisdictions is to recognize either:

1. the fetus has a right to privacy that the mother is not allowed to infringe upon, or

2. reverse the decision to claim that the state's interest trumps the fundamental right to privacy recognized by the majority.

Now, if my interpretation is accurate, either method of overturning Roe would lead to a minimum standard that the states could not infringe upon. The court would, in effect, retract a constitutional right and simulataneously grant personhood to the pre-born.

If I am interpreting it wrong, I'd politiely ask you to show me where I messed up.

[JerseygirlCT]

60. Saw comments from Brownback tonight saying he won't

vote to confirm.

Heeheehee.

[Sir Jeffrey]

62. The word of the day:

schadenfreude

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude

"a German expression (from Schaden: damage, harm; and Freude: joy) meaning pleasure taken from someone else's misfortune or "shameful joy". The word is often capitalized, due to the German rule of capitalising all nouns (whether proper or common); but it should be possible to spell the word in lower case in English.

"Schadenfreude" is neither malicious, shameful nor does it have a "negative connotation"! "Schadenfreude" simply is the glee one experience when a despicable individual receives his just desserts. That's why Germans call it "die schönste Freude" (the most exhilarating joy.)

Let's make this the word of the day for the next year or two :D

[JerseygirlCT]

67. Oh yes!

[Irreverend IX]

65. The real reason for the Miers nomination?

This nomination seems like a total blunder for Bush, so I've been trying to figure out what motivated this pick. Miers doesn't have a strongly defined political stance or much legal experience; the one definite label we can stick to her is that of a Bush toady. The Bushes are consummate politicians, so much so that I've wondered whether they're truly committed to right-wing conservative ideas or whether they would discard the trappings of the right-wing when it becomes expedient. After all, the politics of Bush I's administration were significally different from those of Junior's. I think it's likely that hardcore conservatism will lose its appeal to Americans by 2008, thanks to Bush's blunders. Maybe the Bushes are realizing that the flat earth fundies and John Birchers are running out of political capital, and are preparing to move toward the middle of the road when Delay and other icons of the right go down. After all, to a true fascist ideology is only a tool to be used to gain greater power.

[WinkyDink]

68. "truly committed"?

If Liberal policies would make the Bushies billionaires, they'd be Liberals.

And that's the name of THAT tune.