Democrats Tell President Bush: Don’t Propose Judges Against Abortion
Washington, DC
Now that the elections have given them control of the Senate, leading Democrats on judicial issues have a message for President Bush. They don’t want him to send up for confirmation any judges who would be hostile to legalized abortion or they plan vote down or filibuster them.
Democrats now have 51 votes in the Senate and will likely have a slim one vote majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee when Congress starts its new session in January.
Though they technically have enough votes on the panel and in the Senate to defeat any Bush judicial pick, they may still have a tough time keeping their caucus together as some moderate Democrats joined a group of Republicans in making sure filibusters weren’t used to hold up nominees.
But leading pro-abortion Democrats tell Bush he needs to pick someone without a record opposed to abortion in order to get judges — especially for the Supreme Court — confirmed in their Senate.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, told Newsday that Bush should nominate only “consensus” nominees.
Sen. Charles Schumer, of New York, was more strident and vowed to block any nominee he feels is too extreme on abortion.
“We will do everything in our power to see that that happens,” he told Newsday, saying filibusters should be expected. He added that Bush “will have to negotiate with us, because we’ll have the majority.”
There are no current Supreme Court openings, but pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens, who was the subject of retirement speculations shortly before the elections, is 86 years-old and battling significant health problems.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, another abortion advocate is 73 years-old and has her own health concerns.
Had the GOP kept control of the Senate, the liberal judges may have waited to retire, but they could step down feeling that the chances they would be replaced by a less conservative judge are higher with Democrats heading up the chamber.
How Bush reacts to Democratic control may be seen in whether he chooses to re-nominate six conservative appeals court judges who have yet to be confirmed.
Should a Supreme Court opening develop closer to the 2008 presidential elections, that may put more pressure on Senate Democrats to hold off on confirming a replacement until afterwards.
Wild Thing’s comment……
Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/ save trees, geese, algae!!
Total abortions since 1973 — 44,670,812
Damn Democrats!
Total abortions since 1973 — 44,670,812
………………………………………….
And so with that appalling figure you have to ask yourself how many people have we tossed aside like rubbish who could have given us things like:
1. A cure for Cancer
2. A new musical genius
3. Scientists to solve our global warming
problems
4. Inventors
5. Peacemakers
I am sure there are many more that I could list. But it is clear that we are potentially robbing future humanity of some of our most brightest minds.
I have mixed feelings about abortion. So many abortions are by people who are total liberals. I tend to think of abortion sometimes as liberal/socialist birth control. Yes, I think abortion is morally wrong, but realistically, every less potential gang-banger, Al Sharpton, Hillary Clinton etc. has to be considered a plus.
Lyn, very true we will never know.
Tom haha that is one way to look at it for sure.
I hope Bush has the Kahonas to propose the most Conservative judges he can find. This will show the American public just exactley what they elected this year to Congress.
Look what Ronald Reagan said about this same thing 30 years ago.
http://www.conservative.org/pressroom/reagan/reagan1975.asp
Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.
Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own….But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.
Imagine if people like Stephen Hawking had been aborted. Or imagine if we continue on the slippery slope and progress down the road that an Anglican bishop is suggesting. Murdering babies with health and/or physical defects.
And I agree with BoBF. If W wants the base to rally back around him, he has no choice. Nominate conservative justices. When the Dems threaten to stall, drag them in front of the public for their actions. Label them obstructionists.