Skip to main content

Sexist Senate Democrats Oppose John Roberts Based on Abortion -- Oh, ya...They are all Women.

I guess these women's ideas of privacy and their own interpretation of the law is more important than the faithful adherence to the Constitution. What I want to know is why all these Senators seem to think they know more about the Constitution than John Roberts--one of the sharpest legal minds and a Constitutional expert?
Washington,DC ( -- Seven Democratic women senators on Thursday held a press conference to announce they will press for members of the Judiciary Committee to ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts to specifically address his views on the issue of abortion.

They also pledged to vote against Roberts if he doesn't back Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited abortion throughout pregnancy.

"I want to hear a nominee say that the [right to privacy] is the basis for their philosophy," pro-abortion Washington Sen. Maria Cantwell said.

"If an individual says that, then I will be convinced that they truly believe in the right to privacy and will not be a member of the Supreme Court that will unsettle Roe v. Wade," she added.

"For more than 20 years, Sandra Day O'Connor has been an important vote in upholding Roe v. Wade," California Sen. Barbara Boxer said. "Will Judge Roberts be that same important voice?"

Sean Rushton, director of the Committee for Justice, a group that backs Roberts, said the women's views amounted to a litmus test.

"This is a single-issue litmus test that strikes at the heart of an independent judiciary," he told the Washington Times. "It proves that the Democratic Party is increasingly focused solely on the issue of abortion on demand. Their greatest fear is a nonpolitical judge who will read the law as it's written."

In fact, when asked by reporters, none of the seven Democrats said they would vote for Roberts if he said he opposed Roe. Boxer indicated it would be "impossible" for the group to vote for him.


Popular posts from this blog

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Hispanic Trending: Leave your name at the border

Most people miss the fact that Hispanics do not consist of a single ethnic group. Besides that, the heritage that each one of the many nationalities represented in our immigrant population is diverse in itself. As I read Manuel Muñoz's post on his assimilation experience, I can tell you mine was nothing like his. But I can relate to this paragraph. My niece's name is Katie Belle (Sierra). It's intriguing to watch "American" names begin to dominate among my nieces and nephews and second cousins, as well as with the children of my hometown friends. I am not surprised to meet 5-year-old Brandon or Kaitlyn. Hardly anyone questions the incongruity of matching these names with last names like Trujillo or Zepeda. The English-only way of life partly explains the quiet erasure of cultural difference that assimilation has attempted to accomplish. A name like Kaitlyn Zepeda doesn't completely obscure her ethnicity, but the half-step of her nam…

RealClearPolitics: The Democrats Dither on Trade

The backtracking on free trade in South America has been among the frustrating news for me coming out of the beltway. Considering how the economic downturns in Latin America affect us through the increase in illegal immigration, I would think more Americans would be fighting for this one as loudly as they fought for the failed Immigration legislation. Democratic presidential candidates like to talk about "turning a page" in America's relations with the rest of the world. But what does that mean, in practical terms, on bread-and-butter issues such as trade? Are today's Democrats a party of open markets and economic development, or of market restrictions and job protection?The answer is that leading Democrats seem to want both -- they favor economic development overseas but not at the cost of U.S. jobs. That sounds like a coherent position until you begin to look carefully at the political choices in Latin America, a part of the world where …