that Congress caves on horrible nominees of all sorts and will do so with any president—D or R —if a Dem is the one picking the nominees, then they won’t be horrible to begin with, and are at least more likely to support rights and laws and protecting consumers/people, etc.

We also know that at least 2 of the “liberal” Justices won’t last much longer—definitely not til 2012.

McCain just swore the other day to appoint more Scalias too.

We have to have non-psychos put forward precisely because we definitely have no hope of Congress killing any nominee—Mukasey was Schumer’s idea after all, and he’s no better than Gonzales— if not worse.

No sale.

And, yes, I recognize the political reality that the Democrats will likely cave to McCain. But it’s still bullshit to expect that to be a reason to vote for the Democratic nominee. It’s essentially blackmail, vote for Obama or we’ll let McCain take your reproductive rights. Fuck that.

No one in the Democratic Party wants to hold your body hostage; not Obama, not at all. The reality of McCain is that he will appoint someone to SCOTUS who will overthrow Roe. That is a certainty. He may get two appointments. The appointee/s may be a stealth candidate, someone who cannot be seen as someone who can be opposed. We will lose the court completely for another 20 years.

I do not, on the basis of current performance, trust the Senate to refuse any McCain appointee. The only sure way of protecting not just Roe but the entire corpus of progressive law since Reconstruction, depends on keeping the SCOTUS from Republican domination.

Please reconsider your thinking.

get full equal rights—in Employment, Housing or Marriage or a million other ways.

Once you gain the recognition of a right, you have to protect it—letting a Repub president appoint more thugs and crazies to the Supreme Court —-and all lower courts, and all agencies and departments, etc—is going to ensure your right disappears, and they’ve been chipping away at it for ages now too. Your rights are already weakened and under threat.

And it’s not only about Roe but about all rights for all here, and about at least slowing if not stopping them from overturning everything like they did with Brown vs. Board of Ed and Voter ID and Eminent Domain and the right to sue employers for mistreatment and harassment , etc….More rightwing Appeals and District and Supreme Judges will only hasten the elimination of rights for you and all.

(i have to crash—last night was late—but appointing Justices is really really important, and it’s not an idle threat or simply to keep you in line, etc)

But I’m not trying to blackmail you; I am not a distasteful Obama supporter - yet. But the reality is what it is, and I urge you to deal with that however offensive it may be.

Elect a Democrat to protect you from other Democrats? Yes, why not? Seems an eminently reasonable plan. What is the saying? “Set a thief to catch a thief.”

To be clear, there are a number of reasons to do everything I can to stop McCain, including voting for Obama.

What I’m rejecting is the idea that I have to fall in line and vote for a democrat because otherwise democrats will cave to McCain. What kind of logic is that? You must reward the party that’s going to fuck you over?

is right on. We have to consider the recent history of the federal judiciary, which is top-heavy with Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II appointees. It’s not like we’re starting with a balanced judiciary—it’s already heavily stacked, and a Supreme Court that gets one more right-winger (as a likely replacement for Ginsburg, who has had cancer and is in her 70s, or for Stevens, who is pushing 90 I believe) then the Court will be able to block or overturn anything that a Dem president and congress might do. Bill Clinton didn’t do enough in his first two years to push judicial appointments, and then many if not most of his appointments were stalled or shut down by the opposition congress he faced for the rest of his two terms. And, I’m sorry—I’m not a Trotskyite who believes that if only it gets *really* horrible the people will wake up and the Revolution will begin. There are real girls and women whose health may be compromised and whose lives may be threatened if we get more anti-Roe judges on the Federal bench and Supreme Court.

I know that it feels like there’s a gun pointed at our heads (or at our uteruses, so to speak), and that threatening us with the prospect of overturning Roe sometimes feels like a cynical manipulation. But, consider that it also might be a distinct possibility, too. I certainly think that people should vote for whomever they think would be the best champion of the people’s business. But, I also really dislike hearing Democrats threatening to refuse to vote for another Democrat, on any side of any fight. Reproductive rights and the Constitution are deal-breakers for me, and although I believe Clinton would be better than Obama on those issues, I sure as heck know that Obama will be better than McCain.

if you let democrats get away with threatening you with something they have the power to stop.

Look, I’m not saying don’t vote for Obama. I’m saying that if Ted Kennedy or some other democratic party leader tells you that you have to vote for Obama to protect Roe, that’s bullshit and he should be called on it. Because he could protect Roe.

This isn’t about not voting for Obama. It’s about not permitting Democratic leaders or wannabe leaders from using ineptitude as a reason to vote Democratic. It’s about pushing back against that argument. Because if you accept that argument from them, they’ll always take you for granted.

I guess I wasn’t very clear in my post,* it’s about putting pressure on democrats to be less inept by not accepting arguments that essentially say, “Since we’re weak and pathetic vote for more of us.” And instead saying, “The answer to your being pathetic is for you to be less pathetic.” Again, that doesn’t go to how you vote. It goes to how you frame the discussion about Roe v. Wade and pushing back against the idea that Congressional Democrats have no obligation to protect Roe.

* I’m on week three of the infection from hell and I’ve got about half a dozen drugs running through my body. So I’m sorry if I was unclear in my post.

one of his aides pointed out that it would complicate his presidential ambitions. I don’t believe for a second that Obama will appoint pro-choice judges. I think he will take great pride in appointing the judge that overturns Roe V Wade, and will see it as a testament to his bi-partisanship. I think Obama is incredibly backwards when it comes to women, and I think he’ll knock us back a few decades.

As for McCain, if the Pubs overturn Roe V Wade, they would killing one of their great cash machines and also, greatly pissing off young Republican males who are not convenient to Mexico. The ascendence of the modern Republican party is as tied to anti-choice activities as it is to the advent of civil rights. Once roe is gone, will the Christian Right continue to fund them? Who knows? I doubt they want to find out.

However it goes, I refuse to be extorted into voting for someone who uses overtly misogynist rhetoric to perhaps have a chance at protecting Roe. Young feminists are supporting Obama. They can deal with the fall out of that themselves.

And I think it is time to push back on that blackmail. Look, Roe v. Wade has been under constant attack since it was decided. And the Democrats have not been very diligent in protecting or extending reproductive rights.

Heck, I can remember Kos telling us girls to go back to the back of the bus, elect democrats first, then, they’d get around to address our issues.

Well, fuck that. After the amount of abuse we’ve endured, I’m not putting up with any blackmail from anyone. AND, I don’t want to hear an argument that involves “think about it, seriously”… We’re not stupid, we HAVE thought about it.

More and Better Democrats, More and Better Drugs - that’s my motto.

Can’t let pharmacists or democrats forget that. More is not enough, if they aren’t better.

And thanks for the flashback to my teenaged years. The music, not the drugs.

I wouldn’t particularly trust Obama nominees for a number of reasons.

I assume that everybody knows the Roberts confirmation story - but just in case: Obama wanted to vote to confirm Roberts. He was impressed by Roberts’ intellect and said that if he were President he hoped no one would reject any of his appointees because of ideology. Peter Rouse, his top Senate aide, told him a yes vote would be politically damaging and told him that the vote ’was not some moot Harvard Law School exercise.’ Judging by Obama’s comments he cared only for the politics. The negative impact on the nation of a yes vote never occured to Obama. I’d say elitist at this point but it’s also clueless.

I believe that Obama’s already said he’d appoint Republicans to his cabinet so in the spirit of unity I wouldn’t be surprised if he had a White House staff larded with Republicans.

Since the 60s cabinet secretaries have had far less impact on policy than in the past. (the exception is Rumsfeld but that was due to his longtime partnership with Cheney).

The White House staff has more influence on policy decisions than cabinet secretaries. So who makes up the short list of judicial nominees? Will there be compromises? Will Obama again be impressed by intellect (at that level it would seem to be a mere commodity) and ignore ideology?

Would a Democratic Senate be more apt to rubberstamp a Democratic President and more apt to challenge a Republican President? The record for challenging a Republican President hasn’t been great the last year and 4 months but neither is it non-existent.

Regarding federal court appointments it should be understood that even though judges are lifetime (tenure during good behavior) appointees, the Constitution gives Congress authority over federal courts. The Congress can create district and appellate courts, can determine the number of judges in each court INCLUDING the Supreme Court. Nine is not a sacred number (at one point in our history there were 10 SC justices). The sacred number is whatever Congress determines.

I don’t trust Obama on any issue and that includes federal court appointments.

I don’t doubt that. And while he’s been wobbly on reproductive rights and I don’t trust him by a mile to not compromise my interests, there’s no doubt his judges would be more to my liking than the ones McCain will nominate.

But nominate is the key word. Presidents are not solely responsible for the quality of judges on the bench. So I still reject the Roe v. Wade argument on Obama’s behalf because I think it’s important to hold Congressional Democrats - and the democratic party as a whole - accountable for standing up for certain core rights. And arguing they won’t is not an argument to elect more democrats, including Obama.

Imagine if SCOTUS overturns RvW. Will 50 states outlaw all abortions? Fuck no.

But some states will. Apocalypse? Yes, but not for Democrats.

Most Americans are pro-choice. The GOP is anti-choice.

Roe v. Wade makes abortion less of a voting issue for everyone but fundies. Even most feminists have other priorities, like discrimination. Most women old enough to remember when abortion was illegal are past their child-bearing years.

Overturn RvW and millions of young women (and young men as well) will suddenly see a personal reason to care about the issue.

The fundie wing of the GOP will try to enact legislation outlawing abortion, and millions of currently ambivilent voters will have a reason to vote Democratic.

Overturning Roe does not mean abortion will suddenly be illegal. It means the GOP will suddenly be on the wrong side of an issue that will affect elections.

—————————————————————————

” … we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender …”- Winston Churchill

The Roberts nomination story:

Do feminists for Obama understand what the hell this guy is about?

Add to that Obama’s oft-stated committment to working with Republicans, and I don’t see any reason to expect him to appoint reliably pro-choice judges.

I think what matters to Obama is whether somebody was on Harvard Law Review.

Why should I have to elect Obama to protect me from Senators like Obama? It totally immunizes Senate Democrats from any responsibility for protecting my rights and by extension the democratic party (except apparently the President). And where Roe’s concerned, it absolutely lets democrats feel they can take women’s votes for granted. It’s terrible framing if you want better to go with your more.

In fact, I was getting ready to do a post about this myself.

The Democrats don’t have to just roll over and accept any nominee that comes down the pike; they control the Judiciary Committee. Let’s never mind a floor fight; they don’t have to let the nominee out of committee.

If they need to know how that’s done, all they have to do is ask Orrin Hatch.

I mean, it will take some spine to do it. Maybe if HRC walks off with Harry Reid’s job, she’d get them to do it.

BTW, I did hear somewhere that when Roe was actually threatened — when Casey v. Planned Parenthood was under consideration — a bill was introduced in Congress with broad bipartisan support to guarantee abortion rights. Of course, once Roe was safe-ish again, it was dropped. But it goes to show how much of a political football women’s rights are.

Me? Roe’s not a personal issue for me (I had my tubes tied and I’m getting to the age where it doesn’t matter anyhow). Nevertheless, I filed an application to emigrate to Canada when Alberto Gonzalez was confirmed as Attorney General. I was accepted. I didn’t think I’d have to use it if a Democrat became president, but you never know.

(Mostly, I avoid leaving because I still love New York so much.)

These are common contentions of those who are critical of Barak Obama:

(1) Obama is being promoted by some cabal of top Democrats – including people like Ted Kennedy and Lois Capps.

(2) Obama is such a neophyte, so poorly grounded, that the Democratic leadership wants him so they can control him.

(3) He will owe his Presidency to them, and dance to their tune.

From these postulates, how does this conclusion follow?

(4) Obama will nominate, and the Senate will pass, a SCOTUS justice who will overthrow Roe.

Because Ted Kennedy and the Democratic leadership want to overthrow Roe?

Does not compute.

because the Democrats will still control the Senate and if the Senate does the job it is elected to do, advise and constent, then what’s the issue?

I will not be bullied. Here in SF, I ain’t even voting for Nancy Pelosi, that’s how fed up I am with the Democratic Party.

luckily I have a Senators I trust completely to protect my reproductive rights (Patty Murray) since she worked with Hillary to get Plan B over the counter, and other things below the link. Maria Cantwell as well, though I am a much more avid supporter of Patty.

If the democrats want to use this to get me to vote for someone that I don’t trust will *actually* appoint judges that will keep my reproductive rights in mind when appointing judges I have no motivation to back someone I don’t believe in. My Senators will do their jobs and I will continue to support them and campaign for them. Other Dems should be doing theirs and I’m so sick of “liberal” guys telling me my issues will come later.

happily immune to all religious indoctrination

I’m someone Roe v Wade still has an impact on and I will not be held hostage. If women ever hope to have genuine equal rights and equality then they can’t cave on this issue every time it’s waved in the air. Falling inline every time renders our electoral power useless and party elites know this. On issues like Roe, Democrats will either fight for women or they won’t and if they won’t we (both women and men that care about equality) will find someone who will.

It’s high time for women (and men) to come together and show some spine regarding our rights. The open threats that Roland Martin keeps making on behalf of Obama should be seen for what they are — threats.

for the overturn of RoevWade in the next presidency, if either Obama or McCain are elected. My state will attempt to ban abortion, and I will fight the state legislature every step of the way. And if we fail there, I am fully prepared to go to jail, in my efforts to help young women get the abortions they need.

So this threat isn’t working on me either.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Regulatory and workers rights issues will be more heavily challenged. And Obama likes GOP ides of deregulation and doesn’t need the working class or Hispanics.

The thing about Bush is that people didn’t take him at his word. I take Obama at his word.

Considering his base rationalizes everything he does as “good” and, more importantly, consists of those who overtly exploit misogynistic bigotry or consider widespread anti-female hate targeting Clinton (and her supporters) either trivial or legitimate (see: damning silence of even reasonable Obama supporters), what possible leverage will any pro-choice constituency have? Mind you, Obama has already proven himself with the Roberts nomination to be either clueless or apathetic about the tremendous impact justices play in the lives of women and girls (e.g., choice, title IX, etc.).

Obama doesn’t give a damn about choice or other gender issues and since no one will be able to hold him accountable he’ll all but certainly select “post-partisan” justices…like Roberts.

… and that is why we must have a Democratic president who at least has to appear to pander to their base when it comes to Supreme Court nominations.

McSame will nominate more people like Roberts and Alito, and spineless Democrats will continue to say “okay.”

Clinton or Obama will at least be obliged to TRY and find a “progressive” justice. Republicans will scream murder, but without 60 votes they will be powerless to stop it.

Technically, you are correct. But the reality is this … if McSame wins in November, we are all screwed for the next 40 years at least.

BAC

Nominate pro choice judges? I don’t think that case has been made.

Has he come out and stated “I will protect Roe v Wade”?

I love this job!

That’s why I think the right response to “you have to vote for Obama to save Roe” is “you have to protect Roe or else there will be a shit storm at the ballot box and it won’t just be Republicans we hold accountable.”

Every single coalition the democrats need to put together to win the White House, the Governor’s Mansions, or Capital Hill has one thing in common - women. Now, I’m not one to advocate burning down a building to save it, so I generally fall into the protect Roe, not overturn Roe and see if a huge political movement ensues. For starters, my fucking rights should be enshrined in the Constitution. On a more practical level, there are a lot of women out there, especially poor, rural women,* who would be adversely affected if Roe is overturned.**

Having said that, there isn’t a single Democratic member of the United States Senate who would have his seat if not for women voters. I refuse to allow them to use Roe v. Wade, which should empower women, as a tool for protecting the patriarchy and their place in the system. And that’s what they do. What they forget - and need to be constantly reminded of - is that we hired them and we can fire them. And Roe is the one thing that would energize us to do just that.

* Of course, these women are racists and so we shouldn’t care about whether they have any real means of exercising their rights.

** Of course, the refusal to stand up to earlier Republican nominees and go wishy washy from time-to-time has made Roe a lot less valuable than it initially was, what with the constant roll backs and exceptions. And, as a practical matter, there are now parts of the country where it’s extremely difficult to find an abortion provider. Now, healthcare reform could make a difference, but of course we’ve already been told by Sens. Schumer and Rockefeller - not to mention the apparent democratic nominee - not to expect too much on that front.

Start supporting all challengers to sitting Senators and Reps who aren’t helping on any and all issues you care about—i voted against Hillary last time for her challenger here, and desperately want Schumer challenged and will pay to help as well.

But for whoever is our next pres—we absolutely won’t have a strong Congress w/spines, so….

That Democratic Senators like Dianne Feinstein, who sits on Judiciary, are not going to protect Roe. Getting primary challengers for them is imperative.