this is like Mad Magazine's Spy vs. Spy.
they nominate an unknown, knowing that the unknown will vote against Roe. the wingnuts get nuttier. there is a chance that the republicans will bolt. so they leak a story about back alley deals to overturn roe....
can Brownback vote for this woman on the basis of a promise to vote to overturn roe? can he vote against this woman when he knows she will overturn roe?
why did reid suggest her in the first place?
I am not smart enough for these guys
Posted by at October 17, 2005 01:06 AMwhy did reid suggest her in the first place?
Reid happens to be very much anti-choice. Perhaps hewas given the same assurances.
Posted by ann at October 17, 2005 05:48 AMMcbr cmdy, tht dmcrts' grtst nxty s whthr th pprtnts t slc nd dc ftr dmcrt vtrs t dth bfr brth cld ptntlly b rstrctd.
[Editor: ignore=off]Macabre comedy
I wonder what the Republicans will use as a wedge issue to mobilize their base if Roe v. Wade is overturned. If they do get their way on this one issue, I see a lot of political apathy.
Posted by ann at October 17, 2005 06:21 AMI know it's conventional wisdom that "Republicans" (whatever that is any more) don't really "want" Roe overturned because it is then "lost" as an issue.
Roe recognized a federal constitutional right. If overturned, the battle will move to the 50 state legislatures for state prohibitions or protections; the heat of battle could even increase, as now state legislators will be responsible for protecting this right, state by state.
And I know what side the Republican party will be on in each of these state struggles.
Posted by euzoius at October 17, 2005 06:34 AMI wonder what the Republicans will use as a wedge issue to mobilize their base if Roe v. Wade is overturned
Same as always; God, guns, and gays. The end of nationally-sanctioned abortion would just make them feel that they are winning and could step it up a notch to get their Der Americaland to become a reality.
Posted by DukeRevolution at October 17, 2005 06:48 AMSteve, I don't know that I follow you. Dems should not "come out of its shoes to go after her," but they're supposed to "pin her down on this at the hearing." What does that entail?
euzoius: If overturned, the battle will move to the 50 state legislatures for state prohibitions or protections
Remember, it can only be overturned if a legislature somewhere creates a law that defies the Roe decision, and a person with standing--such as a pregnant woman--sues to have that law stricken down. The Court doesn't just get together and overturn their own precedents in the absence of a real legal dispute.
What will be really interesting is what, say, Texas's legislature will pass in the next few years in an effort to get the Court to revisit the issue, not knowing for sure whether they have the five votes to back them up.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 17, 2005 07:10 AMI think it is simply explained: A Bush folly followed by a scramble by others to fix it. In other words, pretty much like George's entire life.
Posted by T2 at October 17, 2005 07:18 AMdj:
There is a difference between having Democrats get all worked up now weeks before the hearings about Miers' alleged views and promises to overturn Roe, and waiting until the hearings to ask her directly on the issue while the GOP questions her qualifications at those same hearings. If the Democrats go apeshit now about these alleged promises to overturn Roe, it gives the GOP and White House the lever they were looking for to make this the red meat, "they don't like Christians" argument to get the American Taliban engaged now to support her and overlook the fact that she isn't qualified.
If the Democrats wait until the hearings and hit her with this then, in the midst of the GOP senators already hitting her on whether she has the intellectual depth to be an Associate Justice of the highest court in the land, then the context of any Democratic pushback will be different and will not generate an early counterattack from the Taliban, especially if their own senators are questioning why she is even being nominated at those same hearings.
Posted by Steve Soto at October 17, 2005 07:56 AMGo after those who niminated her and are playing this little litmus test game
Posted by at October 17, 2005 08:07 AMBendito>/b>, you ignorant slut. Hmmm, seems a fair number of those "sliced and diced" would be Republicans. How do you argue with statistics that show that only a very small percentage of the GENERAL POPULATION want to see Roe overturned or would prohibit abortion?
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Steve,
I gotcha. I didn't realize you were drawing a distinction between going after her now and going after her then.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 17, 2005 08:23 AMAlso, it makes sense to block Miers on several different issues. Abortion only would not be wise. If/when indictments are handed down, the Bush WH will be under intense scrutiny, and Miers might be rightly queried on her involvement in the Espionage. So, waiting for a week or two may make a big difference in both Miers support from the extremists and in what weaknesses the Democrats can pursue.
Posted by Paul at October 17, 2005 08:48 AMI think it would be great to remind our Xtian Right friends as often as possible that Miers had a big role in helping Dubya administer state-run gambling.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 17, 2005 08:51 AMNow we're catching on!!!!
Isn't gambling a sin? Ms. Duckman always asks me this question when we hear the "news" talk about the latest gambling armadillo, be it bill No Virtues bennett, or gambling cruises or whatever.
And lying, isn't that sinful, she asks, whenever the condi freak opens her pie hole in public.
I think she's onto something. dj too.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 17, 2005 09:56 AMLike I said.
Gamblin' was a lot more fun when you had to fly to the middle of the Nevada desert to do it.
[sigh]
Posted by snark at October 17, 2005 02:05 PM