Senator Harry Reid: Democrat, Senator, Worm
| April 20th, 2007From a CNN story on the Supreme Court’s upholding of the “Partial Birth” abortion ban:
“A lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who opposed Alito’s nomination, said.
Harry Reid was one of 17 Democrats who voted in favor of the Federal “partial birth” abortion ban becoming law (without those 17 democrats, the bill wouldn’t have passed). If Reid thinks that the Court should have found the Federal PBA ban unconstitutional, then WHY DID HE VOTE FOR IT???? As Johnathan Adler writes, “Call me old fashioned, but I believe that if a member of the Senate believes a law is unconstitutional, he or she should vote against it.”
And why didn’t CNN point out Reid’s hypocrisy?
April 20th, 2007 at 10:14 am
This confirms my belief that politicians are all pond scum for the most part. As much as I’m frustrated with republican politicians, democrats have been disappointing me even more for quite some time. I suppose I don’t expect any better from the Right, and I probably was deluding myself to believe I should expect more from the Left.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Well, he wishes that Alito weren’t there. He didn’t say he was unhappy with the decision, just with the decider.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:19 am
As someone who agrees with the majority opinion in this case, I have to say that Harry Reid is clearly trying to play both sides of the fence on this one.
He is definitely a hypocrite.
This comment was written by Jamila Akil.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Kate, keep in mind that the majority of Democrats did vote against the ban. The difference between Republicans and Democrats is that not all Democrats are wrong virtually all of the time.
Robert, Reid knows perfectly well that if O’Connor had still been on the court, the decision would have (with 99.99999% certainty) been to find the PBA ban unconstitutional. O’Connor’s views on the matter are well-established and there’s no sign at all that they’ve changed.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Right, but my point was that he was simply trying to finesse. He can’t critique the decision because he voted for the bill that was upheld, but he can legitimately critique the guy who made the decision and in that way appear to be on the side of the angels without actually being there.
In other words, he isn’t being hypocritical by being sneaky, he’s avoiding being hypocritical by being sneaky.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Damn, I want that on a t-shirt.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
[...] Cheez. None of you guys are familiar with the movie Diner? Hopefully Smithie will be around soon to give you the trash talk that you so richly deserve. Oh, and Scruggs, things could be worse… [...]
This comment was written by Just Another One of Those Days... « UFO Breakfast Recipients.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Maybe when he says “a lot of us” he doesn’t mean himself?
This comment was written by Sebastian Holsclaw.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
I suspect that lawmakers sometimes play games of chicken with each other. If a Congressman doesn’t think a bill has a chance of becoming law—either because he thinks it won’t get enough votes, that it will get vetoed and not overridden, or that the courts will strike it down—he may vote for it even if he doesn’t support it, as an appeal to certain voters. For example, there’s been some speculation that Bush imposed the steel tariffs as a sop to the unions, knowing that the WTO would overrule them.
Sure, it’s lame, and dangerous, but a democratic system selects for the people who are willing to play this kind of game.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Bush does this all the time, and it’s one of the things I like least about him.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Don’t forget to thank all those Nader voters in 2000 who said a Republican President couldn’t pack the Supreme Court and get Roe overturned.
What this decision really proves is that we can’t just let the politicians punt these issues to the Supreme Court. If opposing a measure costs votes, but supporting it doesn’t cost votes because people think it doesn’t matter - politicians will go for the votes.
It’s like gun control - we need to build a powerful pro-choice single-issue PAC modelled on the NRA’s Second Amendment stance. Something like a push for a constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights would be a good start.
This comment was written by RepubAnon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 24th, 2007 at 12:58 am
yeah, i just can’t imagine why i can’t get enthused over electoral politics anymore.
This comment was written by belledame222.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
mmm, i’m guessing that he’s representing a vocal portion of his constituency?
This comment was written by Indy.Report this comment to the moderators