Podesta: The Right Holds Women Nominees to A Different Standard
Podesta: The Right Holds Women Nominees to A Different Standard
Harriet Miers’ nomination fell victim to a right-wing double standard.
In his confirmation hearing, John Roberts affirmed the right to privacy, agreed with the conclusion of Griswold, and told the Judiciary Committee that he considered Roe v. Wade “settled as a precedent.”
There is much in Harriet Miers’ record to suggest she fell to the right of Roberts’ on the question of abortion rights. She does not consider Griswold settled law and had a record of supporting anti-choice causes.
John Roberts was enthusiastically embraced by right-wing conservatives eager to overturn Roe v. Wade. Harriet Miers was vilified by the exact same people.
Harriet Miers’ nomination has always been controversial, but it was not until comments from a 1993 speech surfaced where she said she believed in “self-determination” that Miers was presumably forced to withdraw.
It is clear that, absent an unambiguous pledge to overturn Roe, the right holds women nominees to a different standard. They do it because they fear a woman justice will feel empathy towards other women making the agonizing choice of whether to have an abortion. They fear that a woman justice would not be willing to use criminal sanctions to regulate other women’s decisions.
No nominee should be subject to a litmus test, especially one that discriminates based on gender.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
46 Responses to “Podesta: The Right Holds Women Nominees to A Different Standard”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who cares… as long as the Sycophant is gone. Quit worrying about the failed nominee, look to the next one.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:13 pmI agree with you on the litmus test statement. Miers deserved a hearing, period. This president is not strong enough to see her through. He caved. Great presidents don’t cave.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:13 pmGreat presidents can articulate a sentence. George can’t even read a sentence off a teleprompter.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:15 pmSeemed that from a political standpoint, they needed to dump her to appease the Christian, anti-abortion base but from an ideological perspective the rightwing establishment was disappointed in her brain.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:18 pmThis is the posturing needed to debunk the next nominee, which will no doubt be radical. Good job! The hearings for the next one are going to be U-G-L-Y.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:20 pmSomeone help me. What happens if Roe is overturned? Legally? I have an idea but I want someone smarter than I to spell it out in simple terms. Each state is on it’s own? The old laws kick in? States with no laws have to act if they chose?
October 27th, 2005 at 2:25 pmOh poop, their goes my impeachment pardon. GW
October 27th, 2005 at 2:27 pmThe right destroyed Miers, but she should have been rejected on the merits. Miers failed the Three Strikes Test:
- Clearly unqualified
October 27th, 2005 at 2:32 pm- Extreme views
- Proven partisan operative/loyalist
Maybe social conservatives are concerned female Republican card carrying members are less likely than male Republican card carrying members to overturn Roe. Never know what women will think of without a man in charge… :-p
#6, If Roe is overturned the issues goes back to the states and individual states determine if women can have abortions and under what circumstances.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:33 pmI think that some on the right would like a well qualified nominee as well, Roberts had that going for him to a degree Miers coudn’t even see, let alone touch.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:33 pmThey withdrew her because she knew too much about what was going on in the White House and with George Bush. The executive privilege argument would not have stood up to a Congressional subpoena, and documents would have had to been turned over, or else a very large ugly “custody” battle would have ensued: both very damaging to Bush. They also needed to keep the documents sealed because of the pending indictments against top administration officials; Miers had to be part of the discussions revolving around who said and knew what when versus who would tell what to whom.
This is simply really ugly politics at its most brazen. The abortion issue is nearly a straw man position in regards to what is core for Bushco: the protection of massive corruption. Social conservatives and NARAL will never be as important as billions of dollars of stolen Iraq funds, or no-bid inflated contracts, or illegal wars and torture policies.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:35 pmBasically, no Roe, move to NYC if you are in your child bearing years. To men, do whatever you want just like always. To women, do what we want you to do, but we would rather not pay for anything. We all know who will get caught in this trap of no abortion rights, young girls. But again, what the hell do men care, they don’t have to worry and it ain’t my baby.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:36 pmAverage TV Viewer-
States will make their own laws about abortion. Most likely 20 of them outlaw abortion altogether. Republicans lose the only issue that keeps poor people from voting for a Democrat.
If you are a loyal Democrat, you can take the long view and say that it could be the best thing for the party. I, on the other hand, am a more loyal human being. I hope we all are.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:36 pm#6…. Here’s some info on roe v. wade if it’s overturned.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/aborvw.htm
October 27th, 2005 at 2:38 pmAlso, #6, I believe pre-1974 pro- and anti-abortion laws would kick into effect but religious conservatives will want to revamp the anti-abortion laws to make sure there are absolutely no loopholes available. My fear is that the agenda, already nationalized in the courts, will move to Congress, where social conservatives can force liberal states to comply with anti-abortion laws through federal statues. These people were never concerned with states’ rights. Federalism is just a way to get their foot on the Republican bandwagon.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:40 pm#13 p&p,
Painting all men with one broad brush as you do here is no different than saying all of one race are this or all of one religious affiliation are that. How do you know what “all men” would do if faced with those circumstances? Doesn’t seem very “progressive of you”. Just saying.
October 27th, 2005 at 2:47 pmJay- Stop pointing out the obvious!
October 27th, 2005 at 3:02 pmAbortion is a non-issue anymore, it tanked when “baby in the womb” pictures started posting on cubicle walls.
Ooops, it certainly looks like a baby…..
First step, overturn Roe v Wade. Second step; finding legal reasoning for a return to the “Mann Act”, to keep married women from crossing state lines to end unwanted pregnancies?
October 27th, 2005 at 3:10 pmPretty much, dano347. If we’re lucky social conservatives will be intellectually honest and ban hormonal contraceptives since part of the pill’s function is to make the lining of the uterus inhospitable to implantation in case the ovary releases and egg and is subsequently fertilized. Wouldn’t want to deny an hours-old “human being†the constitutional right to its mother’s uterus, now would we?
October 27th, 2005 at 3:18 pm#19 You can also keep people from dating “outside” their race and, also, the gov’t could then define and regulate morality. Amazing how the reich wing wants the gov’t out of everything but our bedrooms.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:04 pmJeff,
When is the last time an abortion happened in someone’s bedroom, moron?
October 27th, 2005 at 4:16 pm“Abortion is a non-issue anymore, it tanked when “baby in the womb†pictures started posting on cubicle walls.
Ooops, it certainly looks like a baby…..
Comment by Turk Fowler”
Really? Does it look one at 3 weeks? And Chimps look like humans, does it make them human? In fact a chimp fetus looks virtually identical to a human one, and I bet you’d have a hard time telling them apart. Does this mean that because a chimp fetus looks like a baby it shouldn’t be aborted?
Making medical decisions based on anecdotal ‘magical thinking’ non-rational approach to problems is classic conservative idiocy.
October 27th, 2005 at 4:53 pmNow that is funny sh!t. IRI just responded to a spam post. I think you have now beat out NeD, CC and BSR, for the “Idiot of the Day” award.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:24 pmRyan,
Your family is not typical. :()
And ultrasounds are not magic, you moron. They simply allow people to see the actual human being inside the womb that liberals are so cavalier about killing.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:26 pmLeftists like Ryan and Podesta clearly have contempt for women.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:28 pmRoberts sailed through ‘cuz he was Bush’s pick, and the right felt (KNEW? HOPED?) that any statements regarding support for Roe were mute. HE’S GONN TRY TO OVERTURN IT AND THEY KNOW (HOPE?) THAT. THEY LIE.. SO THEY EXPECT HIM TO LIE…
As for Miers, well, embarassingly bad choice, assumed that Roberts was the moderate balanced choice, the next one would be a Bork. This is the opposidte of what Dems believed.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:31 pmWallace forgive my use of metaphor.
Metaphor (Noun -which is a person, place or thing)
1)implicit comparison
2)figurative language
3)symbol
I’LL TYPE REAL SLOOOWWW
October 27th, 2005 at 5:45 pm” And Chimps look like humans, does it make them human?
Your family is not typical. :()”
But yours is chimpy.
“And ultrasounds are not magic, you moron. They simply allow people to see the actual human being inside the womb that liberals are so cavalier about killing. ”
Magical thinking is the construct that something that ‘looks’ like something ‘is’ that something. A ‘human being’, how do you clasify that? A chimp ‘looks’ like a human being in the womb, what classifies a fetus as a human being? Is it because it ‘looks’ human? As I clearly showed, that is not sufficient grounds to accept your ‘magical thinking’ that because something ‘looks’ like something else, that it is.
As for being cavalier about killing. Quite ironic coming from the political party that believes in the death penalty (which has killed DOZEN of innocent people who were proven to be innocent after death). Also quite ironic coming from a party that has TORTURED people to death in a military campaign.
Hypocrisy seems to be your strong suit.
As for having contempt for women, how ironic coming from a Neandrathal who sees them as a baby factory. Clearly you believe women relinquish all rights to their body and their fetus once pregnant. I was always taught to look at the ‘claim’ from a republican to understand their guilt - clearly you demonstrate this.
October 27th, 2005 at 5:49 pmSpudge,
IRI is the queen of the idiots - she always wins that contest!
October 27th, 2005 at 6:02 pmRyan compares killing an innocent baby with killing a convicted murderer. How sick and morally idiotic.
But what do you expect from some ignoramus who can’t tell a chimp from a human baby? :()
October 27th, 2005 at 7:35 pm“Ryan compares killing an innocent baby with killing a convicted murderer. How sick and morally idiotic.”
Wow, I said we should kill innocent babies? You sure do have an over active imagination. Actually what I said is that through your ‘magical thinking’ you’ve decided a ‘fetus’ is a ‘baby’. And therefore through your irrational stance you use an inaccurate and inappropriate term ‘killing a baby’, when in fact the CORRECT term is aborting a fetus.
Once again, your fantasy life has taken over your reality.
“But what do you expect from some ignoramus who can’t tell a chimp from a human baby? :()”
An ignoramus is someone like you who attempts to reframe an argument based on a lie. “Can’t tell a chimp”, implies an adult person. I never said anything like this - you did. Your ‘claims’ of ‘my claims’ is typical republican fantasy land. You can’t actually win an argument, so you argue against a lie, and lie about the argument. It’s what the intellectually dishonest, and emotionally immature do when they know or fear they are wrong.
As I stated above, the fact is that a chimp fetus and a human fetus look virtually identical in the womb. So your argument was that a fetus ‘looked’ like a human, but in fact a fetus looks like a fetus, and fetus of many species look alike well into pregnancy. So if something looks like a human, does that make it a human? For instance, if we genetically mutated a chimp so it looked human, but had the brain of a chimpanzee, would that make you believe it was a human?
The fact that you are so stupid as to believe something that ‘looks’ human ‘is’ human - is nonsense. Not to mention the fact that you were probably the same nitwit who thought people were ‘murdering’ schiavo weren’t you?
Once again, magical thinking. Because you’re too ignorant of scientific fact, you base everything on the magic of your bible. It’s mythological and magical thinking that guides all of you idiots.
October 27th, 2005 at 7:55 pmA robotic scientist in japan created an android recently that ‘looks’ human. Do you say she deserves rights because she ‘looks’ human?
Your criteria for what a baby is, is not only superficial, it’s just plain stupid (like you).
Would you consider a fetus that was brain dead, or had no cerebral cortex a baby?
Would you consider a deformed fetus that didn’t even look human to be a baby?
Would you consider a hermaphrodite fetus to be a baby?
So far the only criteria you’ve given that a fetus is a baby is that it looks like one, but that’s not only an oversimplification, it’s just silly. But then again, republican arguments always are silly when examined with an even minimal amount of effort. Just goes to show you how lazy and stupid republicans actually are!
October 27th, 2005 at 7:59 pmQuirky Posts
Updated posts on lots of things, including Miers, the Grand Jury and strange, strange stuff from the west coast.
October 27th, 2005 at 8:39 pmPoor Ryan obviously flunked high school biology.
The fact remains, Ryan compared killing innocent unborn children to killing convicted murderers, implying there is some sort of moral equivalence. That is sick, twisted, and morally idiotic.
October 27th, 2005 at 9:31 pmPoor Ryan obviously flunked high school biology.
The fact remains, Ryan compared killing innocent unborn children to killing convicted murderers, implying there is some sort of moral equivalence. That is sick, twisted, and morally idiotic.
Comment by wwallace
That’s Ryan for you. He’s the perfect representative of the Filthy Left. I just love him to death. I mean that in a good way, really.
October 28th, 2005 at 9:28 amThere you go - If Ryan can’t find it in his Sesame Street illustrated dictionsary, it doesn’t exist. :()
October 28th, 2005 at 11:38 am#23 Ryan- The details you miss are amazing, but it makes it fun to watch….
October 28th, 2005 at 1:55 pmKeep blogging, I need the laugh!
“They do it because they fear a woman justice will feel empathy towards other women making the agonizing choice of whether to have an abortion.” - Jp
October 28th, 2005 at 5:37 pm****John Podesta, you sound VERY whiny!!! Why would this “choice” be so agonizing - the left usually refers to unborn children as fetuses to de-humanize them. I’m surprised you guys don’t call parties for women who want to deliver their babies “fetus showers”. This “agonizing” from a party whose empathetic Big Dog vetoed the ban on partial birth abortion?? Puhleeeze!
Puny Putz - What do you call a premature fetus that is born alive - say, at 7 months - and hasn’t had it’s brain sucked out?
October 29th, 2005 at 2:47 pmThis post is stupid. Opposition to Miers wasn’t that strong from social conservatives. They were mostly on board — James Dobson, Jay Sekulow, etc. The real opposition to Miers was from PRO-CHOICE Republicans like David Frum, Virginia Postrel, and others. They weren’t concerned about abortion at all. What worried them was the 1) complete lack of relevant qualifications, and 2) complete lack of demonstrated interest in constitutional issues.
October 30th, 2005 at 3:27 pmwallace- funny posts! Your ability to lead ryan around like a chimp is truly impressive!
November 11th, 2005 at 7:42 amRyan- ignore everything you just read, you’re doin’ real good….keep up the great work!
Mighty- I like “fetus showers”, making fun of lefty euphamisms could be a Milton Bradley game all it’s own.
Planned Parethood- Abortion Clinic
Kentucky Fried Chicken- An Aviary
prozac…
cheekbone.formalizes scandal Ferdinand?deferrers failure garlic:Antoinette birth control pills http://birth-control-pills.metasart.com/ …
January 10th, 2006 at 1:34 pmPremature Baby
I enjoyed reading your blog. What a great thing it is to be able to share information like this on the Internet.
April 5th, 2008 at 6:40 amBill
You need to see http://www.ncaaedge.info [url=http://www.ncaaedge.info]AWESOME place to go[/url] http://ncaaedge.info
April 5th, 2008 at 8:07 pmchild custody laws
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
April 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pmJim Crow Laws Employment Law Us Supreme Court
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 10th, 2008 at 6:05 pm