Will The Senate Confirm Progressive Constructionist To The Appeals Court?
Today in Washington, D.C. - June 12, 2012:
The House is in recess.
The Senate reconvened at 10 AM today and resumed post-cloture consideration of the nomination of Andrew Hurwitz to be a judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday, the Senate barely involked cloture on 60-31 the Hurwitz nomination. This means Democrats banned together and regardless of their alleged conservative pro-life beliefs they voted for cloture. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) proved again they do not represent the majority of their constituents. Democrat Sen. Manchin (D-WV) remained true to his statements and beliefs. Why does he remain in the Democratic Party when his party left him long ago. It also means some Republicans voted for cloture on this person. If just one of the the following five Republicans had voted NO, this cloture vote the confirmation hearing would be over: Scott Brown (R-MA), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Olympia Snowe (R-ME). Sort of like the RINOs on parade. Will they now vote for confirmation? Or, are new making other backdoor deals for their votes. Also, note that 9 Republicans Senators did not vote so we do not know where their leanings are. Was please to note that Sen Lyndsey Graham (R-SC) voted no which is most unusual as he seldom votes no on the nomination of judges.
As identified yesterday:
Yesterday we also reported on the truth of funds raised in the Wisconsin recall races and the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United. Today, we see that David Axelrod is pontificating and doing anything to distract the issue away from the Obama Administrations failed performance. Axelrod operates in the mode of the Occupy movement which worked when his actions wre hidden behind closed doors but now with his being the open point man, he makes even Rep. Debbie Waserman-Schultz and Vice President Biden look tame in their comments.
The New York Times reports today, “On David Axelrod’s New York City itinerary for Monday: to meet privately with potential donors to a ‘super PAC’ supporting President Obama’s re-election, then publicly declare that if that re-election happens, Mr. Obama will stop at almost nothing to undo the ruling that made super PACs possible. Days before the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will rehear the Citizens United case, which allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, Mr. Obama’s senior campaign adviser said that decision was ‘taking us back to the gilded age. We’re back to the robber barons taking over the government.’ ‘The long-term implications for our government, our democracy, are very, very grave,’ he said during a discussion with John Heilemann of New York magazine at the 92nd Street Y on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Mr. Axelrod added that if Mr. Obama won a second term, the administration would consider ways to eliminate the ruling’s effects, including a Constitutional amendment.”
So in other words, Axelrod is asking for support for a super PAC he intends to use to win an election and then pledges to never let anyone do that again. Moreover, Axelrod and President Obama are signaling that they apparently think there’s a flaw in the First Amendment that’s served the country well for over 200 years. And their apparent desire is to chip away at the First Amendment by amending the Constitution to outlaw certain kinds of political speech they disapprove of.
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said two years ago when Democrats were pushing to limit political speech through their DISCLOSE Act, “Let’s face it: What the other side wants is . . . more government control. They want government to pick and choose who gets to speak in elections, and how much they speak.”
Tags: U.S. Senate, progressive, judicial nominee, Andrew Hurwitz, Citizens United, David Axelrod To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The House is in recess.
As identified yesterday:
Andrew Hurwitz brags that, while clerking for U.S. District Court Judge Jon Newman, he played a key role in writing the 1972 opinions that provided the basis for the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade. Pro-life groups are understandably opposed to his nomination.Once consideration of the disastrous Hurwitz nomination is completed, the Senate will agree to the motion to proceed to the farm bill, S. 3240 and begin consideration of that bill. Senators are working on an agreement on amendments to the bill.
. . . the real problem with Andrew Hurwitz nomination. It is not that Hurwitz favors abortion on demand or that he got caught up in the judicial activism of the 1960′s and 1970′s. It’s that, in the forty years since Roe, he doesn’t seem to have learned anything about interpreting the Constitution in an intellectually honest fashion. . . . Hurwitz never got the message that it’s no longer legally or publicly acceptable for judges to make stuff up and that pulling new rights from the constitutional ether is something judges deny, not brag about.
Yesterday we also reported on the truth of funds raised in the Wisconsin recall races and the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United. Today, we see that David Axelrod is pontificating and doing anything to distract the issue away from the Obama Administrations failed performance. Axelrod operates in the mode of the Occupy movement which worked when his actions wre hidden behind closed doors but now with his being the open point man, he makes even Rep. Debbie Waserman-Schultz and Vice President Biden look tame in their comments.
The New York Times reports today, “On David Axelrod’s New York City itinerary for Monday: to meet privately with potential donors to a ‘super PAC’ supporting President Obama’s re-election, then publicly declare that if that re-election happens, Mr. Obama will stop at almost nothing to undo the ruling that made super PACs possible. Days before the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will rehear the Citizens United case, which allows unlimited campaign spending by corporations and unions, Mr. Obama’s senior campaign adviser said that decision was ‘taking us back to the gilded age. We’re back to the robber barons taking over the government.’ ‘The long-term implications for our government, our democracy, are very, very grave,’ he said during a discussion with John Heilemann of New York magazine at the 92nd Street Y on Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Mr. Axelrod added that if Mr. Obama won a second term, the administration would consider ways to eliminate the ruling’s effects, including a Constitutional amendment.”
So in other words, Axelrod is asking for support for a super PAC he intends to use to win an election and then pledges to never let anyone do that again. Moreover, Axelrod and President Obama are signaling that they apparently think there’s a flaw in the First Amendment that’s served the country well for over 200 years. And their apparent desire is to chip away at the First Amendment by amending the Constitution to outlaw certain kinds of political speech they disapprove of.
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said two years ago when Democrats were pushing to limit political speech through their DISCLOSE Act, “Let’s face it: What the other side wants is . . . more government control. They want government to pick and choose who gets to speak in elections, and how much they speak.”
Tags: U.S. Senate, progressive, judicial nominee, Andrew Hurwitz, Citizens United, David Axelrod To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Posted by Bill Smith at 12:02 PM - Post Link
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home