Judiciary Committee Votes Tomorrow on Alito; Filibuster Possible, Says Durbin
Tomorrow, two days after the 33rd anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on Samuel Alito, a Supreme Court nominee who in 1985 wrote that the Constitution does not protect a woman's right to an abortion. Women's rights leaders and activists rallied last night at the Supreme Court in support of the landmark Supreme Court ruling.
"Since we last gathered to commemorate Roe v. Wade, two seats have opened up on the Supreme Court, and George W. Bush has used both opportunities to nominate judges whose records show a disdain for privacy rights and individual liberties," said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women. "The Senate is poised to vote on confirming Samuel Alito, who would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, a justice whose vote has upheld women's rights for nearly 25 years. How quickly the fate of women's reproductive rights could turn in this nation."
Already, at least nine Senators have come out publicly and strongly against Alito's confirmation, including four who voted in favor of confirming John Roberts as chief justice. In an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Democratic Whip, said that a filibuster was possible.
"A week ago, I would have told you it's not likely to happen," Durbin said. "As of [Wednesday], I just can't rule it out. I was surprised by the intensity of feeling of some of my colleagues. It's a matter of counting. We have 45 Democrats, counting [Vermont independent] Jim Jeffords, on our side. We could sustain a filibuster if 41 Senators ... are willing to stand and fight."
GET THE INSIDE SCOOP with The Smeal Report and the New Leif blogs at MsMagazine.com
TAKE ACTION Call your Senators and urge them to oppose Alito
DONATE Make an emergency contribution to the Feminist Majority’s Save Roe Campaign. We must be a strong voice in this crucial fight to save Roe and the Supreme Court for women’s rights.
Media Resources: Feminist Majority; NOW statement 1/22/06; Chicago Sun-Times 1/20/06
The item above is from the Feminist Wire. We are making a difference we can keep making a difference. If we lose this, it won't be because we didn't try. At a time when the Democratic Party lost its will to fight, the people held on to their own will. I am hoping this is either a filibuster or enough people with common sense cross party lines to vote "no." If it's a loss, it's a big one. But it's the Democrats in the Senate's fault, not the people. The people spoke. They wanted to see a real opposition. If we lose tomorrow, it will be awful. But the people did their job, their senators job and much more. So take a moment to congratulate yourself on what's been accomplished thus far and gear up for tomorrow's big battle.
U.S. Criticized For Downplaying Threat Of Radical Right (Democracy Now!):
Last year federal investigators told a Senate committee that environmental and animal groups like ELF and ALF represented the nation's leading domestic terror threat. The Southern Poverty Law Center however recently criticized the federal government for underestimating the threat posed by violent right-wing organizations. According to the Center, the radical right has plotted to carry out at least 60 terrorist plots inside the United States since the Oklahoma City Bombing. This includes plans to bomb or burn government buildings, mosques, synagogues and abortion clinics, plans to assassinate government officials and civil rights leaders and efforts to amass chemical and biological weapons arsenals.
But the focus is on so-called "eco-terrorists." What's an eco-terrorist? A term pols in the pocket of corporations bandy about to make sure people advocating for sound environmental policies are tarred and feathered. The real terrorists get a pass from this administration. Bomb a health clinic and John Ashcroft would meet with you to pray. Maybe he'd bring the doughnuts and orange juice?
It's funny to hear Bully Boy bluster about smoking out terrorists when we've certainly had a number of them in this country and it's look the other way. Especially if your acts of terrorism target women or Cuba.
New York Times Warns Against Alito's 'Radical' Views (Democracy Now!):
The editorial page of the New York Times came out today in opposition to Samuel Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court. The paper's editors warns "He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy."
You know what I think? I think if the reporters for the New York Times had done their job in reporting on Alito, it wouldn't be left to the editorial board to attempt to explain the problems with Alito. Here's another thought: maybe next time instead of treating it as a sporting match (as C.I. always notes, working for that paper seems to mean wearing an athletic cup -- males and females), they treat it as something that matters, something that effects our lives. Instead it was just a "game" to them and they were happy to tell you strategy. I thought, once upon a time, that reporters went after stories. I never thought they just watched a hearing, wrote up a piece and called it reporting.
C.I.'s got a strong section on the Times in "Democracy Now: James Petras, Anthony Fenton; Norman Solomon, Brian Conley & Isam Rashid, gatekeepers" (It's the last part of the entry.)
Mike's posting this evening so please visit his site Mikey Likes It!
Peace Quote for tonight:
Peace, like all things that truly matter, is worth standing up for.
