Looking at the roll call for Alito's confirmation vote, it's apparent that the only pro-choice Republican is Lincoln Chafee. Which is funny, because Chafee was one of the examples cited when some progressive bloggers criticized NARAL back in August for endorsing pro-choice Republicans:
Meanwhile, anti-abortion Democrats like Harry Reid don't vote for Frist or Lott, and they don't vote to confirm reactionary anti-choice judges like Janice Brown. There's no doubt Chafee will vote to confirm Roberts, regardless his record on choice, and yet NARAL would still rather endorse Chafee?
True, many anti-choice Democrats voted against Roberts and Alito. And Chafee may have gone the wrong way on Roberts, but he did oppose Alito. Arguably, that was a more important vote.
I'm not saying this absolves all NARAL-endorsed "pro-choice" Republicans who voted to confirm Alito. (I'm looking at you, Collins and Snowe.) But there were more Democrats who voted for Alito than Republicans who voted against him.
Because I like this debate (and because there's been some interesting reporting and commentary since August), I'm asking you: Where does Alito's confirmation leave the argument that we should be supporting even anti-choice Democrats because they vote the right way on judicial nominations?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Pro-choice vs. party line.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/1757
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
I am particularly disappointed with Collins and Snowe. I always considered myself to be similar to them ideologically. But I would not have voted to confirm this guy.
Sure, Chafee voted against the confirmation, but he also voted for cloture. The cloture vote was surely more important if anybody really wanted Alito stopped, so I'm not sure how great a hero of the pro-choice cause he's been (and didn't Harry Reid vote against both cloture and confirmation?)
Have you seen Jane's take on this?
Arguably, that was a more important vote.
I would argue that the more important vote was the cloture vote on Monday, since that was the only thing that had a chance of actually stopping Alito. And Chafee voted to end debate.
I think in some way, being able to support an elected official solely on their pro-choice record (or likelyhood of voting for anti-choice justices) is a privledge. For me, I have a lot more to think about then just abortion. I'm bisexual. I'm planning to settle down with a woman who can barely make it above the poverty line. For us, supporting candidates, elected officials, policies, or justices has to be about issues of sexual orientation and class primarily. Would I support an anti-choice candidate that supported equal marriage rights or universal health care? I would feel crappy about it, but yes I would.
Sometimes in order to achieve our goals we have to make alliances with people who share one or two of our goals instead of demanding that they share them all.
Not only Reid, but Bayh and Biden, who have been pretty lame on choice, also voted against cloture. If Chafee had voted against cloture, that would have earned some cred with me, but he deserves no credit for an empty vote when it was already too late, in part as a result of his own actions.
It is going to be hard for any senator who voted for cloture to claim pro-choice credentials in the next election.
From the one woman on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."
She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.
...But Feinstein, who said she was concerned about Alito's conservative record on abortion rights and deference to executive power, acknowledged the 15-year appellate judge had the legal credentials to serve on the Supreme Court.
"I was impressed with his ability to maintain a very even demeanor," she said on CBS' "Face the Nation."
"I think there is an additional weight you must give to his background, his qualifications and his ability," she said.
I side with Feinstein on this. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the Court. A lot of pro-life Republicans voted to confirm Breyer and Ginsburg; and while I like them and glad they are on the Court, I don't necessarily think Ginsburg and Breyer represent mainstream thought in America on several issues. If you don't want very qualified conservative judges nominated to the Court, nominate and elect a better candidate so qualified liberal judges can be nominated to the Court.
I'm with you, SarahS. It would be nice if I could agree with my elected officials on everything, but frankly none of them are unequivocally pro-choice, pro-queer-rights, pro-trans-rights, anti-corporation and pro-women's rights. Sometimes I have to choose which issue is more important for me, and that sucks.
i know this is a little off-topic, but it relates to something bear just brought up...
this is really similar to the stuff that was coming out about Roberts... and, well, i just don't buy it. so what if them cats don't sweat under pressure? that's great if you're hiring someone for a position as an actor or an espionage agent, but a judge? a good public speaking performance and slick avoidance of answering any questions just scares the hell out of me...
my two cents...
peace and blessings