Disappointing legislation

The Washington Times ^ | May 19, 2003 | Roger Clegg

[Coleus]

Last Wednesday, the Bush administration sent to Congress its proposed reauthorization of the federal highway bill, with the ungainly title of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA). Unfortunately, among the things it reauthorizes is the use of contracting and subcontracting preferences based on race, ethnicity and sex.

[Pahuanui]

Well, just ask yourself: how many times have you hear him support 'prescription drug benefits'.

The jury should most likely be out before, oh, the 9:30 coffee break.

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

The author has a good point.

The real proof of the pudding will be Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

Stay tuned.

[Mister Baredog]

What is President Bush thinking of?

Yea, it's all a devious sinister plot against the "white man" BUSH'S "secret pals" are pulling the strings. OH MY what are we going to do, the sky is falling!

This kind of crap is all over the federal system, the courts will decide, and have decided in the past just how far the government is allowed to go.

What is President Bush thinking of? Perhaps he's just busy, does the author think the President decides everything Congress does anyway? If that were true Estrada and Owens would be on the bench by now.

[South40]

Took the words right off of my fingers. :)

[itsahoot]

The real proof of the pudding will be Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

A little hard to comment on a Saint on this forum. I am still waiting to see how the genius plan on the unconstitutional campaign finance bill that he signed into law, turns out. It was a perfect plan, just sign it so as not to offend anyone, then let the Supreme Court save the bacon. Dangerous game in my opinion. Worse in my opinion, is the plan for peace in Israel.

[Coleus]

I hope his Supreme Court nominations are better than what he nominated in the Lower Federal courts.

President Bush appoints 6 Pro-abortion Judges to the Federal Bench in NJ
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/794020/posts

[Unicorn]

All afirmative action sucks,It's racist.

[Eaker]

the courts will decide,

The Constitution decides.

Eaker

[Coleus]

ping

[7 x 77]

Even in the University of Michigan case Bush is arguing for a kind of quota by saying that it's okay to do something like admit the top 10% from every high school when the differences in quality amoung high school's is enourmous.

If the President believes in a color-blind society he ought to fight for it.

[Ben Ficklin]

I followed your link to the thread. In as much as you were so thoroughly shot on there, I won't pile on.

[Coleus]

Estrada?

THE SETTLED LAW DOCTRINE
ROE V. WADE

By: Dave Franklin

Few GOP candidates can afford to alienate pro-life voters, since that base of support is needed to win elections.  If the Bushes had campaigned on a "pro-choice" position, neither would have been elected.  The same holds for most of the Republicans in the Senate, and a majority of GOP Representatives in the House.   So political news about abortion is good for the party of Lincoln, since it can keep its pro-life base and a core issue under debate for decades to come.

It would be nice to believe that the Republicans who control both houses of Congress and the White House really plan to discard Roe v. Wade.  The impact of that decision on American society is echoed in everything from the demise of Social Security to a labor shortage that is being filled by illegal immigrants (doing jobs that we are told no Americans want).  Dark changes plainly rooted in abortion have shifted how Americans relate to each other, and that cannot be ignored.  There are important factors to consider if the GOP is accepted as pro-life. 

Republicans have appointed seven out of the nine Justices on the United States Supreme Court.  In 2000, when the court considered Nebraska's ban on partial birth abortion, three of the GOP-appointed judges joined two Democrats in overturning that state's law.  There is no reason to believe the Supreme Court will do otherwise if it considers 2003's newest proposed federal ban on killing a baby and making his or her tiny body's last experience in life a pair of scissors jammed in the back of the neck.

Congress may adopt a partial birth ban, and President Bush might sign it.  Voters could well reward them for it.  But the same judges on the Supreme Court may likely overturn a new ban on partial-birth abortion, just as they did in 2000.   For three GOP-appointed judges, they were simply keeping a long-held tradition.

Forgotten by most of America's pro-life voters, who constitute the majority, Republican Richard Nixon's appointee to the Supreme Court wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.  Harry Blackmun got the innocent blood of unborn millions on his hands in 1973.  And Democrat John F. Kennedy's appointee, Byron White, wrote the dissenting opinion that warned America about the perils of raw judicial tyranny.  Roe overturned state laws adopted against abortion by those elected to represent the American people. 

Still, many voters view the GOP as a friend of the unborn.  And new debates over a nominee to the federal bench could reveal the circuit that will amplify that position.

Miguel Estrada has been nominated by the President to serve on the Federal Court of Appeals for Washington, DC.  That court is only inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States, and many of the justices who serve on it are later appointed to America's highest bench.  Christians all over America are being urged by leaders to rally behind Miguel Estrada against Democratic opposition to his confirmation in the Senate. 

They are telling us that President Bush's nominee is pro-life, that he believes abortion is horrible, and that we have nothing to worry about except Democrats.  But when asked by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) whether he sees Roe v. Wade as settled law, Estrada answered, "I believe so." 

Miguel Estrada didn't rebut Senator Feinstein by telling her the Roe v. Wade case was decided on a ruse.  He didn't remind Senators that the claimant in Roe has since admitted the court was misled when her lawyers asserted that she had been pregnant because of rape, something that Norma McCorvey has since refuted.  Estrada didn't respond by saying that abortion has killed one out of every three Americans between the ages of a moment and thirty years. 

During a September 26, 2002 hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in which Miguel Estrada gave testimony, Senator Feinstein asked him if he agreed with her that the Constitution protects abortion as a "right to privacy".  Estrada answered, "The Supreme Court has so held and I have no view of any nature whatsoever, whether it be legal, philosophical, moral, or any other type of view that would keep me from applying that case law faithfully."

When queried further by the California Democrat about Roe v. Wade, Miguel Estrada said, "It is the law as it was subsequently refined by the Casey case, and I will follow it."  There was no outrage expressed in pro-life America when the would-be Federal Judge Estrada agreed with Senator Diane Feinstein that Roe v. Wade is "settled law".  As he coldly said, "I believe so."

Those saying he is a jurist who keeps his views on abortion under the radar augment Miguel Estrada's stellar personal record.  He is alleged to have told associates of the National Organization of Women (NOW) that he believes abortion is murder.  Back channels in Washington say that Estrada's point was issued at a victory luncheon when NOW was celebrating one of the Supreme Court's decisions in 1994. 

President Bush's nominee, who is being lauded as the standard bearer for judicial appointments facing opposition by the abortion party, had filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of NOW against Joe Scheidler in the Supreme Court.  Scheidler is a leader of abortion clinic protests, and he only recently won his case after seventeen years of litigation that included Estrada's successful brief against him.  The court ruled for NOW in 1994, and it agreed with Estrada's assertion that abortion clinic protesters could legally be considered "racketeers", even if they didn't have a financial motive. 

One might wonder how conservative activists who recount Estrada's denouncement of abortion at the NOW luncheon could have heard of it, or why a future Bush nominee would be lunching with NOW in the first place, if these stories are true.   But they certainly support the not-so-soft whisper campaign in Washington claiming Miguel Estrada is covertly pro-life.

Estrada was working under Janet Reno in the Clinton administration's Justice Department at the time he filed as "amicus curiae" on behalf of NOW in the Supreme Court.  The nominee of a self-described pro-life

President had worked in the Clinton administration, and he had notably crafted a legal brief that undermined the defense of pro-life protesters facing an onslaught of litigation by feminists. 

The episode in committee along with the NOW case might make us think support for this nominee would be shallow among those who believe abortion is murder.   But the majority of pro-life American voters have allowed themselves to slide deeply into a pit of deception.  Put the whisper campaigns and blind-faith loyalty to a Republican nominee aside.  Consider the whole picture.  It is clearer than supporters of Estrada will admit.

We have, as the President's man for a fight with Democrats in the newly re-occupied Republican controlled Senate, a government lawyer who worked under Janet Reno.  He filed a legal brief for NOW claiming laws designed for prosecution of the Mafia could be used to go after abortion clinic protesters.  And he has told the United States Senate that he believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law". 

Today Miguel Estrada is viewed in Republican circles as a leader in the battle over President Bush's judicial nominations.  But the GOP clearly has some questions to answer.  Party leaders might respond predictably, if only they were being asked instead of applauded.

An explanation did come from Ken Starr, the faithful Republican who failed to convince a GOP-controlled Senate to remove the impeached President, William Jefferson Clinton, even though it was later proven that Clinton misled a court.   Starr was a guest on Sam Donaldson's "Live in America" talk-radio program when the former judge and Solicitor General revealed a latest and most clever misconception in the fight for the unborn.

Donaldson asked Starr about abortion and Roe v. Wade.  Ken Starr told the audience that he is "pro-life" and that he believed Roe v. Wade had been wrongly decided.  He then went on to describe how Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and that nothing short of a Constitutional Amendment could reverse it.  The Republican strategy of being pro-life without opposing abortion had been conceived, and untold millions of unborn babies could be aborted as a result. 

Miguel Estrada emphatically echoes this latest compromise.   Rumors hold that if you ask him, he'll tell you he believes abortion is murder.   But Estrada could certainly go on about how Roe v. Wade has been decided, as he acknowledged to the Senate.  Politicians all over America can adopt this scheme saying they are pro-life, and that abortion-on-demand must remain lawful practice throughout the country. 

It is a greasy office-seeker's dream. 

Voters can rant on and on about millions of unborn babies killed in the abortion mills every year.  They can yell about the impact on a country that has destroyed one-third of its youngest and most vibrant citizens.  Americans can suffer their losses in mortal ruin of abortion without doing anything to stop it.  Roe v. Wade is "established law", and thousands of silent screams will go unheard each day in abortion clinics because the matter has been settled, according to the latest word, just as Dred Scott v. Stanford "settled" questions about slavery 146 years ago.

President Bush, Miguel Estrada, and Ken Starr all describe themselves as "pro-life" like most Republicans, surely like the party's grassroots voters.   Yet the lawyers among them agree that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, that abortion on demand is rightly legal.  They have told us there is nothing to be done about it.  And they may be correct, unless America reverses this political deception.

http://www.etherzone.com/2003/frank030603.shtml

[Mister Baredog]

OK so you want all judicial nominees to rail against Roe v Wade. It is the Supreme Court where these things get decided. Estrada was not nominated to that court. Circuit courts are suposed to follow SC precedents. If this were an argument about SC nominations then what?

As it stands now we need more votes in the senate or BUSH may end up being the first President in history to not be able to make a SC appointment, it seems the DEMONCRATS are willing to filibuster for the next 6 years to get their way.

With their evil" predominating I think it's time to go NUCLEAR and change the senate rule on Presidential Appointments. This could become a Constitutional crisis, something the DEMS seem to be good at creating.

[Coleus]

All 6 were declared PRO ABORTION by the Legal Center for the Defense of life, Morristown, NJ, those on the thread, like you didn't have the facts...they gave an emotional, knee-jerk response due to a lack of information. I suggest you give them (Legal Center for the Defense of Life) a call and get THE FACTS straight from the PRO-LIFE attorneys who do pro-bono work for the pro-life movement in NJ. You can find their telephone number on the net or from directory assistance. And not one person on that thread, like you, could prove the appointees are pro-life.

So you can "pile on" all you want since I went to the PRO-LIFE Lawyers themselves and found out the correct information.
http://www.peopleforlife.org/friends5.html

[Ben Ficklin]

You need to re-read #14.

[Coleus]

Yes, I would like to see all federal nominations be pro life, sorry, that's my opinion. Bill Clinton was able to appoint 373 PRO ABORTION judges to the Federal Judicaiary with a Republican Senate for 6 out of the 8 yrs. I would like Bush to do the same to counteract Clinton by Appointing PRO LIFE Judges to all courts in all circuits, all 9? I believe.

My comment was about the "nominee" Estrada, who in this case may be pro abortion as were the 6 in NJ to the circuit courts. Most republicans believe that he is 100% pro life; I have my doubts as explained in the article above.

Very few "federal" cases make it to SCOTUS, most decision are made in these lower circuit courts and the court of appeals. There is a case now in NJ which has to deal with an adult, not a parent, taking a child over state lines to have an abortion, this case will be decided in the lower courts. It's important to have pro life judges in all courts.

I agree, yes, the Senate and the Dems are evil and braking the law. First, the Constitution does not mention a Senate Judiciary Committee to approve judicial appointments.

Second, Filibustering has to do with a piece of legislation as was written in the Constituion and not with an appointment of a person to the judiciary.

As I understand it.

[rdf]

Thanks for the distressing, but not surprising, post

It's over 2 years since President Bush took office, and we have yet to see a real push for colorblind law.

regards,

Richard F.

[Coleus]

Sure, any time..

Here is another distressing one.

Why Is Bush Perpetuating Clinton Policies?

May 21, 2003 by: Phyllis Schlafly from the Eagle Forum

Why is President George W. Bush continuing policies that were initiated by Bill Clinton? The voters elected Bush to change obnoxious Clinton policies, and they don't understand why Bush is keeping the following seven in force.

1. One example is the Clinton Administration's abolition of the Army's "Risk Rule," which had exempted women in support units from areas that involve "inherent risk of capture." That policy change, ordered by the Clinton feminists, is the reason why a single mother of two very young children was killed in the Iraq war and another single mother of a two-year-old was taken as a POW.

When asked if this sending-moms-to-war policy might be changed, Bush said at his news conference, "That's going to be up to the generals." When Ari Fleischer fielded the follow-up questions, he accused the reporter of "dealing with ahypothetical."

But Jessica, Lori and Shoshana are not hypotheticals. They, and Shoshana's 2-year-old baby and Lori's three-and four-year-olds, are all victims of a Clinton policy that Bush could change with a stroke of his pen. But, according to Fleischer, this hasn't risen "to a higher policy level."

What's a higher policy level than defending mothers of infants against being killed or captured by the axis of evil? Keeping faith with a shameful Clinton policy? Fear of the frightful feminists who applaud our government giving Jessica, Lori and Shoshana their career opportunities on the battlefield, and who assert that mothers are fully deployable a few months after giving birth?

2. Why doesn't Bush terminate other Clinton rules that impose the feminist agenda on the military, such as coed basic training? The Army Training Command admitted that coed basic training, which is gender-normed to reduce female injuries, is "not efficient" and of no military value.

That gave Bush a great chance to liberate the Army from
Clinton's foolish policy. Without presidential leadership, the generals are certainly not going to act on their own.

3. Nor, without a presidential decision, will the generals overturn Clinton's convoluted "don't ask, don't tell" enforcement regulations, which a federal Court of Appeals found to be inconsistent with the 1993 law banning homosexuals from the military.

4. The feminists in the Clinton Department of Education engaged in aggressive enforcement of Title IX, using bureaucratically invented words and rules that were not authorized by the statute. They used Title IX to punish men by forcing colleges to abolish 171 wrestling teams and hundreds of men's teams in gymnastics, swimming, golf and even football. President Bush appointed a commission to study the distortions of Title IX, but he foolishly gave some of the commission seats to feminists, and they used the media to grandstand for their side of the controversy. Secretary of Education Rod Paige then announced he would not implement any changes that were not unanimously recommended, so Clinton's anti-male policies about college athletics will continue under Bush.

5. The Clinton Administration persuaded Congress to pass a ban on semi-automatic assault rifles in 1994, and the ban will sunset next year. Senate Democrats have introduced a bill to continue the ban and, to the shock of the National Rifle Association, Bush announced that he supports the Democrats' bill.

President Bush seems to have forgotten that his steadfast support of Second Amendment rights was the main reason he carried the Democratic states of Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia in November 2000. If he had lost any one of
those, Al Gore would be president.

6. Then there is the matter of Clinton sending U.S. troops to Bosnia and its relation to the International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty which Clinton's emissaries enthusiastically helped to write and Clinton signed as one of his last official acts. Bush had a wonderful opportunity to withdraw our troops from Bosnia when the ICC impudently asserted jurisdiction over Americans even though Bush had "unsigned" the ICC Treaty.

For a brief few days, Bush stood tall for the protection of
American service personnel by threatening to pull our troops out of Bosnia unless the United Nations promised us immunity from the ICC. But then he wobbled, accepting a
lame compromise that left the U.S. with the almost impossible task of trying to negotiate separate immunity agreements with the 139 ICC countries, while at the same time keeping our troops on duty in Bosnia as a fig leaf to cover the ethnic hostility that is still as bitter and dangerous as ever.

7. Another Clinton policy, Executive Order 13166, requires all government agencies, and all entities receiving federal funds(such as doctors and hospitals), to provide their services inany foreign language demanded by a client. The perfect opportunity to rescind this costly unfunded mandate was served up when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that no one has a right to demand government services in languages other than English.

But President Bush chose to continue Clinton's pandering to
non- English speaking minorities. Regrettably, Bush breathed new life into Clinton's EO 13166 with all its follies and costs.

We're still hoping for a repudiation these Clinton policies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Are you ready for a honest appraisal of the feminist movement? Phyllis Schlafly's new book Feminist Fantasies tells you all you need to know but didn't know how to ask. Order your copy now at
http://www.eagleforum.org/order/book/index.html#feminist
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Read this Column online:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/may03/03-05-21.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eagle Forum
www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618 eagle@eagleforum.org
Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415
Fax: 618-462-8909