The Supreme argument

Are Obamaroids making the rounds jamming pro-Hillary blogs with fear tactics? Doncha know the Supreme Court is at stake!?! Crikey.

When Democratic senators joined the Cons to confirm Roberts and Alito, they tilted the U.S. Supreme Court to a decidedly conservative bent (see roll call at the bottom). Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSBlog summarized in September 2007:

As one of the most conservative in recent memory, the just-completed 2006 Term has recently served as a rallying cry for progressives. The two most prominent cases (by an order of magnitude) involved hot-button social issues - race and abortion - and both resulted in significant conservative rulings. Moreover, the Ledbetter case (opinion [PDF] here), in which the Court limited Title VII’s backpay remedy, continues to receive significant attention as the Democratic Congress considers legislation to overrule it. . . Those cases (along with, for example, the Wisconsin Right to Life campaign finance decision) were all decided by the same five-Justice majority composed of the Court’s most conservative members.

Essentially, we have a 5-4 right-wing SCOTUS that favors business and wingnut interests over American citizens. Anyone paying attention rather than trying to score Obama talking points would realize the damage already done. BDBlue challenges the spiel about Roe v. Wade:

If Obama becomes the party nominee, as seems likely, those of us who are not Obama supporters will get an earful on why we have to vote for him in November. Some of these reasons will be fairly good ones. One of them, IMO, is not. That one is that of course we all have to support Obama, think of the Supreme Court. This one is often aimed at those of us who are women with the implied threat that if we don’t fall in line and be good girls, we’ll lose our rights under Roe v. Wade.

I call bullshit on this argument. I will not have my body held hostage by the Democratic - or any - political party.

High five, BDBlue, and precisely why I am voting this November for a presidential candidate who's pro-choice but the name isn't Obama. Secondly, coercive rhetoric and playing the guilt card--a hypocritical move if Mr New Kind of Politics ain't no fraud--offend my liberal conscience and I reject efforts to extort my vote. Freedom = freedom and I denounce activities, zealotry, or compromises that attempt to subvert it.

The electoral prize, IMO, is electing a liberal Democratic majority in the House and Senate. BDBlue:

McCain cannot stack the Supreme Court or any Court with wing-nut judges by himself. His nominees have to be confirmed by the Senate. A Senate that will almost certainly be controlled by Democrats, probably with an increased majority. Why should I have to worry about Roe v. Wade or any other core constitutional right? While the Democrats would inevitably have to compromise on some issues with a Republican president (just as Obama will have to compromise some to get legislation through the Senate given the unlikelihood of a filibuster-proof majority), surely a body that is controlled by the Democratic Party will fight for my right to control my body. And if they won’t, then why am I electing any of them to Congress?

Another significant consideration are state elections and referendums. The fight to roll back pro-choice has been and will continue at the state level, for example: petition drives, ballot/legislative measures to ban abortion (South Dakota), add restrictions (California), and amend state constitutions to define a "person" as a zygote (Colorado, Georgia). Supporting the right to choose and the right to privacy begins in local communities and states.

I have never stated that I will stay home in November. I will vote in the general election due to referendums and local, state, congressional, and presidential candidates vetted and deemed worthy of my vote. I erased Obama from the list long before Super Tuesday. The more I see him, hear him, and learn about his liaisons, public record, and policies--I know how to visit his website--the more satisfied I am with my decision.

Case closed.

POSTSCRIPT: Senate Democrats who voted to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice in 2005:

Baucus (D-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT) WTF?!
Dorgan (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI) WTF?!
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT) WTF?!
Levin (D-MI) WTF?!
Lieberman (DINO-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Wyden (D-OR)

Senate Democrats who voted to confirm Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS in 2006:

Byrd (D-WV)
Conrad (D-ND)
Johnson (D-SD)
Nelson (D-NE)

Gays, GOP, GOTV

The other day Avedon posted a nifty link from Open Left on A VERY Cheap Turnout-Boosting Method Democrats Need To Embrace from Paul Rosenberg. Kewl ideas.

The GOP, however, aims to pull out the ol' gay wedge issue among others to GOTV for the election November 4.

Reuters summarized (with emphasis):

FLORIDA - Amendment 2 asking Floridians to vote yes or no to a proposal to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman will be on the ballot. Florida is seen as a crucial swing state in the presidential election.

CALIFORNIA - Signatures are being gathered in California, another important state, to have a similar proposals on its ballot. The petition must have 700,000 signatures gathered by April 28 for the proposal to be placed on the ballot.

ARKANSAS - Signatures are being sought to propose a measure to change state law to ban unmarried couples from adopting or serving as foster parents. Gay rights activists say same-sex couples are the target of this initiative.

From 365Gay, the contentious battle in Florida has provoked the usual right-wing hate speech describing any union other than between a man and a woman as "aberrant."

The Washington Blade updated the latest news on Califorina's anti-gay ballot initiative today:

...proponents of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage are reporting that they have gathered 881,000 of the 1.1 million signatures needed, according to a report by the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The Equality for All campaign continues to fight the signature-gathering drive and has called on the gay community and other supportive Californians to help stop the initiative. The “protectmarriage.com” campaign called on volunteers and paid signature gatherers to turn in their petitions by Tuesday, but petitions can be turned in as late as April 21 and still count toward qualifying the amendment for the ballot. Because the proposed ballot initiative would change the state constitution, the legislature, which in 2005 and 2007 passed marriage bills Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed, would be prohibited from passing another bill in the future. And since constitutional amendments take precedence over legislation and limit the authority of courts, current cases that might lead to marriage would be stopped or reversed. The California Supreme Court is considering a same-sex marriage case.

In Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Inquirer picked up Hillary's interview with the Philly Gay News:

She said she opposed a measure that would ban same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. "I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum," she said.

Last week, The Phoenix Online wrote that "the state Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance a bill that would amend the state’s constitution to make both same-sex marriages and the 'functional equivalent' of marriage — such as civil unions — illegal in Pennsylvania. . . Before the bill can be put into effect, it must pass the Senate Appropriations Committee and two consecutive General Assembly sessions. . .Then state residents would vote on it in a referendum. "

Arizona attempted to amend its state constitution banning gay marriage, a measure that had passed the House. But smart maneuvering by Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Phoenix), who tacked on a provision "to grant certain rights to unmarried couples living together, whether gay or straight," a strategy that effectively "tied the two issues together as a single ballot question, meaning voters who want to make same-sex weddings unconstitutional would be voting for some constitutional rights for gay couples," caused AZ House Republicans to kill the bill. A similar bill in the AZ Senate will not come to the floor for a vote.

And there are those other "hot button" issues that Reuters reported (with emphasis and edited for brevity):

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION/CIVIL RIGHTS--COLORADO - A proposed constitutional amendment will be on the November ballot in Colorado that says: "The state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any group or individual on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public contracting or public education." ...Attempts are under way to get similar proposals on the ballot in Arizona, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Missouri. Initiatives are spearheaded by the American Civil Rights Institute.

Critics say they are aimed to end affirmative action and get conservative Republicans out to vote.

ABORTION: CALIFORNIA - Signatures are being gathered for a ballot proposal requiring parental notification before a minor can get an abortion.

SOUTH DAKOTA - Signatures are being gathered for a proposal to ban abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the pregnancy threatens the mother's health or life. The signatures must be submitted by April and 16,776 must be collected.

Enthusiasm to GOTV for McCain needs an extra special wingnut ingredient, n'est-ce pas?

I'm proud of Hillary's stand against these anti-gay measures. My kind of candidate for president.

If you know of other ballot initiatives, send me an email or leave your comments and I'll update accordingly. Thanks!