Top Scoops

Book Reviews | Gordon Campbell | Scoop News | Wellington Scoop | Community Scoop | Search

 

If She Doesn't Answer the Questions Then Vote No

If She Doesn't Answer the Questions Then The Vote is No


By Angie Pratt

If George Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Conner does not answer the questions that the Senators put to her, then the vote on her nomination must be “no”.

We, the people of the United States, deserve to know what a Supreme Court nominee thinks about basic principals of freedom before he/she is confirmed. This is a life time appointment and, as citizens, we have a right to know where a nominee stands philosophically on issues. While there are political consequences, the issue of whether or not the nominee answers the questions is not a political charade.

Citizens also have the right to hold their elected officials accountable for how they vote. If a court nominee does not represent mainstream American values it is our representatives in the Senate's obligation to vote against that person.

An automatic yes vote when there is no information upon which to make a judgement is also unacceptable. We do not take pigs in a poke. We do not accept personal integrity claims in lieu of factual knowledge of how that person stands on matters of importance.

So … it all boils down to whether or not Harriet Miers has the guts to stand on her own two feet and clearly state what her personal beliefs are.

If she does so and those beliefs are acceptable then she should receive confirmation. On the other hand, if she refuses to state her beliefs and/or those beliefs are unacceptable to mainstream Americans then she should not be confirmed.

Being a crony of George Bush is not justification for a yes confirmation vote. Cronyism, the Peter Principal and blank checks go hand in hand down the path of incompetence and fiscal and moral bankruptcy.

I expect liberals and moderates to take a clear stand on this. I expect them to uphold my right to know whom they are putting into the Supreme Court. I demand that the Senate of the United States Of American confirm only some one who holds my civil liberties in as high a regard as I do.

I also expect far right wing conservatives to take a stand on this as well. They will argue against my rights. They will argue that the ends justify the means. They will denigrate me in an attempt to make my demand to know appear to be unreasonable.

Well, in this case, I know that I do not stand alone. The people of the United States understand that if they allow the Supreme Court to be dominated by extremists that their own civil rights will be at risk.

The Bush Administration has over reached itself again by a nominating some one who clearly is an elitist who has never had to face the concept that her own personal civil rights might be in jeopardy. That happens when you are part of the ruling class.

And, if this means that there is a full filibuster of this nominee then so be. And if this means that the Republicans carry through on their threat to delete the right to filibuster then so be it.

Because, frankly my dear, I do give a damn. And… the line is drawn in the sand.

ENDS

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
Top Scoops Headlines

 


Ian Powell: Are we happy living in Handy's Age of Unreason?

On 19 June the Sunday Star Times published my column on the relationship between the Labour government’s stewardship of Aotearoa New Zealand’s health system and the outcome of the next general election expected to be around September-October 2023: Is the health system an electoral sword of Damocles for Labour... More>>


The First Attack On The Independents: Albanese Hobbles The Crossbench
It did not take long for the new Australian Labor government to flex its muscle foolishly in response to the large crossbench of independents and small party members of Parliament. Despite promising a new age of transparency and accountability after the election of May 21, one of the first notable acts of the Albanese government was to attack the very people who gave voice to that movement. Dangerously, old party rule, however slim, is again found boneheaded and wanting... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Predictable Monstrosities: Priti Patel Approves Assange’s Extradition
The only shock about the UK Home Secretary’s decision regarding Julian Assange was that it did not come sooner. In April, Chief Magistrate Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring expressed the view that he was “duty-bound” to send the case to Priti Patel to decide on whether to extradite the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face 18 charges, 17 grafted from the US Espionage Act of 1917... More>>


Dunne Speaks: Roe V. Wade Blindsides National

Momentum is everything in politics, but it is very fragile. There are times when unexpected actions can produce big shifts and changes in the political landscape. In 2017, for example, the Labour Party appeared headed for another hefty defeat in that year’s election until the abrupt decision of its then leader to step aside just weeks before the election. That decision changed the political landscape and set in train the events which led to Labour being anointed by New Zealand First to form a coalition government just a few weeks later... More>>

Digitl: Infrastructure Commission wants digital strategy
Earlier this month Te Waihanga, New Zealand’s infrastructure commission, tabled its first Infrastructure Strategy: Rautaki Hanganga o Aotearoa. Te Waihanga describes its document as a road map for a thriving New Zealand... More>>


Binoy Kampmark: Leaking For Roe V Wade
The US Supreme Court Chief Justice was furious. For the first time in history, the raw judicial process of one of the most powerful, and opaque arms of government, had been exposed via media – at least in preliminary form. It resembled, in no negligible way, the publication by WikiLeaks of various drafts of the Trans-Pacific Partnership... More>>