Today appears to be Challenge Day at PoliBlog:
The Leahy letter I discussed yesterday raises a question that I asked in the comments section, and raised in another post, but thought I would re-iterate and raise here--to wit: would the Democrats in the Senate be willing to accept a pro-life nominee that emerged as the result of the consultations that Leah requested? Or, will any pro-life nominee be labeled as a "radical right-wing" candidate?
My guess is that any nominee who is considered by the Democrats to be potentially pro-life (like Estrada, they don't know for sure, but because he is Catholic...), will be deemed unacceptable. Now, this is why I viewed the Leahy letter somewhat cynically, as I am not convinced that there is actual potential for compromise here. Which gets down to the bottom line: a pro-life president is going to nominate pro-life judges, and a pro-choice president is going to nominate pro-choice judges. Both sides have to live with this fact.
And as important as I think that the abortion question is, it should not be the issue which holds the process hostage by essentially reducing the debate to a binary argument.
So, the challenge is this: can any one credibly argue that the Democrats are actually willing to compromise on this issue, or is Leahy’s letter an empty gesture?
Posted by Steven Taylor at June 17, 2024 10:34 AM | TrackBackEmpty gesture vote here. The Democrats are again shooting themselves in the foot. I have always been pro-life (although not to the point of picketing, etc.), but there are other concerns that are more important to me at this time. Several, actually. Most of all, I want judges that will uphold, rather than rewrite, the Constitution. All of it, not just my favorite bits.
Posted by: Meezer at June 18, 2024 07:35 AM