The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., a panel member who’s a staunch abortion opponent, said he was “pretty certain” he would vote for Alito. But, he added, “I’m not happy. I would love for him to be there and say, `Look, I don’t think Roe is in the Constitution. And he’s obviously not saying that. He’s leaving the issue open.”

Still, Brownback conceded that any court nominee who opposed Roe outright would be filibustered. “So you’re left like this, if he answers Roe either way, he’s caught.”

Yeah right he’s leaving the issue open.  You can be sure that for Brownback to support Alito, he has been told how Alito will vote on abortion.  A simple comparison between the Miers nomination and this one should tell you all you need to know.

Media Matters catches an inconsistancy in Brownback’s opening statement in the Alito hearings and a statement of his made during the Miers nomination:

They go on to quote Brownback from a few months ago:

“Brownback said his biggest concern was not knowing where she [Harriet Miers] stood on ‘key issues of the day,’ such as abortion, same-sex marriage and property rights.”

Busted. A comment about a certain type of beach footwear might be in order here, but I’ll refrain.

Thanks to Terry at Nitpicker for the tip.

Courtesy of CultureKitchen comes this delicious nugget:

Senator Samuel Brownback has entered into the record a letter that former Alito clear Cathy Fleming sent to the Judiciary Committee back on November. You can see a PDF copy at the New York Times here.

The problem with Brownback’s maneuver is that Cathy Fleming is the president-elect of the National Association of Women’s Lawyers and they have issued a negative rating; saying Judge Alito is unfit to protect civil rights based on his record alone.

Ouch.  I suppose this is why she was abruptly cut from the witness list.  It sure would be nice to see her testify about the negative rating her own organization gave to the nominee.  So did Brownback not get the memo or did he just not care?

As the Washington Post puts it:

Alito calmly gazed at the Senator, waiting for a question.

That is the short version of Senator Sam Brownback’s questioning of Alito this morning. The longer version involves Brownback equating Roe v. Wade to Plessy v. Ferguson and asking some softball questions about religious freedom. Again, the Post reports:

Brownback told Alito that justices should not always vote to uphold prior court decisions just because they are so-called “super-duper precedents.” Sometimes, he said, the court gets it wrong, as it did in upholding the separate but equal doctrine in the Plessy case.

This questioning was Brownback carefully playing the role of arch-conservative running for President.  He was careful not to push Alito too hard on the issue of abortion, but his line a questioing must have made some republican leaders uncomfortable.  He came dangerously close to the same line of questioning as some Democrats who hope to expose Alito  as an extremist.

Although we must always remember, in Brownback land extremism is normal (and we have always been at war with Oceana).

During Senator Sam Brownback’s statements today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing he focused on his extremist belief that abortion is not a constitutional right and that the government should have the ability to dictate to women what they can do with their bodies. His opening statement was mush more like a campaign speach at the National Right to Life convention than a statement to the committee about Alito.

Brownback is letting his Presidential ambitions get in the way of properly examining a nominee to the supreme court. My favorite part of his statement is:

Some interest groups and even some members of this Committee have argued that Judge Alito must be more closely scrutinized, or even opposed, if his testimony suggests that he would change the ideological balance on the Supreme Court. This notion misunderstands the role of judges, and creates a double standard suspiciously convenient to those in opposition.

Seats on the bench are not reserved for causes or interests – they are given to those who will uphold the rule of law, so long as a nominee is well-qualified to interpret and apply the law.

That was not the tune he was singing when Miers was nominated to the court. Brownback then questioned her conservative merits and agreed with some religious leaders who argued her record was troubling. He had a litmus test then and he certainly does now. Do not be fooled. The fact that Brownback is supporting Alito means that he has received assurances on the way he will vote regarding social issues. Alito is a extreme conservative who ignores conflict of interest rules. He does not belong on the Supreme Court.

From the Washington Post:

“The judicial branch preserves its legitimacy by refraining” to make political decisions in its rulings, said Brownback, who used his statement to defend Alito’s record and make his own points on abortion.

“You can claim whatever you want to on pro-life and pro-choice, but the right to an abortion is not in the Constitution,” he said. “This is a proper issue to consider.”

More on his opening statement later tonight.

Having nixed the Miers nomination, Senator Sam Brownback now has the Supreme Court nominee he wants. Samuel Alito appears to be the sort of right wing lemming that will attempt to advance the conservative agenda for the next 30 years. Obviously a Brownback dream. You would think the good Senator could come up with his own talking points for his news show appearances. Apparently not.

BROWNBACK: …Things do change, and positions change. He’s advocating for a position in a conservative administration at that time — in an administration. Now he’s going on the Supreme Court of the United States if approved by the United States Senate.

And these are different jobs altogether, and they have different parameters with them all together. And he’s not going to answer questions about how he’s going to rule on a Roe-type case, and he shouldn’t.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But let me stop you there. That wasn’t a matter of personal opinion. He was expressing his belief, his constitutional interpretation. Why should someone who is going to sit on the Supreme Court not have to answer what his interpretation of the Constitution is? I mean, that was a very straight statement.

BROWNBACK: Well, because these are very active cases that will be in front of him. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she’s general counsel for the ACLU at one point in time. And does she go back to her positions she took then to say, This is how I will decide a case on the Supreme Court ? That’s just not the way the system works, nor is it, because then you’ve got people on the bench that have predecided the case. And that’s not where you get fair justice on the facts and the law, both involved in each of these cases.

We should determine about judicial philosophy and issues of judicial restraint and views toward the overall look of the Constitution, which I think are fully appropriate. And we need to look at the 15 years of written opinions he’s got out there.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, I’m a little surprised that you’re so comfortable with this, because you expressed some discomfort during the John Roberts hearings that he wasn’t being more forthcoming about his interpretation of the right to privacy and whether Roe could stand.
And it doesn’t worry you at all that he’s not willing to stand by a position that I’m sure you agree with?

There’s (more…)

First, a disclaimer. At least Brownback is talking about the issue of African women’s health care. There are many Democrats who haven’t given the issue 15 minutes, much less trips and press conferences. Discourse is a step in the right direction. That being said…

Brownback yet again shows rank hypocrisy by highlighting the plight of African women with fistula while neglecting to mention his support for the Global Gag rule which restricts third world women’s health care in the name of not sponsoring abortion. His journal entry for Dec. 3rd reads in part:

Today I visited a hospital operated by Doctors on Call for Services Hospital (DOCS) in Goma, DRC. The hospital services patients of all kinds, from traumatic car accident injuries, to war wounds, to children suffering from malaria. One of the major programs at DOCS treats women suffering from obstetric fistula, a condition that results in incontinence, often times from rape or prolonged child birth.

Brownback neglected to mention how the Global Gag Rule (which he supports) has decimated many other clinics. First, a refresher on what the Global Gag Rule entails:

The Global Gag Rule penalizes non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in 56 countries that receive family planning assistance funds from the U.S. These NGOs are prohibited from providing abortion-related services, including counseling and referrals, and/or lobbying on abortion issues.

So not only are these agencies not allowed to use US money to provide abortions, refer women to other abortion provider or even provide care to women who have sustained injuries from a back alley abortion but they are also prohibited from using their own money in those ways as well. When President Bush signed an executive order at the beginning of his presidency making the gag rule US policy many clinics decided that not informing women of all of their choices is unethical and so gave up their US funding.

So what does this have to do with fistula?
(more…)

We all know that Senator Sam Brownback supports the overturning of Roe v. Wade and criminalization of abortion. In What’s the Matter With Kansas, Thomas Frank mentioned several times that many Conservatives don’t actually want Roe overturned. Abortion serves them well as an issue to inflame the base but would destroy moderate support if banned. Now a Republican House member tells the truth:

Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), chairman of the Government Reform Committee, said the desire of GOP conservatives to see a newly constituted Supreme Court eventually overturn Roe v. Wade could produce a political backlash, particularly in the suburbs. “It would be a sea change in suburban voting patterns,” Davis said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.

“If Roe v. Wade is overturned,” Davis said, “you’re going to have a lot of very nervous suburban candidates out there. . . . It’s easy to say you’re for a culture of life, but the answer is what do you do about it at that point.”

If Brownback really got what he wanted, it would be the end of the Republican party. Republicans need abortion to remain a contentious, but available (to rich whites) issue in order to continue winning elections.

I have always wondered whether Brownback is a true believer. I get the feeling that many conservatives talk the talk on abortion and gay marriage solely to get the votes. I don’t think many of them actually care. Senator Brownback, however, is a tough case to figure out. His rhetoric often rises above simple bigoted screeds to a level of vitriol that seems to be genuine.

Perhaps someday we’ll get memos or memoirs that tell the true story. Until then, just remember that he is crazy like a fox and dangerous.