Patterico's Pontifications

4/18/2007

How Quickly Harry Forgets — His Own Vote

Filed under: General — WLS @ 2:03 pm



[Posted by WLS]

For high comedy, look no further than the esteemed Majority Leader in the United States Senate, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.

Here  was his recorded vote on S.3 — “A bill to prohibit the procedure commonly known as partial birth abortion.”

You can find Senator Reid’s vote of “Yea” listed three different ways.

Skip ahead to the Supreme Court’s decision today affirming S.3 against a facial challange to its constitutionality.  As reported by CNN:

This was the first time the high court had heard a major abortion case in six years, and since then, its makeup has changed, with Roberts and Alito now on board.

Their presence on the bench provided the solid conservative majority needed to allow the federal ban to go into effect, with Kennedy providing the key fifth vote for a majority.

Alito replaced Sandra Day O’Connor, a key abortion rights supporter over her quarter century on the bench.

“A lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, who opposed Alito’s nomination, said.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/18/scotus.abortion/index.html

Apparently Harry forgot that he voted in favor of the ban which the Court upheld. 

Which raises the question of whether he makes a habit of voting for bills he deems to be unconstitutional. 

h/t — The Corner at NRO.

24 Responses to “How Quickly Harry Forgets — His Own Vote”

  1. Sad to say, he probably doesn’t vote for bills he deems unconstitutional any more than the Pres signs bills HE deems unconstitutional.

    Dan S (b17f51)

  2. Reid was for it before he was against it.

    Or maybe, like Bush did with his signing McCain-Feingold, Reid voted for a bill he never expected the Supreme Court to uphold and is now stuck with the results.

    stevesturm (d3e296)

  3. Dang, Stevestrum beat me to my point. I was going to observe that Bush did exactly the same thing with McCain-Feingold

    coyote (22a512)

  4. I’m shocked – shocked! – that Reid seems to have a reflective capacity, and can articulate the views of other democrats. Just who does he think he is?

    jpe (95e6de)

  5. Well, I beat both of you, I just didn’t see the need to state McCain_Feingold specifically as I figgered anyone reading here would catch the reference :)

    Dan S (b17f51)

  6. Maybe what Harry meant to say – or maybe CNN simply reported an incomplete transcript of his comments — was:

    “A lot of us wish that Alito weren’t there and O’Connor were there … but not me.”

    WLS (077d0d)

  7. Frankly, I don’t see the rank hypocrisy in the President signing a piece of comprehesive legislation where he has problems with a few provisions, and believes those provisions will be invalidated while the balance of the legislation will be upheld, as I do in a Majority Leader of the Senate who votes for a very specific and narrow piece of legislation but then decries the fact that the Supreme Court upheld that specific and narrow piece of legislation against an attack on its constitutionality.

    WLS (077d0d)

  8. Bush didn’t sign McCain-Feingold because he loved it but for a few provisions, he did so because he was worried about catching flak if he stood on principle and vetoed it.

    stevesturm (d3e296)

  9. then decries the fact that the Supreme Court upheld that specific and narrow piece of legislation against an attack on its constitutionality.

    That was a pretty mellow decrying, don’t you think? Reid knows how to turn up the volume, and that fact combined with the fact that he didn’t criticize the decision or say he disagreed with it suggests that yall are reading into his statement what you want to be there.

    jpe (95e6de)

  10. You mean what he wants voters to read into it.

    Patterico (5b0b7f)

  11. They don’t call him the “Dim-bulb of Searchlight” for nothing.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  12. I suppose I should make clear that I wasn’t meaning to defend Reid in any sense. Just pointing out that he’s not the only politician guilty of this sort of nonsense (literally).

    Dan S (b17f51)

  13. jpe — what did he mean then?

    Is he not a part of “a lot of us”?

    Why do “a lot of us” wish O’Connor were still on the Court today, in the context of a presser on the abortion decision?

    So the outcome of the case would have been different?

    Isn’ this the outcome that he wanted?

    Why not praise the decision? That would be consistent with his vote.

    Frankly, today Reid should have said in the press conference he was overjoyed that O’Connor was no longer on the Court.

    WLS (077d0d)

  14. Haha… nice.

    Yea, it’ll also be nice to see people no longer able to toss stuff at the wall and expect someone else to handle it for them.

    David N. Scott (71e316)

  15. Wednesday Night Talk…

    Tonight on the Truth and Hope Report:

    -Reaction to The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Ruling
    -Idiotic Congressional legislation on corporate welfare
    -Obama on VA Tech, outsourcing, and Don Imus
    -Richardson rising.

    Click here to download. Click he…

    Adam's Blog (694660)

  16. Forget Harry for a moment. Who’s the first journalist who will be able to get O’Connor on the record with a critical statement about the decision? Nina Totenberg?

    Attila (Pillage Idiot) (68fd1f)

  17. Web Reconnaissance for 04/19/2007…

    A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention….

    The Thunder Run (59ce3a)

  18. I wanna see O’Conner give a statement 100% supporting the court’s ruling.

    And then I want footage of the left’s heads exploding in rage…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  19. Leahy was for it too, which would make for an interesting exchange at the next confirmation hearing.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  20. Is he not a part of “a lot of us”?

    A lot of us on this site seem to lack basic reading comprehension.

    I, however, do not.

    See how that works? I can exclude myself from the set “us.” If it helps, think of Venn diagrams: two concentric circles, and I can be part of the larger circle without being part of the inner circle.

    jpe (07c249)

  21. JPE, it’s that Harry doesn’t add that qualifier, that caveat…

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  22. a) it doesn’t matter – there was no reason to leap to the conclusion that Reid is all of a sudden opposed to the PBA ban.

    b) You don’t know if Reid didn’t say more. Remember that media sloppiness thing that Patterico is always talking about? This is from an MSM source, so you should probably be a little more skeptical.

    jpe (07c249)

  23. Well, on point 2, I agree. Though I personally doubt he said more (or at the least qualified his statement), it’s possible he did.

    As for point one, it does matter. With the duplicity inherant to politics on a good day, I think it’s not only reasonable but highly probable that Harry is switching his stance, and more to the point he’ll never admit to changing his stance. I’m pretty sure that if asked, he’d say he was pro choice and the govt has no right to restict any abortion (which is in direct opposition to how he voted on the bill).

    Would you concur?

    Scott Jacobs (feb2f7)

  24. I don’t think he’s switching his stance; assuming there was nothing more to what he said (a pretty big assumption) it’s likely that he wants to appear critical notwithstanding his agreement with the ruling. It likely depends on one’s political affiliation whether one thinks that’s because a) it’s his job as Majority Leader to represent his colleagues; or b) he’s trying to have it both ways.

    (b) is certainly reasonable, although a fair cry from Patterico’s initial characterization.

    jpe (07c249)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2808 secs.