• news
  • WEDNESDAY JULY 7 2004 7:25 PM

Controversial Bush Judicial Appointee Approved

Submitted by luckyride

Edited by legionnaire

Taking yet another step backward, President Bush has now had a judge appointed who has made astounding remarks on women and rape.

Fueling much of the debate is a 1997 article Holmes and his wife, Susan, wrote for Arkansas Catholic magazine titled, "Gender Neutral Language, Destroying an Essential Element of Our Faith." The couple wrote that under Catholic teaching, "the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man" in marriage and "is to subordinate herself to the husband."

Doesn't sound like he's too forward thinking. Even a Texas Republican, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, voted against the appointment because "He doesn't have the fundamental commitment to the total equality of women in our society."

Holmes wrote to a newspaper arguing that rape victims should not be allowed to have abortions because "conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami." Holmes has since apologized for the comment.

Let's just say he's not exactly what I would consider a good appointee.

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

JUL 07, 2004 07:38 PM

so this is one of those "qualified" judges that the vicious partisan democrats are "obstructing".

oh and as for holmes's "apology", he only apologized for the wording of the comment, not for the substance.

http://salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/07/07/nominees/index.html

As for the caliber of some of Bush's most controversial nominees, the Progress Report looks at one who made it through the confirmation process. "Displaying a shocking indifference to women's rights, 6 Democrats and 45 Republicans confirmed Bush nominee James Leon Holmes to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench in Arkansas. Holmes, a Little Rock attorney who supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, once wrote that 'concern for rape victims is a red herring because conceptions from rape occur with approximately the same frequency as snowfall in Miami.' Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) noted that '30,000 American girls and women become pregnant each year from rape or incest.' But Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was unconcerned, saying Holmes's callous remark about rape victims was 'a literary device called exaggeration for effect.' Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), who voted to confirm Holmes, said that he "apologized for that comment [and] acknowledged it was wrong.' But Holmes has never acknowledged he was wrong. In a carefully worded letter, Holmes apologized, 'regardless of the merits of the issue,' only for his 'articulation.'"



also, nazi comparisons:

And there's more. Just seven short years ago, Holmes also wrote that a "wife is to subordinate herself to her husband." And Holmes has also "compared pro-choice advocates to Nazis and abortion to slavery."



considering how quickly bush's judges have been getting confirmed, you'd think they could just let this one go.

The Progress Report points out that Republican claims of "obstructionist" Senate Democrats are disingenuous at best. "In the three and a half years since Bush took office, the Senate has confirmed 198 judges. In the eight years Bill Clinton was president, 377 of his nominees were approved. Why is Bush able to have his nominees approved at a faster rate? Just three of Bush's nominees have been blocked, compared to 20 during the Clinton presidency. In the first 1000 days Bush was President, judicial vacancies dropped from 9.9 per cent to 4.6 per cent."

MC_escher

MC_escher

Irvine, CA
May 2003

JUL 07, 2004 07:47 PM

for more fun from the senate website

the D senators that voted "yea":
Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)

the R senators that voted "nay":
Chafee (R-RI)
Collins (R-ME)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Snowe (R-ME)
Warner (R-VA)

and the senators that didn't vote:
Edwards (D-NC)
Kerry (D-MA)
Murkowski (R-AK)

JoeBriefcase

JoeBriefcase

Austin, TX
June 2004

JUL 07, 2004 07:58 PM


the D senators that voted "yea":
Breaux (D-LA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)



Zell still a Democrat. That's a laugh.

emmagoldman

emmagoldman

Detroit, MI
October 2003

JUL 07, 2004 08:19 PM

You know, you have to hand it to these people. Just when you think this administration can't get any more fucked up than it is, we get this.

This is another example of the far-right's desire to take us back to the McKinley era, when women were properly subordinated, corporations functioned as an extra-constitutional government, and the 14th Amendment was only applied to the wealthy and business interests.

Grover Norquist and Karl Rove both use the McKinley era as their guide; Norquist refers to this as the period before the Socialists took over, if you can imagine. The simple existence of New Deal and Great Society programs violates their fundamental beliefs.

I don't know, should we do anything about this? mad

Pip

Pip

Framingham, MA
OLD SKOOL

JUL 07, 2004 08:32 PM

emmagoldman said:

I don't know, should we do anything about this? mad




Besides vote? Weigh the jail time served versus the public good and decide for yourself.

Cigarette

Cigarette

Cleveland, OH
April 2004

JUL 07, 2004 08:44 PM

Good to see Kerry and Edwards are uncompromisingly fighting the good fight.

Trevallion

Trevallion

Murfreesboro, TN
February 2004

JUL 07, 2004 08:48 PM

what a jackass that guy is. he definitely needs to be making important decisions on civil rights.

Lust

lust

Mesa, AZ
February 2004

JUL 07, 2004 10:34 PM

Cigarette said:
Good to see Kerry and Edwards are uncompromisingly fighting the good fight.



I would imagine that Kerry and Edwards will elect not to vote on the vast majority of issues from present until election time, for fear that those votes may become ammunition to be used against them. Unless a vote is clearly supported by more than 75% of the population, refraining from voting is probably their best option in maintaining the illusion of supporting the public interest, as it would be for any candidate.

ChezGeek

ChezGeek

Port Orchard, WA
January 2004

JUL 07, 2004 11:32 PM

glad to see the the senators from my home state have some sense. senators snowe and collins have always, to me, shown great moral qualities.

Coliwali

Coliwali

I'm lost
February 2003

JUL 08, 2004 02:02 AM

ThatÂ’s so awful!!

I never understood how a non-Christian could support far right wing candidates. How can you vote for someone who feels you deserve to spend an eternity of suffering in hell?

Maurauder

Maurauder

I'm lost
August 2003

JUL 08, 2004 02:36 AM

mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad mad

St_Expedite

St_Expedite

New Orleans, LA
January 2004

JUL 08, 2004 05:01 AM

Lust said:

Cigarette said:
Good to see Kerry and Edwards are uncompromisingly fighting the good fight.



I would imagine that Kerry and Edwards will elect not to vote on the vast majority of issues from present until election time, for fear that those votes may become ammunition to be used against them. Unless a vote is clearly supported by more than 75% of the population, refraining from voting is probably their best option in maintaining the illusion of supporting the public interest, as it would be for any candidate.



Yeah, it's not like they were in Pittsburgh or anything, announcing that Edwards had been added to the Democratic presidential ticket. It's because they didn't want to take a position on an issue, because, you know, no one is going to ask for their position on issues between now and November.

That's not how it works in the Senate when a senator is runnning for national office. They miss a lot of votes because of campaigning, but hell, the Hawaii and Alaska senators miss a ton of friday and monday votes, all the time, because of traveling. If they're going to be the deciding vote on something, they'll be there.

luckyride

luckyride

Portland, OR
May 2003

JUL 08, 2004 10:19 AM

mad still can't believe this shit! mad

Fenris_Ulf

Fenris_Ulf

Albuquerque, NM
June 2004

JUL 10, 2004 01:05 AM

I'm running out of the strength to be outraged. There's just so much to be pissed off at this administration for. Must.... maintain..... outrage.... and anger..... getting ... weak.... tooo much cause for outrage.....

Pariset

Pariset

I'm lost
July 2004

JUL 11, 2004 11:09 PM

emmagoldman said:
The simple existence of New Deal and Great Society programs violates their fundamental beliefs.



So? You'd probably get a similar reaction from a lot of Libertarians and Objectivists, wouldn't you?

EDIT: To clarify; my comment refers to opinions on the New Deal and the Great Society, not the issue of women being treated as property, which I'm against.

[Edited on Jul 11, 2004 by Pariset]

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews