home

Blunt Amendment Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:03:06 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Senate is debating it now, viewable on CSpan2. Presently, Senate David Vitter (R-La) is discussing how a conscience clause will protect his natural right to wear a diaper with a prostitute.

Hatch talking about religious liberty - begging the question - what about polygamy?

Bob Casey proves that he is not worthy of progressive support. Votes in favor of Blunt Amendment. (Manchin and Ben Nelson other Dems in favor of Blunt, but we already know they make no claims to being actual Dems or progressive. They've been on their own all along. Bob Casey claims otherwise.)

Blunt Amendment defeated 51-48. Pathetic that it was close.

< Kim Dotcom Fires Back | Thursday Morning Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Blunt Amendment Debate | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I think it would be more like (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    it protects his employer's right to invoke some kind of morality/religious objection to providing insurance coverage for "sex therapy," and the resultant claims that adult diapers and prostitutes are part of that...

    Some days, I can't even believe some of the things that are happening, or that people are taking this stuff seriously enough to debate it on the floor of the Senate.

    It ought to be blindingly obvious that religious liberty is now going to function as the proxy for whatever it is employers don't want to do for their employees, and as a means to impose beliefs that can't be legislated any other way.

    Is no one embarrassed by what we have become, and dreading the even-more-offensive stuff that is surely waiting in the wings, being dreamed up by people who give new meaning to the term "hypocrite?"

    One wonders where things would stand if someone, anyone, had had the courage to call BS on this when it all started.

    The Dem Senate leadership is calling BS on this (none / 0) (#14)
    by Farmboy on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:28:06 AM EST
    which is why it's being debated on the Senate floor. The GOP in the Senate wanted to use the Blunt amendment for PR purposes, but they didn't want to actually have to take a recorded vote on it. Reid is making sure they have plenty of rope by putting it on the agenda.

    Of course, the Calvinball aspect to all this means that this fall the GOP will run against the Blunt amendment and flood the airways with ads saying that Dems tried to take away women's rights. The media will play along, and the voters will be upset - at the Dems.

    Parent

    And why is it even in the Senate? (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    Because it was decided that we had to accommodate the Catholic Bishops, and keep the door open to further accommodations (to them and the rest of the let's-use-religious-freedom-to-get-our-way crowd), even though the Bishops know full well that their own affiliated institutions are already complying with EEOC regulations regarding coverage for contraception.

    That's the BS I was referring to, not the usual kabuki that is taking place in the Senate, which, even if successful in sinking the amendment, will not be the final word on these kinds of things.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:53:05 AM EST
    Have you read my stuff on this?

    Parent
    Your DKos posts? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    No, I haven't, but I'll have to check them out; I gather we're of similar minds on this issue.

    Parent
    The Vitter comment is priceless (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:25:30 AM EST
    Awesome comment!

    Hatch and the LDS (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:28:14 AM EST
    would love to have the Reynolds case, which upheld the prohibition of polygamy, reversed....

    Reynolds is the foundation (none / 0) (#45)
    by Peter G on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    of all the screwed up "free exercise clause" jurisprudence we have, or have ever had.  "The right to believe is absolute, but the right to act on beliefs cannot be ..." (not an exact quote).  Thus making "free exercise" no different from "freedom of speech," and negating all constitutional protection for conscientious objectors.  Just cannot be what the Framers intended.

    Parent
    Senator Reid should have done (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:29:27 AM EST
    whatever he could to prevent this amendment from coming to a vote at this point.  Where were all the committee hearings, the amendments to the amendment, the expert testimony, the setting of the agenda?  The issue is just too important to be allowed to become a pawn for either Democrats or wingers.  Aiding and abetting the wingers cynicism is unseemly.

    Even if the amendment fails (assuming Reid knows how to count), I am not sure the Democrats will know how to use the vote effectively in the face of the Republicans "religious freedom" spin. Primary arguments such as, hormonal anti-ovulants are used for other than birth control so therefore we need to have them covered (rather than head-on advocacy for women's health) are weak tea and beg the issue.  

    Disagree (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:33:47 AM EST
    It's being used to hold up other legislation, and all the studies underlying Obama/Sebelius' decision in the ACA rule have been made. Time to slam the door on this.

    Parent
    51-48 to table (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:08:31 AM EST
    Nelson, Manchin and Casey defect for Dems.
    Snowe defects GOP.
    Don't know who ditched the vote.

    Notable votes: Lieberman McCaskill aye.
    Brown, Collins, Murkowski no.

    Even though it was ridiculously close, I am happy to see Republicans exposed as the anti-women party going into an election year. Brown should be toast.

    Interesting to see how the insanity (none / 0) (#27)
    by lilburro on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:17:46 AM EST
    has worn down Snowe.  I cannot even believe our Senators had a vote on this.  It's come to the point that the thing I am most concerned about vis a vis my tax dollars is paying their salaries...

    Parent
    Interesting that Snowe announced retirement... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    ... right before defecting. I wonder if McConnell threatened her seniority or Senate re-elect committee funds, and she was like "you know Mitch... go [rest of sentence censored]!!!!"

    Her seat is a huge election in control of the Senate next term too. I hope that is how it played out.

    Parent

    Mark Kirk was the absent senator (none / 0) (#28)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:18:14 AM EST
    recovering from a stroke.

    Parent
    I hope so! (none / 0) (#30)
    by CST on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:25:30 AM EST
    Brown was ahead in the last poll (taken before this whole thing).

    Parent
    Brown is up in (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:30:04 AM EST
    two different recent polls by signficant margins.

    Perhaps bad polls but three polls now show Warren behind....

    Parent

    For how long? (none / 0) (#36)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:35:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Here they are (none / 0) (#46)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 05:57:59 PM EST
    link

    Parent
    it's a mixed bag (none / 0) (#37)
    by CST on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    There have been polls that show he is up, and polls that show she is up.

    It's also still very early.  And honestly, maybe I don't watch enough TV, but it doesn't really feel like campaign season yet.

    The polls were also taken before this last vote.

    I'd say Scott Brown has a decent chance of winning, but it's certainly not in the bag.  22% of people in that last poll didn't know who Warren was.

    Parent

    "maybe I don't watch enough TV" (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    It is impossible to watch too little TV.

    Parent
    Don't think we needed this vote (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:04:11 PM EST
    to expose the Republicans as the anti-women party--they have done a really good job all on their own, without this additional record.   Republicans, apparently, see this as a win for them.  And, knowing the challenge Brown has from Elizabeth Warren, they would have released him from the party-line if they did not think that it would help him with the Catholic vote, especially having the Bishops at his back.  

    Parent
    That same conservative Catholic vote in MI (none / 0) (#39)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:17:38 PM EST
    went mostly for Romney. Have to think Santorum's aspirin loving supporter (tossed in with a little Kennedy vomit) helped with that.

    Parent
    the catholic vote in MA (none / 0) (#40)
    by CST on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 12:38:04 PM EST
    is not the catholic vote in MI.  I can't emphasize enough the impact that the church scandal had around these parts.  The church-going population has declined by more than 50%, and any relationship between the catholic population (which is still here) and the hierarchy is tenuous at best.

    Parent
    There is no "Catholic vote" anywhere. (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by caseyOR on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Well, except the bishops and that blowhard Bill Donohue. Catholics do not vote as a bloc.

    For decades now the Vatican has railed against the the habit of American Catholics to pick and choose what Church dictates to follow. The term "cafeteria Catholic" exists for a reason.

    The Church lost a lot of its authority when pope Paul VI issued his encyclical Humanae Vitaein 1968. That re-affirming the Church's stance against contraception sparked a lot of backlash. And the Church began losing its hold over Catholics.

    Then came the priest pedophile revelations, which rocked dioceses across the country. Boston wasn't the only place to respond with revulsion and anger toward the Church and there bishops.

    Democrats would face no electoral danger from the majority of Catholics if they simply ignored the Council of Bishops.

    Parent

    Yes, and the vote (none / 0) (#44)
    by KeysDan on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    in Michigan was a Republican presidential primary, not a senatorial election between a Republican incumbent and a Democratic challenger.   In voting, "Catholic" may still mean cultural affinity rather than dogmatic adherence, especially when made to look under siege.  

    Parent
    Collins voting for amendment (2.00 / 1) (#10)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:09:23 AM EST
    Kind of disgusting when she advocated contraception inclusion in health plans not too long ago.

    Orrin Hatch (none / 0) (#1)
    by vicndabx on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:26:32 AM EST
    There's only so much politics that can be played around here

    Best line so far.

    Classic Romney yesterday... (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    ... against it before he's for it, and now neither side believes him. How could he have been so out of touch with this debate that he didn't think his position through?

    "Uncle.". Did diligently google (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:38:59 AM EST
    via "smart" phone but found no reference Blunt in a diaper w/or w/o a diaperi. So must be a subtle joke?

    W or w/o a prostitute. (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:45:08 AM EST


    Parent
    Vitter (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:54:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Pretty broad brush. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:00:30 AM EST


    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    Pretty specific brush. Maybe this will help - link.

    Parent
    How can that guy (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:29:32 AM EST
    have the gall to try and deny women coverage.....

    Parent
    Maybe it should be (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:04:44 AM EST
    Vitter's Amend.

    Parent
    OT But Breaking! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jackson Hunter on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:45:27 AM EST
    Andrew Breibart has died of natural causes while walking at midnight. I know Jeralyn's policy, so that is all that I will say.

    The Blunt Amendment is crap, to put it Bluntly. (I know, that was a horrific pun, sorry all.)

    Jackson

    Breitbart (none / 0) (#12)
    by magster on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    sadly lacked that sort of respect for the recently deceased.

    Parent
    I'll put a C-note on the cause (none / 0) (#42)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 01:01:01 PM EST
    And that it isn't natural.  But that's only because Breitbart was so unnaturally skewed a personality.  Feel for his kids, no matter what I thought of their dad, it's always tough too know children will not have a parent in their lives.

    Parent
    I'll say it again, the only Blunt Amendment... (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    ...I'll support would have to be brought to the floor by Dr. Dre or Cypress Hill.

    Great minds think alike... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    if all this religous liberty talk gets me a Blunt Exemption from the prohibition of my sacrament, it won't be all bad;)

    My religion also forbids me from sharing my urine with anybody...sorry potential employer, but you can't discriminate against me on religous grounds.

    Parent

    You should expand that... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    ...to include all bodily fluids and hair!

    Parent
    Good Idea... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 10:56:04 AM EST
    Archbishop Hawkeye...we could carve out a pretty decent free existence if religous liberty becomes the be all end all...we need to get to work on our complete tenets.  

    Parent
    I thought the Blunt amendment (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:31:34 AM EST
    would be named the Snoop Dogg Amendment, or the Parliament/Funkadelic Amendment.

    Parent
    Transportation bill. There lights be a law! (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:07:53 AM EST


    last one out, (none / 0) (#33)
    by The Addams Family on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    turn off the oughta

    Parent
    more to the point, (none / 0) (#29)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    Hatch talking about religious liberty - begging the question - what about polygamy?

    what about human sacrifice?

    this isn't necessarily germane, but what the heck is david vitter still doing in congress? have the republicans in LA lost any shred of shame whatsoever? ok, silly question i know, but i was compelled, by my space alien overlord, to ask.

    Human sacrifice... (none / 0) (#34)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Mar 01, 2012 at 11:33:11 AM EST
    Hmmmm. Depends on the definition of 'human,' I suppose. After all, can't fish and people co-exist?

    Parent
    Blunt Amendment Debate | 47 comments (47 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment