Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Dec 15 2009

Two shining examples of elected Representatives in the House allowing their votes to be bought for so-called health reform are Bart Stupak and Joseph Cao. A pair in the Senate likewise demonstrate the 60 vote fraud that is the Democratic party’s reform, Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson.

After a brief review of manager’s amendment of Senate Majority Leader and vote buyer (with your money) Harry Reid a search of the vague and openended legislative item produced 19 references to abortion. From instances of where federal funding is prohibited for abortions to where it is allowed and various provisions demonstrating differences between federal and state wiggle room on the topic Reid’s back room deals are a masterpiece of arrogance and ignoring public opposition to this bill.

One might not expect provisions regarding firearms possession and similar items within a bill on health reform but that merely emphasizes the culture of corruption in Washington and a common description in most legislation allowing ‘and for other purposes’ to cover any deal POLS make.

Here are a few less contentious references to the Harry Reid manager’s amendment.

There are arrangements for using an arbitrary percentage to determine among other things rebates to premium payers under certain circumstances.

from the amendment….

In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.

‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.

Sure, the public sector, aka, your government will ’seek to ensure’ participation, competition and value for the consumer in a role in which it has never succeeded. But you can bet they will come up with penalties. After all, what a better way to raise more revenue from the private sector to waste on more governmet interference. It’s like you paying a thief to rob you.

On the issue of more bureaucracy and more waste comes another

‘‘(d) MEDICAL REIMBURSEMENT DATA CENTERS.— ‘‘(1) FUNCTIONS.—A center established under
subsection (c)(1)(C) shall— ‘‘(A) develop fee schedules and other database tools that fairly and accurately reflect market rates for medical services and the geographic differences in those rates;

The devil’s in the details…..

‘‘(B) use the best available statistical methods and data processing technology to develop such fee schedules and other database tools; ‘‘(C) regularly update such fee schedules and other database tools to reflect changes in charges for medical services;
‘‘(D) make health care cost information readily available to the public through an Internet website that allows consumers to understand the amounts that health care providers in their area charge for particular medical services; and ‘‘(E) regularly publish information concerning the statistical methodologies used by the center to analyze health charge data and make such data available to researchers and policy makers.
‘‘(2) CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.—A center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) shall adopt by laws that ensures that the center (and all members of the governing board of the center) is independent and free from all conflicts of interest. Such bylaws shall ensure that the center is not controlled or influenced by, and does not have any corporate relation to, any individual or entity that may make or receive payments for health care services based on the center’s analysis of health care costs.
‘‘(3) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to permit a center established under subsection (c)(1)(C) to compel health insurance issuers to provide data to the center.’’.

And one tiny example of how YOUR government will raise costs not only on established transactions but new ones.

‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided
by the hospital, including for diagnosisrelated groups established under section 886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.

And that is after less than an hour reviewing Harry Reid’s manager’s amendment. Which brings to mind the often stated criticism that few if any in Congress have read the bill or anything related to it. Yet they are content to pass it with sixty liberal Senate votes. You have to ask yourself why?

It’s all about money and power and has nothing to do with reform of anything.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Much has been made of Senator Ben Nelson ‘holding up’ the Dems on passing scam health reform. Could it be that Senator Nelson simply wants stuff for his vote? Is this any different than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid buying Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote or Obama buying Cao’s vote? That includes the bogus Stupak Amendment in the House. So what does Senator Ben Nelson say in his own press release on the topic?

NELSON COMMENTS ON ABORTION COMPROMISE

December 17, 2009 – Today, Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson praised provisions in an abortion compromise adding new teen pregnancy initiatives and tax credits for adoption, while saying that the language working to ban public funding of abortion is not sufficient at this point.

Senator Nelson said today a proposed compromise he’s studied does not yet ensure that a longstanding federal standard barring public funding of abortion would be maintained in the Senate health care bill the Senate has been debating this month.

Nelson said without further improvements the compromise is not sufficient.

“The compromise adds important new initiatives addressing teen pregnancy and tax credits to help with adoptions,” Senator Nelson said. “These are valuable improvements that will make a positive difference and promote life. But as it is, without modifications, the language concerning abortion is not sufficient.”

Senator Nelson reiterated that he will not be able to support a cloture motion needing 60 votes to end debate on the underlying Senate bill if certain language in the bill remains. The existing language allows public funds to pay for abortion, thus relaxing the longstanding Hyde amendment.

He said today that he is open to looking at additional attempts to maintain the federal restriction on public funding of abortion.

###

If Ben Nelson is so concerned about abortion, where is his concern, outrage or even mention of the following:

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning

The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.

These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.

This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.

That’s right! With each successive change in presidential administration in the US the abortion tennis match continues. When a Republican occupies the White House the Mexico City Policy is reinstated. When a Democrat occupies the White House it is rescinded. So where’s your concern about that Mr Nelson?

Another item related to the never ending abortion debate is the Hyde Amendment. It captures the conservative compromise on the topic. Agreeing to certain limited uses of abortion for circumstances that do not demonstrate abortion’s usage as contraception for dummies.

reference to The Hyde Amendment…..

H.AMDT.185 (A008)
Amends: H.R.2518
Sponsor: Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6] (offered 6/30/1993)AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit the use of any funds appropriated in the bill for any abortion except, when it is necessary to save the life of the mother or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

POPULAR TITLE(S):
Hyde Amendment (identified by CRS)

STATUS:

6/30/1993 3:00pm:

Amendment (A008) offered by Mr. Hyde.

6/30/1993 3:26pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by recorded vote: 255 - 178 (Roll no. 307).

6/30/1993 3:28pm:

Mr. Armey demanded a separate vote on the Hyde amendment (A008).

6/30/1993 4:00pm:

On agreeing to the Hyde amendment (A008) Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 256 - 171 (Roll no. 309).

And even though one could make a reasonable argument in support of the Hyde Amendment there are othe equally reasonable arguments to the contrary. Meaning those who face the above challenges still have other choices albeit problematic ones.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another sneaky Saturday in the Senate — and Teddy K’s ghost rises again (Michelle Malkin) 

To Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell…..

OUTSTANDING!!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Liberals were right. President Bush and the rest of the GOP really screwed up with TARP. It’s part of that Republican fall from grace that allowed the current Democratic party majority in Washington. Oops, liberals were not right. They just hopped on the bandwagon with the rest of America in rejecting too big too fail and other economic nonsense.

President Obama engages in the same foolish rhetoric as other liberals do. But with his foolish talk comes more dangerous policies and action. Sometimes politiely bashing President Bush and others Obama wants it both ways. He continues to repeat his O-pinion that the Bush administration is responsible for the economic mess in the US. He rejects everything Bush. Well, not exactly. His Bush bashing does not include the walk the walk part. If Bush was so bad and TARP was part of it, why do you continue with the TARP thing Barry? Because like all socialist liberal agendas the taxpayer money in TARP can be converted to Mr Obama’s plans. He wants it to pay for his jobs scam. As do other liberals in DC and elsewhere.

Those are make work jobs. They do not add to the economy or create or save jobs. They just add to the nanny state mentality. The New Deal is here again. 70 plus years ago FDR began subsidizing agriculture. How’d that work out for American family farms? They’ve all but disappeared. Social Security is another nanny state idea. It cannot continue forever. But many have come to expect it and soon it will be gone. LBJ and Medicare is a similar story.

The porkulus spending from the ‘recovery’ act legislation had as its first transactions paying to keep staff and programs in education as well as extending Medicaid. That’s now. Not FDR, LBJ or some other lib, that’s now. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and the rest of the Obamanation are nanny staters through and through.

Nanny, nanny, nanny. Suck the life and independence out of every citizen over decades to grow the dependence on oversized government. Allow others to control your life. That’s the Obama agenda. Here’s more of what is presented here in video.

But if you are conservative and a freedom loving American you probably will like the following two versions of the next video.

And to complete the video presentation for this post the following is offered.

and

There would have been more text in this post but thanks to Allison the snow thing has kept us busy in the upper Midwest today. More posts will follow on Obama, liberals, the New Deal and the one they’re trying to impose again.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

‘we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have’…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: There — there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the Congressional Budget analysis is correct on — on the increase in premiums. But the important thing here is that I hope we can all agree that we have to get rid of the profit-driven, insurance company-driven health insurance system that we have, where it’s insurance company bureaucrats, Senator Coburn, that are getting in between patients and their doctors.

To suggest that this bill will put government in between patients and their doctors is really disingenuous…

WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Debbie, a Representative from Florida; born in Forest Hills, Queens County, N.Y., September 27, 1966; B.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1988; M.A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla., 1990; aide to United States Representative Peter Deutsch, 1989-1992; member, Florida state house of representatives, 1992-2000; member, Florida state senate, 2000-2004; elected as a Democrat to the One Hundred Ninth Congress and to the two succeeding Congresses (January 3, 2005-present).

Any questions?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

update: related

The depths of Demcare demagoguery (Michelle Malkin) 

Just as the GOP has historically been characterized as blindly supporting ‘big business’ to the detriment of the ordinary citizen the Democrats have a reputation of being tax and spend liberals. Recent losses for the GOP in the 2008 presidential election and the 2006 midterms are at least in part due to a Republican fall from grace on conservative principles such as fiscal responsibility. Now that the Democrats are the majority party they have chosen to describe their Congressional minority opponents, the GOP, as the party of ‘no’. Members of the public who share the GOPs opposition to the Democratic party’s political agenda have likewise been labeled something less than American.

A topic not receiving the attention it may deserve as well as some related reports may help readers see through the fog that is politics as usual in the US Capitol. The topic has been called the Tobin tax. The prospect of a so-called Tobin tax, floated last month by U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is already provoking nervous U.S. financial companies to lobby for its defeat. Democrats, including Oregon Representative Pete DeFazio and Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, this week proposed taxing large transactions in stocks and derivatives. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the idea has a “great deal of merit.”

In general, the idea is to impose a tax on all investment transactions. As if there were not enough taxes (actually too many) on investments and everything else already. When was the last time you heard of a tax being repealed? And if you can cite an example, can you be sure it was not reborn in another piece of legislation? Far worse, an idea like the Tobin tax is appealing to tax and spend liberals for one reason. If the tax can be successfully imposed on investments, how long will it be until ALL financial transactions have a new tax?

Tax Cheat Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would have you believe he is looking out for the little guy not unlike liberals in general. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, throwing cold water on a plan by congressional Democrats to tax financial transactions, said banks and other market participants would find ways to circumvent the expense.

“There’s a real risk that retail investors, who’ve got fewer choices, they end up bearing the cost of the tax,” he said.

But that is not the end of the Geithner story on the Tobin tax. “Just to be frank about it, there’s a lot of people in the business community and the academic community who are not confident that that particular proposal would be that powerful,” Geithner said. “But we’re going to keep looking at it.”

Along with other Democrats of course, Speaker Nancy Pelosi favors the Tobin tax. Maybe in light of Geithner’s remarks she changed her story. But that doesn’t mean she is giving up on new ways to spend your money.

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)–U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) said Thursday that unused money in the Treasury Department’s financial rescue plan would be used to pay for a new job-creation package.

Pelosi said she favored using funds in the Troubled Asset Relief Program to finance initiatives aimed at kick-starting growth in the moribund jobs market.

In doing so, she effectively ruled out implementing a tax on financial transactions by banks and other financial institutions.

Pelosi said she still favored a tax in principle but the U.S. would have to work with other countries to implement such a levy.

Not long after the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act became law it was reported about 25% of the money went out the door. All of it was used for one of two things. Saving jobs and programs in education to payback the NEA for their votes. And more money to spend on Medicaid. Never mind that TARP funds were criticized as private sector bailouts that would never be repaid by companies considered to be too big to fail. Any concern then about taxpayer money can be ignored now that Pelosi and friends are targeting that taxpayer money for other programs in their agenda. This should make you wonder how that wonderful ‘health insurance reform’ (once called healthcare reform) will work out for you.

BTW, most Americans are not buying into Geithner’s agenda as Treasury Secretary.

Upbeat Conservative News, POLL: Geithner Performance Stinks

More voters cast their ballots in 2008 for hope and change with Obama/Biden than the ‘ticket for America’ of McCain/Palin. The main issue was the economy. A year later the economy is still in the tank. Hope and change informed us unemployment would not exceed 8% if their plan was enacted. Unemployment was above ten percent and is still at ten percent in the latest reports. Every Democrat in office in one way or another is supporting tax increases and spending in support of the liberal agenda. President Obama now owns the economy and everything else. Yet there is little evidence that the hope and change selected will be delivered. The information above demonstrates the real agenda. And you’re paying for it with fewer and fewer jobs.

Correct the mistake in 2010 and beyond.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The liberals, the Democratic party POLS and others of a similar mindset would have you believe healthcare reform is a noble endeavor. President Obama has called for transparency and accountability and failed to deliver. Democratic party House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have promoted ‘a New Direction for America’ since the 2006 midterms and failed to deliver. In addition, a promise from Speaker Pelosi touted an end to the culture of corruption in Washington, DC. None of this has taken place.

As is the usual case with liberals they must find a villain to use in pursuit of their agenda. As with other items in their agenda they seek to convince you to pay for their power grab that includes diminishing your freedom, and in the case of healthcare reform, pay for their control over your health decisions and access. What was first described as healthcare reform has now been changed by the Dems to health insurance reform. As stated earlier, they must suggest a villain in an attempt to convince you they are fixing a problem. There real mission is to takeover healthcare in this country and your role in it.

This was the inspiration for this post. From the US Senate website regarding the ‘floor schedule.’

Floor Schedule

Monday, Nov 30, 2009

2:00 p.m.: Convene and begin a period of morning business.

Thereafter, resume consideration of H.R.3590, regarding health care reform.

Here are some simple questions to ask yourself about the Democratic majority’s pursuit of healthcare control. Read the following and ask yourself why the Dems would do this?

H.R.3590
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] (introduced 9/17/2009) Cosponsors (40)
Related Bills: H.R.3780, S.1728
Latest Major Action: 11/21/2009 Senate floor actions. Status: Measure laid before Senate by motion.
Note: H.R. 3590 is expected to be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. See the draft amendment from democrats.senate.gov.

If you follow the link to the liberal Senate site you may find the news items highlighted when this post was prepared. If not, they are presented here with comments.

Momentum Continues To Grow In Support Of The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Not true. There is growing unrest, skepticism and polls indicating most people believe this agenda will be a failure and do nothing but add more debt and raise deficits for the future.

Health Reform Process Has Been Transparent

Not true. The bills were developed in closed door sessions shutting out the minority party. The documents were withheld from the public until outrage caused their release. Many voting for the bills never read them. In the Senate, Harry Reid bought the vote of Mary Landrieu with hundreds of millions in Medicaid dollars for her state. In the House, Rep Cao of LA voted for that version of the liberal bill for a similar reason. Obama promised him funds and other help for his state if he would. And you have to ask yourself why the Dems would use an unrelated bill as ‘the vehicle for’ their healthcare takeover legislation?

Reid: Supporters Of Reform Can See The Finish Line But Much Work Lies Ahead

If they can see the finish line they are hallucinating or have more funds to buy votes for this healthcare scam. Those funds belong to the taxpayer. The work that lies ahead is finding honest support for healthcare reform which the liberals renamed health insurance reform. These bills are neither.

Reid: Moving To Debate On Senate Health Proposal Shows The American People We’re Serious About Reform

Not true. It shows that Reid is serious about a sham takeover of Americans healthcare.

Reid, Baucus, Dodd and Harkin Introduce the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Not true. While they may have had something to do with its introduction, there is nothing about the bill that protects patients or makes healthcare affordable. The CBO has shown many times that this bill and the others will raise premiums, the national debt and deficits when the real cost of the bills are included.

The Democratic party majority in Washington, DC is unleashing a disaster on our nation when it can least afford it. If you sit idly by and let it happen you share the responsibility for this mess. Continue to contact your elected reps to help stop this insanity. If you think healthcare has problems now, just wait and see what Congress does to it if you let them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Health Care Debate is Now Officially Underway (a text version)

related: The Vote Tonight (a text version)

related: 10 Things You Should Know About this Bill (a text version)

Nothing like political rhetoric to muddy the waters before a weekend stealth vote on so-called healthcare reform. Both major parties are guilty of playing politics. Within this rhetorical battle a few reminders should be stated. Currently the Democratic party is in the majority. They control the White House and Congress. With that political advantage comes power and responsibility. We already know the GOP misused that advantage their last time at bat. The Dems are doing the same now.

(RTTNews) - In advance of a crucial vote Saturday, leading Senate Democrats criticized their Republican opponents for seeking to stop health reform efforts without advancing an alternative.

“Senate Republicans want to talk about the number of pages in this bill; we want to talk about the number of people who will get affordable care,” Durbin said. “Our bill is two thousand pages long and it helps hundreds of millions of people.”

He added, “The Republican bill is zero pages long and helps no one. The choice is clear. It’s time to pass this health reform bill.”

Let’s be clear. The GOP may not have introduced a bill in Congress as an ‘alternative’ to the several submitted by the Democrats. Just as John Boehner touts CBO scoring of a GOP alternative proposal Dick Durbin and other Dems suggest the GOP has no proposal. Here’s a link to the CBO scoring of a GOP proposal the Dems say does not exist.

Most bills introduced in Congress never see the light of day. If they make it to committee that is where they die most of the time. That’s the upside. Those that survive the introduction may not pass. Those that do pass become law. Of those that become law the debate continues as to their benefit for the public. The Democratic party is responsible for the current healthcare reform proposals in Congress. The GOP is currently in the minority status and as such has few tools available to advance alternative proposals.

But what they have suggested makes sense. We should do this thing, healthcare reform, in smaller more manageable steps. That is contrary to the Democratic plan to pass legislation that is huge, restrictive, manipulative, debt raising, deficit increasing, budget busting and an overall hijacking of personal freedom. Say all you want about that not being true but nearly every report from the CBO to the MSM documents the dangerous effects of what they propose.

Once again it is time to contact your elected reps and demand a sensible approach to reform and that is not included in the current proposals being advanced by the liberal majority. The manipulation of the legislative process and the speed with which the Dems seek passage should be warning enough. Let’s back up and start over before any more damage is produced.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The left enjoys referring to the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has press releases whining about the GOP holding up nominations or confirmations of President Obama. David Hamilton was confirmed for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Senate in a 70-29-1 vote. The ‘not voting’ member is a Republican. Ten of the 70 voting ‘aye’ for confirmation are Republicans. The occasional support for the GOP from Senator Lieberman was not available this time as he voted to confirm. Read the rest of this post and the links to consider the implications of this event. Do the math. Had the 11 members of the GOP voting ‘aye’ or not voting opposed the nomination what would the outcome have been?

One question is presented in advance. Are the Republicans who voted to confirm David Hamilton RINOs?

An article from NRO in March of 2009 discusses ACLU Hamilton as a nominee for the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Follow the link to gain some insight on the nominee who was confirmed this week.

Seventh Circuit Candidate David Hamilton—An ACLU “Moderate”! [Ed Whelan]

In an article headlined “Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court,” the New York Times reports that President Obama’s first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA’s “not qualified” rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit.

An excerpt from Senator Leahy on the Hamilton nomination for the Seventh Circuit.

“I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will ‘vote’ on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views.”

Senator Lugar believes Judge Hamilton “is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria.” So do I. Judge Hamilton is a well-respected Federal judge not known for partisanship or an ideological agenda. In light of his superb record, broad support, and unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, it is no wonder Judge Hamilton’s nomination for this important appellate seat has the support of both home state Senators. He should be confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.

Interesting comments from Leahy considering every judicial nomination is partisan in nature. It would be good if this were not the case but it is. And Leahy’s characterization that this nominee has been selected based on his qualifications is absurd. (Of course, that is merely this blog’s opinion)

The following is the result of Roll Call Vote 349 (In the YEAs group and the Not Voting Group, Republicans voting in support of the nomination are in bold type.)

YEAs

Alexander (R-TN) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs

Barrasso(R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Hutchison (R-TX)


David Frank Hamilton was first elevated to the status of judge by virtue of a Clinton nomination in 1994. (record from Thomas LOC, below)

Nomination: PN1469-103
Date Received: June 08, 1994 (103rd Congress)
Nominee: David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana vice S. Hugh Dillin, retired.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary
Reported by: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions

Floor Action: June 08, 1994 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Committee Action: September 21, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Committee Action: September 28, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported favorably.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Reported by Mr. Biden, Committee on the Judiciary, without printed report.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 1289.
Floor Action: October 07, 1994 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

Organization: The Judiciary

Control Number: 103PN0146900

Final note: Do the GOP members voting to confirm Hamilton or not voting demonstrate conservative principles?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate approves ACORN/abortion radical judge David Hamilton (Michelle Malkin) 

The Stupak amendment (passed on Nov 7) to ban public funding of abortions within HR 3962 (passed in the House 220-215 on Nov 7, 2009) suggests political maneuvers of the smoke and mirrors variety. Some have suggested that Democrats who claim to be pro-life do so to placate some voters in their districts and for other purposes. The question raised by this in terms of HR3962 asks if those liberals who objected to this amendment in the debate before the vote on Saturday voted in favor of HR 3962 anyway? Unless they are part of the 39 Dems who voted against the bill it suggests some kind of liberal kabuki dance. And a similar question applies to the GOP since they may have known well in advance of their passionate public statements in the debate how the vote was going to turn out.

This post starts a review of the 39 Dems who voted against HR 3962. In alphabetical order the first one up is John Barrow of the GA-12th. After Barrow was elected the Georgia state legislature went Republican in both houses for the first time since Reconstruction. Subsequent redistricting of the 12th left Barrow representing a much more Republican district. All of this is according to Wikipedia. If accurate, what do you suppose Rep John Barrow (D) from the GA 12th’s first consideration was on voting against HR 3962? Could it be he wants to get re-elected in a district that now leans right?

According to the roll call vote 884 on the Stupak amendment mentioned above Mr Barrow voted in favor of it like 63 other Democrats. 194 of them voted no. Parsing the 64 Dems voting for the Stupak amendment and the 39 Dems voting against HR 3962 and other voting trends among Dems will indicate how much trouble liberals can expect in 2010.

More posts will be published on this later. Until then, one final note, the GOP indicated all Republicans would vote against HR 3962. How will they explain Rep Joseph Cao’s aye vote? The LA-2 hasn’t been represented by a Republican since the 19th century? And after all, how tough was it to defeat indicted Rep William J ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson after the feds found $90k in his freezer? Hmmm, another re-election concern influencing a congressman’s actions? Say it ain’t so?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Health care takeover roll call vote — and what GOP Rep. Joseph Cao got from Obama; Plus: Organizing for America hustles more money (Michelle Malkin)