End of an Era

Betty Friedan, one of the founders of NOW and instigators of the modern women's movement, died this past week. Her life was spent fighting for the slow but steady progress made by the women's rights movement. She died as Alito was taking his seat on the Supreme Court. With his appointment women's representation on the Supreme Court drops back down to 11% from 22%. Women comprise over 50% of America, yet we are not entitled to anything more than token representation on the Supreme Court. There should be 4 or 5 women on the Court, if it were to reflect America.
It seem to me as if Ms Friedan's passing herald's the passing of the rights she fought for.
The Republicans are striving to undo Title IX and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans have been scheming to undo Roe v Wade and Alito would support them.
The Right-wing Republicans are not only opposed to abortion, but to sex education and birth control. Alito would support the decisions of pharmacists, stores, and physicians to refuse women birth control, because they have a religious objection to it. He has demonstrated a sympathy for those who would impose their religious beliefs on others.
Alito would not support any measures to fight discrimination.
What I don't understand is why any Senator who claims to be pro-choice could allow Alito to be seated on the Supreme Court. The so-called moderate Republicans are complicit in the radical actions of their party. Except for Sen. Chaffee, who did vote against Alito, they are afraid to stand up to their party. They allow it to run rampantly over women's rights.
I am disappointed in those Republicans who have become part of this right-wing juggernaut, by not resisting it. If the moderate Republicans do not resist and do not take back their party, they are as bad as the right-wingers. They empower them!!
The 4 Democrats who voted for Alito (Byrd, Johnson, Nelson, and Conrad) should be ashamed of themselves. Democrats should primary them and replace them with real Democrats. They should replace them with Democrats who will support the Democratic platform. Democrats need to elect those Democrats who support the Democratic platform, not just someone who seems to be the most electable. A majority is useless without a majority of votes.
It is abhorent that Republicans have been allowed to redefine the role of the Senate in the confirmation of judges. Historically the Senate has rejected a multitude of judges and Justices. They rejected a Justice nominted by Washington, because they did not agree with his postion on the Jay Treaty.How is it that the founders could reject a Justice for his position, but we can't reject a Justice because of his position on Choice? Suddenly this is not what was intended by "advise and consent". The founders of our Country never intended for one person to have absolute control over the courts and nominations to them. When the Republicans are in control of the Presidency, they adamently maintain that "advise and consent" only means that the Senate must decide if the candidate is qualified. According to current rules, the Senate wouldn't even have a right to require an answer about the jay treaty. Our Founders intended that the people (via the Senate) have control over judicial appontments. This is not only a historical precedent, but it is the just and democratic process.
Why is it everyone accepts the Republican redefination as if it were undisputed fact?
The Republicans used the filibuster routinely when the Democrats were in control of the Senate. Now that they are in control they call it unfair and they threaten to change the rule. Why is it no one ever questions this turnabout from the Republicans? Why is it suddenly accepted that use of the filibuster is obstructing the government?
Jesse Helms would not let most of Clinton's Judicial nominees out of Committee, but they call Democrats obstructionists, if they don't allow an up or down vote. Why is it that Republicans can obstruct Democratic nominees, but when Democrats object to the appointment of Right-wing nuts by Republicans we forget the Republican obstruction?
Bob Dole stood up boldly to Clinton and warned him that they would not approve of a liberal Justice nominee, like Mario Cuomo or Lawrence Tribe. Suddenly the rules have changed agin and Democrats who are demanding a moderate appointee have no right. It is the Presidents decision. Why does no one remember this?
Why are the rules different for Democrats and Republicans?
Why does the press never notice that the rules are changed?
Why do they simply repeat what the Republicans say as if it were fact?
Are they lazy, ignorant, or complicit? I suspect a little of all three.
More and more broadcasting "journalists" are really actors. They are hired for their presence and entertaining abilities, rather than their journalistic training and expertise. Media is also being taken over by conservative sources, who control the message.
We must keep fighting. We must resurrect a media that will question and insist on fair and equal standards. We must give our all to ensure that Ms. Friedan's legacy is not removed. Her legacy and that of all the women who have battled for women's rights are at risk. We, who are their heirs, must keep their torch held high and flaming brightly.