Edwards was chastised by NOW

[Toucano]

This is an old article, but since the new interest in Sen. Edwards has arose, I'd like to offer it for discussion. Yes, I'm turning up the heat, but it's good for you!

http://www.now.org/press/05-02/05-23.html

Judiciary Committee Vote Insults Women; NOW Vows Campaign in Full Senate

May 23, 2002

Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy

The field of credible Democrats running for President was significantly narrowed today when two rumored candidates insulted every employed woman, every woman in business, and every woman who has been a victim of violence in this country. In casting their votes to promote Judge D. Brooks Smith to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, only one step below the Supreme Court, rumored candidates Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., disregarded the extensive evidence of unethical behavior and discriminatory conduct that caused the Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times to oppose Smith's confirmation.

<snip>

Another Presidential wanna-be, Sen. Edwards, hid out in his office across the hall from the hearing, and didn't even have the courage to cast his "Yes" vote in public. Sen. Herbert Kohl, D-Wis., joined all of the committee Republicans, whose cowardly votes betrayed the women of their states by recommending elevation of a judge whose repeated "ethical lapses" deserve censure, not promotion.


The characterization may be a bit harsh, but so is the spotlight of the presidency. Will this hurt his chances with the women the Republicans fear will vote for him?

[funky_bug]

1. Well, let's see...

First Kerry says, "I don't support gay marriages" and now Edwards has the NOW chicks pissed off. I'd say that marginalizes things in the other candidates' favors somewhat.

Interesting article. I wish they had given more info on the guy that Edwards voted in. I would like to know what evidence they have that supports their distaste.

[Toucano]

2. Here's more information.

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/letter.html

In our opinion, Judge Smith's violation of the judicial code of conduct in remaining a member of a club that discriminates against women for eleven years, coupled with his open hostility to the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), renders him unfit to serve as a federal appellate judge.

http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/smith.html

In a suit brought by the federal government against the Ebensburg Center, a state-operated residential home for the developmentally disabled, Smith ruled in Aug. 1995 that the state was not obligated to improve the lives of the developmentally disabled, but only to provide a minimal level of care.

<snip>

In a 1993 speech to the Federalist Society's Pittsburgh chapter, Smith argued that the Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional because the issue of domestic violence lacked "substantial national consequences."

[HFishbine]

11. And more: Environmental Groups Opposed Him Too

Based upon the concerns detailed in Earthjustice's analysis, Judge Smith was the first of President George W. Bush's many federal judicial nominees to be opposed by national environmental groups, including: Earthjustice, Community Rights Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Natural Resources Defense Council, Scenic America, The Wilderness Society, Environmental Working Group, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and Endangered Species Coalition. This opposition was conveyed to the Committee before it voted and was reiterated in a June 20, 2002, letter to the Senate from Earthjustice and other national environmental, women's rights, civil rights, and disability rights groups opposed to Judge Smith's nomination.

http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/judicial/brooks.html
-----------

They ecnouraged the committee not to appoint a judge who does not show a commitment to protecting the rights of ordinary people and do not improperly elevate the interests of the powerful over those of individual citizens.

http://www.namiscc.org/Advocacy/2002/Summer/BrooksSmith.htm

-----------

I keep hearing about how Edwards stands up for the little guy. If you are unfortunate enough to nearly die after having most of your intestines sucked out of your body by a swimming pool drain and there's a chance for a mutli-million dollar jury award, then Edwards
is no doubt your guy. I don't see it in his legislative record though.

[Edwards4President]

3. I doubt it

John Edwards has a 100% voting scorecard rating from several women's and civil rights groups, including the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, a coalition of 180 civil rights organizations, including NOW, League of Women Voters, National Partnership for Women and Families, and the National Women's Political Caucus, among others. http://www.civilrights.org/research_center/voting_scorecards/108.pdf

NOW clearly didn't like his vote on this one judge (out of hundreds that were voted on). But like most women, they are not focused on one vote, and instead look at the big picture. And they obviously think very highly of John Edwards.

[TexasSissy]

4. He can't have a 100% voting record on anything. He didn't vote that often

[Edwards4President]

5. I provided the link, please look at it and you will see for yourself

He has gotten 100% from them every year since he became a Senator.

[HFishbine]

12. Checked your link

Edwards failed to vote on several key issues. Therefore, as your link shows, he has a 56% rating.

[Edwards4President]

14. Look again - Edwards received a score of 100%

LCCR provides two grades. The first, and most important shows how often members vote with the organization when present. The second grade factors in the times that they don't vote. They do it this way in order to avoid just the kind of sideswipes from people like you who want to distort these ratings to imply that certain members are bad on civil rights.

In his first five years in the Senate, Edwards has received 100% in both categories. This year, because of the campaign, he hasn't always been able to vote, so his score in the second category is lower.

But the bottom line is that LCCR has given John Edwards a score of 100%.

[HFishbine]

16. They gave him a 56%

Because he failed to vote on 8 out of 18 votes they considered crucial.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Melinda]

19. Everytime? LCCR had 18 issues - Edwards did not vote on 8 of them.

[Melinda]

13. That's not correct - the link you provide is for the 108th session only.

Additionally, look at the graph provided again - the pluses ( + ) and minuses ( - ) represent the actual votes while an "X" represents no vote. An X means Edwards did not vote on that particular issue or nominee. So while Edwards voted to support many LCCR issues, he did not vote 100% of the time on those issues; his overall vote record is only 56%.

[Edwards4President]

15. What part of 100% on the scorecard did you not see?

The first score given is 100%.

Not only that, but Edward has received scores of 100%/100% in each previous years.

[Melinda]

18. 100% of what? There were 18 votes - he missed 8 of them

[beaconess]

20. Take it up with LCCR - THEY rated him at 100%

If you think that they should have graded him differently, complain to them. As it stands, they gave him a score of 100%, regardless how you try to spin or deny it.

[Melinda]

21. LCCR didn't raise the issue on DU, the OP did. I'll respond here, thanks.

Can you point out the fallacies in my assertions? Here they are again:

The data provided is for the 108th Congress only. Edwards voted to support many LCCR issues, he did not vote 100% of the time on those issues; his overall vote record is only 56%.

Which part(s) is/are false? Which part(s) is/are "spin"?

[AP]

23. LCCR isn't going to punish a Dem they love over missed votes that didn't

make a difference in the outcome, which he missed because he's trying to be a president who'd look after their interests, and which he would have voted for had his vote been needed to make a difference.

Good single-issue liberal interest groups are NOT that stupid. They want good people to get elected and they understand how politics works.

[newyawker99]

8. Hi Edwards4President!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Edwards4President]

9. Hi!

[AP]

6. This judge was from Pittsburgh. The papers were already putting the heat

on Democratic Senators whom they knew had a vote. PA is going to be a swing state, and the last thing you need is the papers in the second biggest city in the state riding you hard over a vote on a judge who was going to get voted in anyway.

And NOW's problem with this judge was that he didn't resign from an men-only hunting club soon enough (or something like that).

Google this story and the pieces fall together.

I'm sure NOW could be convinced that peculiar situation with PA being a swing state, and Republican papers fighting for this guy, and Edwards wanting to run for president so that Republicans could no longer appoint judges like this jug will trump this single vote.

[beaconess]

7. It's not unusual for these groups to pressure Senators to always vote

their way and to beat up on them when they don't. But that doesn't mean that they don't support the Senators or think that they are insensitive to their interests.

For example, after NOW was so hard on John Edwards for the Smith vote, they and several other women's groups heavily lobbied Daschle to disregard seniority rules to keep him on the Judiciary Committee when he was supposed to lose his seat after the 2002 elections.

Hard to imagine them begging to keep Edwards on the Committee (causing Maria Cantwell to lose her seat) if they didn't think he was strong on their issues.

[chimpymustgo]

10. Thanks for smacking this one down, AP.

As always - facts and critical analysis to the rescue!

[AP]

22. For emphasis, I googeld D. Brooks Smith and found a newspaper editorial

dated before there was a vote, criticizing Edwards for a likely no vote. The Pittsburgh papers in the ediotorial section had already set up the argument to criticize no voters as being in the sway of liberal special interest groups (and remember, their argument was over his membership in a club which he ultimately gave up, just not fast enough).

Voters in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia might chose our next president and this judge wasn't worth throwing away PA's electoral votes.

I should have bookmarked my post with all the links from last summer. It's in the archives. Search for pastiche Edwards D. Brooks Smith and you'll find it.