I would rather have no AG than one appointed by this President!
2
Lover of lawlessness?
Well this president was elected by a majority of the citizen voters -- not once, but twice. Sorry you aren't happy with him, but that's how our government works.
3
EVERY member of congress AGREES that Loretta Lynch is an incredible asset to our justice system.
She is the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She oversees all federal criminal and civil investigations and cases in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. Ms. Lynch has expanded the office’s leading national security practice into the area of cyber security, and has also made community outreach a priority.
She prosecuted mob figures, drug cartel leaders, financial scofflaws.
No member of congress can find ANYTHING wrong with her.
But you JACBEC summed up the Republican stance. "If Obama touched it..EWWWW...I don't want anything to do with her!!" This is beyond embarrassing.
She is the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. She oversees all federal criminal and civil investigations and cases in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island. Ms. Lynch has expanded the office’s leading national security practice into the area of cyber security, and has also made community outreach a priority.
She prosecuted mob figures, drug cartel leaders, financial scofflaws.
No member of congress can find ANYTHING wrong with her.
But you JACBEC summed up the Republican stance. "If Obama touched it..EWWWW...I don't want anything to do with her!!" This is beyond embarrassing.
3
Thank goodness Reid is leaving. At least this congress is trying to get something done. The sooner he is gone the more that will get done.
2
This article does not make clear if the "Community Health Centers" funding which allows abortions for sex trafficking victims to be paid for if the pregnancy is caused by rape, requires the rape to be "legitimate" or "reported" by the victim of sex trafficking, Nor was there any indication whether Community Health Centers funding would be increased to assist those victims without taking funding from its programs which benefit other users. And who pays for the abortions needed for sex trafficking victims when their pregnancies are caused by incest or necessary to save their lives (as in the case of child victims too young to give birth safely)?
The sad focus by the GOP on using this denial of funds to pay for any abortions as a means to punish those women who are victims of sex trafficking without the resources to pay for their own abortion even if their pregnancy is caused by incest or rape and necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman is an inexcusable misuse of power. It is time to repeal the "Hyde amendment".
The sad focus by the GOP on using this denial of funds to pay for any abortions as a means to punish those women who are victims of sex trafficking without the resources to pay for their own abortion even if their pregnancy is caused by incest or rape and necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman is an inexcusable misuse of power. It is time to repeal the "Hyde amendment".
1
Here is that target list of Senators who could use extra prodding to get rid of lynch:
Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dean Heller (R-NV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
If mcconnell let's lynch in and America has to bear 2 more years of holder's INjustice department, especially if amnesty gets approved, he should be forced to resign.
lynch is unwilling to say or agrees that obama lacks the authority to REFUSE to enforce: immigration laws, with his perceived unlimited executive powers, lynch openly justifies obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty, and is against voter ID laws, and lynch shares the same disdain for the Constitution and Bill of Rights as obama.
Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Susan Collins (R-ME), Dean Heller (R-NV), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
If mcconnell let's lynch in and America has to bear 2 more years of holder's INjustice department, especially if amnesty gets approved, he should be forced to resign.
lynch is unwilling to say or agrees that obama lacks the authority to REFUSE to enforce: immigration laws, with his perceived unlimited executive powers, lynch openly justifies obama's unconstitutional executive amnesty, and is against voter ID laws, and lynch shares the same disdain for the Constitution and Bill of Rights as obama.
1
I agree. I for one am fed up with the lies and lack of accountability within office. It's amazing how so many are simply OK with accepting lies. They don't realize it's on par with being told you're an idiot and are willing to believe them. Hiding evidence, cover ups, no accountability, enacting laws that violate the constitution, actually stating the constitution needs to be changed to give more control to government, fricking amazing how people can be swayed so easily to give up freedoms
This entire situation, in which the Republicans hold up the vote on an unrelated matter (the confirmation of the Attorney General nominee) simply in a maneuver to get a vote they want on a human trafficking bill, sounds like something that spatting six-year-olds would do. What, the Senate cannot multitask? A vote for Ms. Lynch could have been over in less than a half day.
1
How long did Democrats delay a vote on the Keystone Pipeline? Everybody does it when it suits their purpose. And everybody feigns indignation when it suits their purpose. SOP.
False equivalency. Many bills on topics like Keystone are held up. No nominee for AG has ever been held up this long -- ever.
Senator Vitter has raised disturbing questions about Loretta Lynch and the HSBC megabank case. We await Ms. Lynch's response.
1
If you must obscure the content of your articles, at least give us a heads up that you plan to do it every time.
Loretta Lynch deserves to be voted down as does any nominee who has, in testimony, declared there unwillingness to enforce the oath they will take. As a bonus the miscreant who nominated her and the person she would succeed, and support her, have both done the same thing so the dye is pretty well cast.
Loretta Lynch deserves to be voted down as does any nominee who has, in testimony, declared there unwillingness to enforce the oath they will take. As a bonus the miscreant who nominated her and the person she would succeed, and support her, have both done the same thing so the dye is pretty well cast.
3
Next election, big signs with a Republican candidate's white, smiling, Christian face, above the large - print word, WOMAN-HATER.
3
Re " an unrelated bill that entangled Ms. Lynch’s nomination" You make it sound as if the bill were at fault. The Republicans were at fault, the dispute had nothing to do with the bill and God only knows what the Repub's motivation was: by not confirming Ms. Lynch, they were stuck with Mr. Holder, who they deplore.
Once again, the Dems cave. Who cares if Loretta Lynch's confirmation is held up? Obama's original choice for Attorney General, Eric Holder, is still on the job. The Republicans were the ones looking foolish, not the Dems. But now, we see elected officials willingly throw away the rights of raped women and taxpayer money is not even involved! It is mind-blowing. The Dems couldn't have waited the GOP out? Really? Was Eric Holder going to evaporate like a soap bubble if they did?
1
Ever since the Mann Act, the federal crusade against human trafficking has been something of a tempest in a teapot. Most laws are designed to criminalize the transportation of minors across state lines for prostitution purposes. The small number of cases prosecuted suggests that this just doesn't happen all that much. But claiming to crack down on this scourge is a sure winner for politicians. There have been a good number of anti-trafficking laws passed in recent years. Apparently, Congress is planning to pass more laws than there are victims.
Lynch is even worse than Holder.
Why rush to confirm the nation's #1 law enforcer when she approves of Obama's amnesty for illegals and advocates for late term abortions?
Why rush to confirm the nation's #1 law enforcer when she approves of Obama's amnesty for illegals and advocates for late term abortions?
2
Lynch's position on abortions is the law of the land in the U.S.
What is it about LAW that you people can't understand?
What is it about LAW that you people can't understand?
The delay on this important vote is indicative of the Republican parties inability to lead. The same party that held the nations debt hostage and cause the cost of borrowing to go up, because they said, they didn't want overspending. Well now we are overspending on interest (to their pals) and that means it will take longer to pay down the debt.
2
The inmates are running the asylum. Why does the appointment of an Attorney General have to wait for a vote on an unrelated bill? Where is the Christian compassion in forcing a kidnapped minor who is a rape victim carry and deliver the rapists child? The Christian logic of the Senate is that abortion is wrong in all cases, but kidnapping and rape get a pass if they result in pregnancy. even the devil is saying "That's some messed up logic!"
Since these men cannot experience pregnancy and birth, we should at least allow them the experience of rape. Make these male Senators spend some time in prison in the general population. Then they can appreciate the nuances of non voluntary procreation. Men have no right legislating on anything that is strictly a female issue.
Since these men cannot experience pregnancy and birth, we should at least allow them the experience of rape. Make these male Senators spend some time in prison in the general population. Then they can appreciate the nuances of non voluntary procreation. Men have no right legislating on anything that is strictly a female issue.
2
This further proof of the fiasco that is McConnell's "leadership," which in this case his own caucus should be upset over,since he's delayed the replacement of someone they despise as much as they do Holder with the highly qualified Lynch.
2
What manner of outrageous obstruction and willful negligence of responsibility will it take to finally convince the low info, class confused voters of red states to stop sending these reckless ideologues to Washington?
3
Some comments here suggest that Loretta Lynch should not be confirmed as Attorney General because the Office of the U.S. Attorney (EDNY), which she currently heads, has applied federal law authorizing the forfeiture of property which is the apparent result of criminal activity.
Ms. Lynch did not enact that federal law -- Congress did. It is the job of all U.S. Attorneys to uphold and enforce federal laws, including that one. The authority to determine whether a federal law is constitutional rests with the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuit (appellate) and district (trial) courts. The power to change the law rests with Congress. Neither of those functions are assigned to the Attorney General or the Department of Justice, never mind individual U.S. Attorneys. If you question the constitutionality of a federal law, fine -- challenge it in court, or lobby Congress to amend or repeal it. Don't try to blame an individual U.S. Attorney for it, though.
The comments also ignore the purpose this law serves. When federal law enforcement agents arrest suspected criminals smuggling large quantities of heroin, cocaine, undeclared cash, or military weapons into or out of the U.S., the suspects may be released on bail pending trial, but they should not be free to take the drugs, cash or weapons with them, or the airplanes or boats they were smuggling them in, either. No federal law is above criticism -- but do we really want suspected criminals free to keep such things?
Ms. Lynch did not enact that federal law -- Congress did. It is the job of all U.S. Attorneys to uphold and enforce federal laws, including that one. The authority to determine whether a federal law is constitutional rests with the U.S. Supreme Court and the federal circuit (appellate) and district (trial) courts. The power to change the law rests with Congress. Neither of those functions are assigned to the Attorney General or the Department of Justice, never mind individual U.S. Attorneys. If you question the constitutionality of a federal law, fine -- challenge it in court, or lobby Congress to amend or repeal it. Don't try to blame an individual U.S. Attorney for it, though.
The comments also ignore the purpose this law serves. When federal law enforcement agents arrest suspected criminals smuggling large quantities of heroin, cocaine, undeclared cash, or military weapons into or out of the U.S., the suspects may be released on bail pending trial, but they should not be free to take the drugs, cash or weapons with them, or the airplanes or boats they were smuggling them in, either. No federal law is above criticism -- but do we really want suspected criminals free to keep such things?
3
Those laws are to be interpreted and then implemented based on that interpretation. Some laws tread on the constitution. There has been more laws proposed by Dems in recent years that do exactly that and nothing but complaints and disagreements from those that wish to change the very fabric of this nation. Courts have shot down a few and others were never considered much at all. Point being us that the attorney General has the power to wield that sword of justice which mostly rests on her opinions and interpretation of law. You learn in law school how to sway opinion in interpreting law as much as you learn the words written within them.
History will note that the USA decline was hastened by a dysfunctional government that cared more for 18th century rujles and precedent than the concerns of the day. Our decline is baked in the cake.
2
There is one thing you can count on with the Republicans on Capitol Hill. Regardless of the situation, they will always overplay their hand.
6
The US Congress has moved beyond just being a pathetic embarrassment to the American people. It has become a theater of the absurd, so awful as to be grotesque to watch. Even reading about it is nauseating. I wonder if our Republic can be saved, or is it circling the drain?
6
Loretta Lynch has two major issues.
1. her apparent use and advocacy of civil forfeiture during her tenure as a US attorney.
Civil forfeiture is when the gov't or law enforcement seizes assets from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, often with the most minimal evidence, or with fabricated evidence. The burden is then on the victim, who must prove themselves innocent. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.
2. As far as the right to work in this country, Lynch demonstrated that she can't tell the difference between an American citizen and an illegal immigrant.
I'm a liberal Democrat, voted twice for President Obama, and enthusiastically helped put Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. But I'm appalled with Loretta Lynch on both these counts. She needs to be rejected in my opinion.
1. her apparent use and advocacy of civil forfeiture during her tenure as a US attorney.
Civil forfeiture is when the gov't or law enforcement seizes assets from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, often with the most minimal evidence, or with fabricated evidence. The burden is then on the victim, who must prove themselves innocent. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.
2. As far as the right to work in this country, Lynch demonstrated that she can't tell the difference between an American citizen and an illegal immigrant.
I'm a liberal Democrat, voted twice for President Obama, and enthusiastically helped put Elizabeth Warren in the Senate. But I'm appalled with Loretta Lynch on both these counts. She needs to be rejected in my opinion.
4
Just checked out several far right websites. Your content is almost word for word what they are publishing, emailing and tweeting. There are so many comments on this site that use literally the same words, it's obvious the machine has been busy today.
Another bad nominee coming from this president. He complains constantly of lengthy delays in confirmation process but he should realize the quality of his candidates requires extensive backround checks. Put forth a qualified nominee and the process would be expedited.
1
The votes are there to confirm her. Which means the Senate has decided she is most certainly qualified.
And even the GOP have said,repeatedly, we are not saying she's not qualified -- we're holding this up because of the trafficing bill.
And even the GOP have said,repeatedly, we are not saying she's not qualified -- we're holding this up because of the trafficing bill.
Why doesn't some brave billionaire step up and say: "Pregnant due to rape; I'll pay for the abortion. First class airfare round trip included." Since the right wingers refuse to recognize reality, we need people with money and liberal views to step up and help these ladies out.
3
Better yet pay to help put the morning after pill in women's medicine cabinets so they stand a better chance of not having to have an abortion.
1
Democrats should not have compromised. AG is doing his job and continued obstruction of the Republicans to hold a vote on Ms. Lynch should have been kept on display for as long as it would taken Mitch McConnell to yield. Shame on McConnell.
8
We havn't had an attorney general for 165 days, who knew? And really, who cares? The Democrats should have just stuck their guns and demanded a straight up or down vote because what was the down side, Republican embarrassment?
4
Did I read this article correctly that the Medicare reform bill has limitations on abortion in it? How many 65 year old women are in need of an abortion?
6
No. It goes beyond that scope in the bill. Also it appears some folks believe abortion is not funded for sex traffickers and that is incorrect. It simply comes from a pot of money that is specific to that. No one cares it's the non-health related pot - it still can be used. The other pot has been around for a long time with an abortion restriction- that restriction remains - it's been in place before the idea of this legislation was born
3
Dear person, Medicare not only covers people over 65. It also covers people with certain disabilities who may very well be under 65. It may be helpful to keep in mind that people with disabilities may be exploited, including sexually exploited.
5
If you have a qualified disability, you can get it when you're younger.
2
Old men in GOP should unloose the ovaries of others and stop their Mad Men era.
6
This is a clear example of the Republican's failure to lead. There idea of compromise is the other side caves into all their demands. Now let us here them start their attack on this nominee.
7
I hope all those people who sat on their hands during the mid-terms and didn't bother to vote are enjoying the absolute farce that Republicans have turned Congress into. If you thought it couldn't get worse when they didn't have a majority, you were wrong. This is the dark side of democracy, the fact that so many people don't pay attention or care, and are easily misled and manipulated through fear and other means. Unfortunately, there is no better alternative.
11
There are alternatives -- one being mandatory voting, which I believe is what they have in Australia. This reduces the effect of money on politics, which in turn is a big factor behind Washingtonian disfunction..
Unfortunately the pigs at the trough in Washington are unlikely to vote to stop their feed..
Unfortunately the pigs at the trough in Washington are unlikely to vote to stop their feed..
The actions of certain GOP Representatives and Senators is nothing short of extortion. The abortion amendment has not business being in this bill, especially denying a woman an abortion as a result of sex trafficking.
8
Pretty simple straight forward politics. Unfortunately, it took the Dems way to long realize they are not in control anyone. Anyhow it's done now.
8
It seems to me that many commenters here are misunderstanding the bill as described. Many are also blinded by their own pro-life-is-anti-woman or pro-life-is-religious-fanaticism rhetoric from appreciating the genuine moral concerns of their pro-life opponents, however misguided those concerns might be. If you don't pay attention to what the other side cares about, you won't understand this bill.
Just judging from the content of this article, here's my take: abortion opponents deny that abortion is a genuine health care service, so they have triumphed on that point by prohibiting funds designated for "health care services" from being used for abortions. They also make an argument based on conscience, that pro-life taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions. (Even if there are good counterarguments, I think liberals should have a healthy respect for the demands of individual conscience.) This compromise solves that dilemma also: taxpayer funds will not fund abortions; instead only penalties collected from criminal offenders will do so. But those funds WILL be available for that purpose. Isn't that the main pro-choice concern? So this seems to me to be an elegant compromise. Bravo!
Just judging from the content of this article, here's my take: abortion opponents deny that abortion is a genuine health care service, so they have triumphed on that point by prohibiting funds designated for "health care services" from being used for abortions. They also make an argument based on conscience, that pro-life taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions. (Even if there are good counterarguments, I think liberals should have a healthy respect for the demands of individual conscience.) This compromise solves that dilemma also: taxpayer funds will not fund abortions; instead only penalties collected from criminal offenders will do so. But those funds WILL be available for that purpose. Isn't that the main pro-choice concern? So this seems to me to be an elegant compromise. Bravo!
4
"One pool of money, collected from criminal offenders, will be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury and used for non-health care services, which will not be subject to abortion restrictions. Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions."
I don't know about you but this sentence reminds me of the old show Greenacres in which double speak was the joke. The General Fund money will not be used for health care related services but won't have abortion limitations. But since abortion is a health related service this means its not covered by this money, right. And the money in the health care related fund will have abortion restrictions so abortion won't be covered there either. Am I missing something here? or is being a woman just become the final frontier of bigotry in this country.
I don't know about you but this sentence reminds me of the old show Greenacres in which double speak was the joke. The General Fund money will not be used for health care related services but won't have abortion limitations. But since abortion is a health related service this means its not covered by this money, right. And the money in the health care related fund will have abortion restrictions so abortion won't be covered there either. Am I missing something here? or is being a woman just become the final frontier of bigotry in this country.
1
I think the Hyde Amendment has an exception for cases of Rape and incest, and most people think the rape exception would apply to trafficked sex workers.
1
Regardless of your interpretation of the bill, the Republicans have asserted their "moral right" to tie Lynch's confirmation to getting their way. This is not governing. The Republicans have made a complete mockery of the governing process.
2
The dispute over this bill--with Senate Democrats not having read the bill carefully--was only the latest example that Democrats will never be able to compete with McConnell's maneuvering unless they spend less time in front of tv cameras and more time minding the details.
4
Legislators responsible for restricting use of federal funds for or from abortions will brag about government's restricting rights of individual women and imposing on physicians and families. These legislators cannot be considered conservatives for they are operating socialists. Voters, libertarian or not, who do not care for heavy-handed government's deciding personal matters for individuals who deserve liberty to decide for themselves, may remember the bragging come elections.
3
Is it just coincidental that the latest opinion poll released today about GOP control of both houses of Congress indicates that nearly 70% of those polled think the Republicans are doing a bad job? Could that have had an impact on the logjam coming apart? Of course they claim they are acting on principle but the Hyde amendment has been in effect for decades so there was never any question about federal money being used for abortion. McConnell just wanted to show what his control would look like.
3
Obvious point of fact: There was no roadblock to Lynch's confirmation other than the GOP's continuing desire to be the poster child for obstructionism and failed governance. Let no one pretend otherwise.
8
You can bet if men got pregnant there would be no amendments at all on this bill.
6
The NYTimes needs to dig deeper in this story. Last week, Senator Harry Reid said he had a way to force McConnell to bring the Lynch vote up for a vote. How did he do it? Mums the word from McConnell.
3
Democrats and ostensibly,the President,have decided to lean toward common sense and practicality.Standing on zero tolerance for compromise is unethical,unproductive,undemocratic and asinine.My suspicion is that democrats are utilizing a tactical withdrawal today,to reengage when more favorable democratic senatorial conditions and the election of Hillary Clinton will provide.We'll be back...
4
We're working on making Mitch McConnell a one term Senate majority leader. So far it's been going along very well.
4
The GOP has vilified the current AG, Eric Holder, during his entire tenure.
He tenders his resignation and a fully qualified replacement is nominated.
The GOP then puts the stall on that nomination, because criminal fines from sex traffickers will be put in a fund, no part of which the GOP wants used for abortion services.
I get the connection, don't you?
The GOP is out of ideas, out of touch and hopefully out of the majority after 2016.
He tenders his resignation and a fully qualified replacement is nominated.
The GOP then puts the stall on that nomination, because criminal fines from sex traffickers will be put in a fund, no part of which the GOP wants used for abortion services.
I get the connection, don't you?
The GOP is out of ideas, out of touch and hopefully out of the majority after 2016.
17
Are you really too dense to understand what was really holding up Lynch's confirmation? Did you listen to the hearings where Lynch said over and over again (with a pained look on her face) that she thought Obama's immigration bill was legal. It is a giant over-reach, but because he was the one who nominated her, she HAD to say she thought it was legal.
6
When the Dems get their chance, and I hope we do, remember the garbage the Republicans have put the country through....and Dems, for shame on you for giving into the wealthy white GOP who want to further punish women who have had the most horrible of experiences. We have an attorney general that the Republicans hate, we should have waited this out and talked it up.
11
Ms. Lynch believes marijuana is a valid schedule 1 drug, meaning that the penalties are as great as heroin and that marijuana has no medicinal value. She plans to enforce every letter of the laws making me a criminal. I have a script in CT. She wants to jail me.
If I'm not dancing today, it's not the cancer. President Obama wrote once and asked if I 'still had his back'. My sister did a song and dance about money once which cost me 10 grand and I haven't seen her since. Very similar situation, call me a cynic, but it feels similar.
If I'm not dancing today, it's not the cancer. President Obama wrote once and asked if I 'still had his back'. My sister did a song and dance about money once which cost me 10 grand and I haven't seen her since. Very similar situation, call me a cynic, but it feels similar.
6
The old adage says the perfect is the enemy of the good, and I can see that the hyper-partisan whining has already begun. People complain about gridlock, and then they complain about compromises to end gridlock
It will be nice to see Ms. Lynch finally be able to take office, and hopefully the new trafficking bill will be as effective as its sponsors hope.
It will be nice to see Ms. Lynch finally be able to take office, and hopefully the new trafficking bill will be as effective as its sponsors hope.
18
I imagine if you were a survivor of sex trafficking you would not see it as "whining" or the compromise as "nice."
1
So sex trafficking victims are forced to bear the fruit of violation, being reminded every day of their exploitation? And will these abortion haters support the child and the mother later on? What a hope! Unborn children way more important than the living.
Beyond disgusting!
Beyond disgusting!
21
Abortion is still funded. What is the problem? Wanna bet $ there's enough to cover the needed abortions from trafficking? I just hope the victims leverage the other care as well for themselves
1
It is very creepy and very telling that every opportunity the Republicans get they dive into women's ovaries. Every peice of legislation they "pass" attempts to take away a women's right to choose. Yet, these collosal hypocrites then defund Head Start and any and all programs that help women and children. Forcing a victim of repeated rapes to carry the fetus to term of the unknown rapist is beyond SICK. As to Loretta Lynch? They have no shame. Democrats, your spinelessness is beyond - and will not be forgotten 2016.
23
So if in 2016 you will not forget the spinelessness of Democrats, what do you plan to do, vote for Republicans that promise to abrogate womens rights?
1
Democrats blocked Ronald Reagan's nomination of Samuel A. Alito as attorney general longer than the Republicans have held up Loretta Lynch's nomination.
4
William Case - The usual playground taunt "the other guy did it to." Isn't it time to grow up?
1
When Republicans go about spending all this time fighting for all of these provisions to exclude the use of federal money for abortions, do they spend any time considering using federal funds for, say, adoption processes? Or single mothers' support? Why should a woman trafficked from some other country - possibly as a sex slave - who happens to get pregnant, say, as a result of sexual violence, be forced to raise a child (likely one from an abuser) or pay for the abortion simply because an anti-science, misogynistic ideological minority of this country insists that "all life is sacred." When do our politicians stop kowtowing to this vocal, non-responsible minority and start ensuring that "personal responsibility" for imposing unwanted children on society is actually paid for by our society?
24
It took them this long to split the proceeds? Any minimally competent lawyer could have told them you can reach a deal by splitting the difference. If the American people were this inefficient in doing our jobs, the U.S. would be on a par with Haiti.
7
If you don' t like your attorney general then you can replace your attorney general but bring votes.
2
Are members of the Senate actually getting paid for these groundbreaking achievements???
10
"Are members of the Senate actually getting paid for these groundbreaking achievements???"
Yes, but that's minimal compared to the amounts from lobbyists. Wonder why one man, one vote, zero voice?
Yes, but that's minimal compared to the amounts from lobbyists. Wonder why one man, one vote, zero voice?
1
Tying a confirmation hearing to an irrelevant bill is just the kind of stunt we have grown sick of from the GOP. Their treatment of the admirable Ms. Lynch was an embarrassment to them, as much as they wish they could embarrass the Obama administration through their petty actions. Even though I despise this juvenile nonsense, it also makes me ashamed that we have elected such non-statesmen and women.
21
We did not - at least, the people to the left of far right who voted did not elect them. Unfortunately, too many people in the center and to the left sat on their hands while a motivated (and bought and paid for) right wing was scared senseless into showing up. With this understanding that 2014 was a minority victory, perhaps the rest of the country will wake up and show up in 2016 and put these reactionaries out of our misery.
As the righties like to say, "Elections have consequences." The majority of moderate-to-liberal mainstream Americans not showing up to vote has yielded these consequences. As a friend overseas says, "Youre country has everything but you're just blowing it away." It hurts to agree with him, bit I do.
As the righties like to say, "Elections have consequences." The majority of moderate-to-liberal mainstream Americans not showing up to vote has yielded these consequences. As a friend overseas says, "Youre country has everything but you're just blowing it away." It hurts to agree with him, bit I do.
I am interested in learning how they rules of "marking the money" works. I think congress should mandate that every Dlr. collected into the victims fund is marked with a black felt pen and inspected by a yet to be created agency "for proper allocation of funds". In turn congress should then hold yearly hearings to provide the appropriate oversight. During that hearing they are also encouraged to remind us of the wasteful ways of government. And perhaps they can withdraw the funding for that agency if they provide funds for abortion.
2
As a Republican - although I have an ideal that prevents personal acceptance of taking an unborn life I feel it is a choice and should be supported as such. However when I read the comments below I cannot conclude that the Dems are any better in that regard. There are so many ideals that absolutely defy reason from both sides and hence this is where we are today - everyone here seems to not understand "compromise" - especially when it comes to "taking money," or "preventing a right or activity that is important to people" Of course my comments will get spun into something they are most certainly not. But just remember that what may NOT work for you may still be very important to others and conversely - fundamentally this is at root of the inability for congress to act. Reason and facts have given way to absoluteism and control and politics. For instance, more than two times as many children die from accidental drownings than from firearms annually and yet the Dems spend more than half a billion annually on anti-gun agendas when they could collaborate with Reps and combine those two war chests and save more kids with spending that money to address senseless deaths from both drownings and firearms with training and enforcement of existing laws. Politicians today are obsessed with rewriting law as opposed to working within society to enforce the ones we have. Very frustrating from my perspective
3
How do you compromise being prgnant...either are or aren't. How does one compromise control over one's body...either you do or don't. For some issues, there is no compromise.
4
I agree with you lulu. Again my point is that they Reps are holding a hard line because the current administration has held such a line on issues that they could have compromised on. I agree - this is clearly a binary situation and one that should result in the victim taking full control and be funded to do so. But don't expect this to change until someone takes the HIGH ROAD once and for all and begins the true process of collaboration with compassion and understanding. Honestly - do you really think their goal is to hurt victims or their counterparts across the aisle? Republicans as a whole have supported abortions for victims since before I was born. Exceptions have been the extremists with vindictiveness - which exists on both sides. Maturity and accountability has been lost in government for a very long time now
1
Tell me again why these people are in office? Wasn't it because they were supposed to serve us, we the governed, we the people who pay their salaries? Or does the GOP feel that it's only little people who have to do the jobs they are paid to do?
14
We the people that keep on electing and re-electing these insensitive minions
that have only one thought in their pin brains "benefits for the !% that's financing their political campaigns"
that have only one thought in their pin brains "benefits for the !% that's financing their political campaigns"
1
This should be characterized as a deal on limiting women's right to choice, rather than as a deal on sex-trafficking.
21
So, one line in one section, that the Democrats didn't even bother to read before voting it out of committee, should define the bill rather than the rest of the language? Interesting set of priorities there.
2
Perhaps the Senate can now answer the question: is Ms. Lynch appropriate for the job.
A major issue is her apparent use and advocacy of civil forfeiture during here tenure as a US attorney.
In civil forfeiture, the government seizes assets from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, often with only minimal evidence of wrongdoing. The burden is then on the victim, who must prove themselves innocent. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.
Many, both liberal and conservative alike, have major concerns with civil forfeiture as it has been used in recent years. This is one of the few issues the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times agree on.
Ms. Lynch must be judged on her merits as a candidate. And she must be closely questioned for her opinions on civil forfeiture, and her record needs to be closely scrutinized.
She may well not be suitable for the powerful and important job of Attorney General of the United States.
A major issue is her apparent use and advocacy of civil forfeiture during here tenure as a US attorney.
In civil forfeiture, the government seizes assets from citizens who have not been convicted of a crime, often with only minimal evidence of wrongdoing. The burden is then on the victim, who must prove themselves innocent. This is not the way our system is supposed to work.
Many, both liberal and conservative alike, have major concerns with civil forfeiture as it has been used in recent years. This is one of the few issues the pages of the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the New York Times agree on.
Ms. Lynch must be judged on her merits as a candidate. And she must be closely questioned for her opinions on civil forfeiture, and her record needs to be closely scrutinized.
She may well not be suitable for the powerful and important job of Attorney General of the United States.
19
Ms. Lynch has passed the Senate Judiciary committee with flying colors. The time for inquisition is now over. I fervently hope that no one will be so petty as to judge her based on decisions on one isolated law for which she now has no forum to respond. Her actions on civil forfeiture have never been questioned, and in any case an attack based on this narrow basis is certainly not in keeping with the quality of debate Americans hope to see over confirmation in the Senate.
11
It's a nice thought, but you should realize that the judiciary committee has already vetted Ms. Lynch. This bill has effectively cleared the way for a vote on her appointment by the full Senate, and the time for questioning her record in advance of that vote has actually passed.
7
How dare you ask about the woman's actual qualifications for the position she was put forward for almost a half-year ago?
Next thing you know you'll be telling us it's the height of stupidity for the Senate majority leader to hold up the process of putting questions like yours to the nominee for the sake of a trumped-up ideological 'controversy' about the sex-trafficking bill....
Next thing you know you'll be telling us it's the height of stupidity for the Senate majority leader to hold up the process of putting questions like yours to the nominee for the sake of a trumped-up ideological 'controversy' about the sex-trafficking bill....
2
Well, I hope that " ensure victims of human trafficking receive the resources they need to restore their lives" includes lifetime support for the children of women sold into sex slavery, since it is apparently now the law of the land that those "resources" don't include the cost of an abortion (which having been in slavery, there is no way they could pay for it themselves).
20
The fact that there is a father, grandfather, mother, grandmother, sister, friend who is in our congress who would prohibit the victim of a sex crime to obtain funding (victim compensation) to get an abortion is abhorrent! It is an utter disgrace that this would hold up this legislation for so long. I hope the right wing nuts who have children or grandchildren never get experience that pain and grief. Obviously they have sold themselves out to the highest bidder long ago and have no moral sense when it came to time support this bill! Nothing more than absolutely discussing offensive political theatrics that should offend everyone; LEFT OR RIGHT!
25
Like that GOP Rep from Tennessee, abortion is fine and dandy only when a GOP politician is pressuring a paramour to have one.
12
This ridiculous Republican maneuvering over the much-needed sex trafficking bill--by refusing government funding for the poor victims of sex trafficking, and linking the presidential appointment of Loretta Lynch for Attorney General to a bill about sex trafficking--once again demonstrates the Republicans don't care about governing or about anyone who is not rich.
Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will likely go down in history as two of the most subversive and worst congressional leaders this country has ever seen.
Who elected this Republican majority in the House and Senate in 2014? The people who went to the polls to vote did, which was about 36% of the electorate, with the Republicans getting 52% of the vote.
There is a generation gap. According to reports, middle-aged (45-64) and older (65+) voters (who voted 54% for Romney in 2012) voted 67% Republican in 2014. Younger people (18-29 & 30-44), (who did vote for Obama 60% in 2012) were not as likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election, and when they did, voted 55-52% Democrat.
If the Republicans can keep up the disgust with governing game they play so well, can manage to dampen voter turnout in 2016 (count the ways), and younger people don't vote, then the GOP just might win the House, Senate, and presidency. Imagine what that would bring with it.
So if you don't like the way the Republicans govern, please make sure to vote in 2016, especially those under age 45.
Mitch McConnell and John Boehner will likely go down in history as two of the most subversive and worst congressional leaders this country has ever seen.
Who elected this Republican majority in the House and Senate in 2014? The people who went to the polls to vote did, which was about 36% of the electorate, with the Republicans getting 52% of the vote.
There is a generation gap. According to reports, middle-aged (45-64) and older (65+) voters (who voted 54% for Romney in 2012) voted 67% Republican in 2014. Younger people (18-29 & 30-44), (who did vote for Obama 60% in 2012) were not as likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election, and when they did, voted 55-52% Democrat.
If the Republicans can keep up the disgust with governing game they play so well, can manage to dampen voter turnout in 2016 (count the ways), and younger people don't vote, then the GOP just might win the House, Senate, and presidency. Imagine what that would bring with it.
So if you don't like the way the Republicans govern, please make sure to vote in 2016, especially those under age 45.
36
Some deal! What should have been an unconditional nomination of a worthy candidate instead moves into the realm of Politics as usual. While confirmation of Loretta Lynch, a very capable, intelligent, highly successful Federal Prosecutor with a stellar a resumé that is unmatched is tied to a bill to prevent trafficking ( feel good bi-partisan agreement), there is a total disconnect. Both should be independent of the other. An overview of this agreement might seem very innocuous. But the devil is in the details. When the fine print shows a sneaky clause about abortion you begin to see the deviousness. This coming together as John Cornyn put it just a manipulation by the Republican to move their agenda, one sneaky clause at a time. If I was a Democratic Senator I would rather trust a snake.
8
I think employing the word "agree" to anything that happens in Congress is disingenuous. Maybe the headline should be changed. Some suggested verbs to replace "agree" follow:
Republican Roadblock to Loretta Lynch vote falls after Democrats compromise (give in, cave in, capitulate, weaken, come around) on funding for sex trafficking bill.
Republican Roadblock to Loretta Lynch vote falls after Democrats compromise (give in, cave in, capitulate, weaken, come around) on funding for sex trafficking bill.
6
Don't get me wrong: I object to most Republican policy, especially to their far-right, anti-science/pro-bible nonsense. But this mistaken idea, on both the left and right, that compromise equals capitulation is doing us all in. On the contrary, compromise is a necessary ingredient in any (functioning) democracy.
6
Sure compromise is fine if it isn't your uterus that is carrying a fetus after being raped as a sex trafficed victim.
1
Denying victims of multiple rapes, often very young victims, access to abortion is adding cruelty to what they have already suffered. Sen. Cornyn and the others are ruthless people and are compounding the harm done to these people.
And, of course, it had zero to do with the confirmation of a highly qualified attorney general.
The irony of linking a severe limitation on the rights of raped women and girls when it is a historic African American woman who is the candidate shows how clueless Republicans have become.
Yes, there is a Republican war on women. This is one more exhibit.
And, of course, it had zero to do with the confirmation of a highly qualified attorney general.
The irony of linking a severe limitation on the rights of raped women and girls when it is a historic African American woman who is the candidate shows how clueless Republicans have become.
Yes, there is a Republican war on women. This is one more exhibit.
23
Are the Republican Senators sure there aren't any other issues out there that they would like to hold up the confirmation vote for AG Lynch for?
7
It was the Democrats who were holding up the trafficking bill over language that was passed out of committee with no problem. Either they didn't bother to read it until the end or they were looking for a chance for greater publicity.
2
Talking about small government! This is going to create more bureaucracy and more confusion. Is shrinking the budget for the victims of trafficking by half, a compromise?
Is the new bureaucracy to administer these funds, going to be taken from for one half of the fines?
What happens if they don't catch any of these traffickers? Where is the money going to come from? This sounds to me like a scam.
Is the new bureaucracy to administer these funds, going to be taken from for one half of the fines?
What happens if they don't catch any of these traffickers? Where is the money going to come from? This sounds to me like a scam.
2
Such a ridiculous holdup and even more ridiculous "solution." We have reached the point in this country where nothing gets passed on a bill's larger merits, because there's always some little thorn in the side injected by either party (but, let's be honest: usually Republicans) to gum up the works.
I think there should be a moratorium on riders that have nothing to do whatsoever with a bill's content, but are designed to needle the opposite party, trap the President into a no-win situation, or hold up a nomination that embarrasses a nominee or the President. Such actions are totally petty and a key reason for the now longstanding permanent state of gridlock that is making the US into the laughing stock of the world.
Nobody can count on the US any more to act like adults. To the world, we've lost our collective minds and it's leading to the marked and rapid decline of what was formerly the grandest experiment in a new form of government called democracy.
How dare we try to export our form of government to other lands or lecture people on human rights when we can't even get our own house in order?
I think there should be a moratorium on riders that have nothing to do whatsoever with a bill's content, but are designed to needle the opposite party, trap the President into a no-win situation, or hold up a nomination that embarrasses a nominee or the President. Such actions are totally petty and a key reason for the now longstanding permanent state of gridlock that is making the US into the laughing stock of the world.
Nobody can count on the US any more to act like adults. To the world, we've lost our collective minds and it's leading to the marked and rapid decline of what was formerly the grandest experiment in a new form of government called democracy.
How dare we try to export our form of government to other lands or lecture people on human rights when we can't even get our own house in order?
16
How many times must one write off the process? You would replace it with what, pr[e]y tell?
1
Is it my imagination, or did we just make it through still another Republican hostage crisis? And we were all it.
19
Welcome to the 2016 presidential campaign season. This entire standoff has been political posturing from the beginning.
It began when Durbin and Schumer claimed they didn't know the Hyde Amendment was in the bill. They actually used the Nancy Pelosi - Obamacare defense: "We didn't read it so we didn't know what was in it." The bill was available for them and their staffers to read (and brief them on) for over a month. Reid had spoken glowingly about supporting the bill.
And why could democrats suddenly not live with the Hyde Amendment, which is attached to all public funding. It became the end of women's rights as we know them. Claiming it could lead to a "dramatic expansion of abortion restrictions in future years" was pure political posturing.
Are we now going to see these grandstanding positions taken by democrats on every bill that is remotely tied to abortion funding?
It began when Durbin and Schumer claimed they didn't know the Hyde Amendment was in the bill. They actually used the Nancy Pelosi - Obamacare defense: "We didn't read it so we didn't know what was in it." The bill was available for them and their staffers to read (and brief them on) for over a month. Reid had spoken glowingly about supporting the bill.
And why could democrats suddenly not live with the Hyde Amendment, which is attached to all public funding. It became the end of women's rights as we know them. Claiming it could lead to a "dramatic expansion of abortion restrictions in future years" was pure political posturing.
Are we now going to see these grandstanding positions taken by democrats on every bill that is remotely tied to abortion funding?
6
The Hyde Amendment applies to all public funds. This bill was to be funded by fines on the offenders. A small distinction to you, perhaps, but a slope the democrats did not want to start going down.
They compromised by allowing the bill to be funded by public funds as well as the offenders fines.
This is a sex trafficking bill. Shouldn't victims of sex trafficking be allowed to spend the money on abortions to rid themselves of children conceived during sex trafficking?
They compromised by allowing the bill to be funded by public funds as well as the offenders fines.
This is a sex trafficking bill. Shouldn't victims of sex trafficking be allowed to spend the money on abortions to rid themselves of children conceived during sex trafficking?
3
And why, again, did that amendment end up in a human trafficking bill in the first place?
6
Did you ever stop to ask yourself why the issue of abortion funding was attached to this bill in the first place?
3
Likely this was political posturing by GOP to slow or halt Ms. Lynch's nomination. But maybe there is some substance to the GOP's stance? Maybe they are hoping to have full confidence in the new AG's commitment to pursuing people/entities on behalf of the people?
I find it a little strange that AG Holder has not brought a single Big Bank/officer into court...does everyone really accept the idea that the crash was pure negligence by banks? I believe Elizabeth Warren still questions this assumption. And even if it was negligence, how did the bank officers receive BONUSES after the bailout, courtesy of taxpayer dollars? (I don't know about you, but if I don't perform at work, I DON'T get a BONUS!)
According to the National Journal and Rand Paul's testimony as a hearing witness (under oath, Not as Senator), there are several big question marks about Ms. Lynch - she supports civil forfeiture, which "...basically allows police officers to seize assets—including cash, cars, and houses—from practically anyone they suspect of committing a crime, or are even tangentially related." and "Back in November, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Eastern District of New York—which Lynch oversees as U.S. attorney—took in more than $113 million in civil assets between 2011 and 2013."
see http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-loretta-lynch-civil-as...
Is this political posturing? certainly! But maybe some substance too...
I find it a little strange that AG Holder has not brought a single Big Bank/officer into court...does everyone really accept the idea that the crash was pure negligence by banks? I believe Elizabeth Warren still questions this assumption. And even if it was negligence, how did the bank officers receive BONUSES after the bailout, courtesy of taxpayer dollars? (I don't know about you, but if I don't perform at work, I DON'T get a BONUS!)
According to the National Journal and Rand Paul's testimony as a hearing witness (under oath, Not as Senator), there are several big question marks about Ms. Lynch - she supports civil forfeiture, which "...basically allows police officers to seize assets—including cash, cars, and houses—from practically anyone they suspect of committing a crime, or are even tangentially related." and "Back in November, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Eastern District of New York—which Lynch oversees as U.S. attorney—took in more than $113 million in civil assets between 2011 and 2013."
see http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/rand-paul-loretta-lynch-civil-as...
Is this political posturing? certainly! But maybe some substance too...
6
Most democrats are livid that banks have not been prosecuted but will line up like loyal soldiers to fight for the next AG regardless of whether she'll do anything any different from her predecessor. Battling the GOP takes priority.
5
I was aware of the confirmation delay but not of the trafficking bill. How are these even related? I remember a civics lessons where I learnt that the most 'consequential' things can be tacked on to other bills so they pass together. I suppose this is it.
Also what is the percentatge split between the two funds?
"One pool of money, collected from criminal offenders, will be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury and used for non-health care services, which will not be subject to abortion restrictions". CAN BE USED
"Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions". CANNOT BE USED
Also what is the percentatge split between the two funds?
"One pool of money, collected from criminal offenders, will be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury and used for non-health care services, which will not be subject to abortion restrictions". CAN BE USED
"Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions". CANNOT BE USED
2
Whatever happened to the first amendment ? We are not supposed to allow religious misogyny, homophobia , and bigotry to pollute governmental affairs.
The GOP has sold its integrity and common sense down the river to the religious maniacs. Those of us who do not believe in this twisted , erroneous, and hateful interpretation of the teachings of Christ should not have to countenance this bigotry and hatred being served up as a poison pill on each bill proposed by politicians who abdicate their oath to uphold the Constitution in order to chase down the votes of the Elmer Gantry type lunatics.
It is clear , from the beheadings, shootings, and mass murders perpetrated by the Jihadists whom claim sole possession of a mythical deity alleged to condone the mayhem spreading throughout the Middle East and portions of Africa.
Theocracy has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with a form of political power that is contrary to all that is dear to the Land of the Free.
Religious beliefs are personal and range from being perfectly benign to becoming weapons in the hands of unscrupulous politicians. Most of the women hating, the alternative life style hating ,and the racial bigotry in America is bruited from the pulpits of every religion that claims to be the true religion. In short, every religion becomes a fountain of hatred for those who not conform.
Religion: the greatest scam of all time an responsible for the majority of death and destruction in all of history.
The GOP has sold its integrity and common sense down the river to the religious maniacs. Those of us who do not believe in this twisted , erroneous, and hateful interpretation of the teachings of Christ should not have to countenance this bigotry and hatred being served up as a poison pill on each bill proposed by politicians who abdicate their oath to uphold the Constitution in order to chase down the votes of the Elmer Gantry type lunatics.
It is clear , from the beheadings, shootings, and mass murders perpetrated by the Jihadists whom claim sole possession of a mythical deity alleged to condone the mayhem spreading throughout the Middle East and portions of Africa.
Theocracy has nothing to do with religion and has everything to do with a form of political power that is contrary to all that is dear to the Land of the Free.
Religious beliefs are personal and range from being perfectly benign to becoming weapons in the hands of unscrupulous politicians. Most of the women hating, the alternative life style hating ,and the racial bigotry in America is bruited from the pulpits of every religion that claims to be the true religion. In short, every religion becomes a fountain of hatred for those who not conform.
Religion: the greatest scam of all time an responsible for the majority of death and destruction in all of history.
21
Doesn't that seem a little harsh, judgmental and bigoted? Looking at the tone and balance of many of these comments I wonder how those who are secular in their outlook can possibly believe they as a group are more tolerant and reasonable than the religious.
1
Not at all. Believe what you wish , but do not shove it in my face with red state statutes and republican nonsense treating women like brood sows , LBGT people like convicted criminals, and atheists as if they were alien beings.
Religious intolerance constitutes hatred and bigotry. If you disagree , take a look at the Middle East where the lunatics all believe in the same deity , yet kill and maim each other and those whom they consider heretics by the most vile and murderous methods possible.
If you believe the fundamentalists and the Catholic religion are bastions of tolerance and the unconditional acceptance of ALL other humans as prescribed in the teachings of Christ , then I suggest that you have been blinded by the very principles that you pretend to deplore. If you want harsh, judgmental , and bigoted , just step into any so called Christian Church in America to satisfy your needs. Each of these churches will insist that they alone, preach the truth, and urge its parishioners to shun those who disagree or do not believe in the impossibility of the supernatural oversight that the snake oil phonies push from their pulpits.
No sir, there is no tolerance to be found in the religions of today and I ask only to be protected by the tenets of our very first amendment. You know, the one that prohibits the use of religious claptrap in governmental administration ,yet allows all to cherish their own beliefs without beating the rest of us over the head. That sir , is tolerance.
Religious intolerance constitutes hatred and bigotry. If you disagree , take a look at the Middle East where the lunatics all believe in the same deity , yet kill and maim each other and those whom they consider heretics by the most vile and murderous methods possible.
If you believe the fundamentalists and the Catholic religion are bastions of tolerance and the unconditional acceptance of ALL other humans as prescribed in the teachings of Christ , then I suggest that you have been blinded by the very principles that you pretend to deplore. If you want harsh, judgmental , and bigoted , just step into any so called Christian Church in America to satisfy your needs. Each of these churches will insist that they alone, preach the truth, and urge its parishioners to shun those who disagree or do not believe in the impossibility of the supernatural oversight that the snake oil phonies push from their pulpits.
No sir, there is no tolerance to be found in the religions of today and I ask only to be protected by the tenets of our very first amendment. You know, the one that prohibits the use of religious claptrap in governmental administration ,yet allows all to cherish their own beliefs without beating the rest of us over the head. That sir , is tolerance.
1
I cannot fathom the reasoning that denies a woman victimized due to sex trafficking, victimized again by Congress by denying access to abortion. Through no fault of theirs this Congress is denying humanity to these women.
18
Ah sex trafficking. That sounds so much better than what we're actually talking about, rape. These senators would deny abortion rights to victims of rape. I sincerely hope that every political opponent of these monsters repeats that over and over again in every single campaign and election that follows.
34
As I read the bill the bottom line is it provides no funds for abortions. The Republicans won the Senate in the mid-term elections and as the President has said repeatedly elections have consequences. The nomination of Loretta Lynch can now go forward. Bipartisanship in the Republican Congress is sprouting like the leaves in Springtime with the bill on Iran issued from committee with a unanimous vote, passage of the Medicare bill and now resolution of these two issues.
5
What a joke. The republicans are purely obstructionists who will only allow through bipartisan legislation when the political climate will make them look terrible if they don't. Please explain - why there should have been a delay for Lynch for months? Answer: there is none, other than republican obstructionism.
17
In reply to Voice: There is an answer and it has been in every article and news show. The Republicans and Democrats had been sparring prior to the bi-partisan atmosphere now prevailing i.e. bill on Iran, Medicare, Loretta Lynch nomination, trade bill agreement between President Obama and some Senate Democrats. Previously, when Senator Reid had majority (prior to January 1) he didn't bring her nomination before Senate and after January 1 when Republicans took control they tied it to bill on trafficking being blocked by Democrats. Now, with the bi-partisan agreements they both look good. Previously both parties looked petty.
Let's just make sure that we spend no money on abortion, which would really be helpful to those poor women who have been trafficked and now find themselves pregnant. Let's make sure we give all that extra cash to the military who can use it to kill grown up people. After all, that what god would have wanted.
102
Farce! Kabuki theater! ZERO relation between trafficking and AG nominee. The Senate is a disgrace to the nation in this and many, many other regards.
43
Has anyone noticed that every bill that Republcians have sent ot he senate for passage, has some amendment to punish women and take away their rights?
The so called 'doc fix', that helps doctors and seniors at the expense of
women and and women's rights. This sex trafficking bil taht is supposed to help women, punishes women and takes away the rights of women also.
Democrats are just stupid to go along with the Republcians war on women. They also should have said they were not going to vote on any other bill,
until Loretta Lynch came up for a vote. I wish they would grow a spine.
The so called 'doc fix', that helps doctors and seniors at the expense of
women and and women's rights. This sex trafficking bil taht is supposed to help women, punishes women and takes away the rights of women also.
Democrats are just stupid to go along with the Republcians war on women. They also should have said they were not going to vote on any other bill,
until Loretta Lynch came up for a vote. I wish they would grow a spine.
61
Yes, I've noticed just how obsessed Republicans are with women's bodies and fetuses. I've also noticed how little they care about women's health and educating and feeding those fetuses once they are born. Women do not vote for these old white men. They mean you no good.
4
It's hard to discern if your last sentence was a command or a declarative. If the latter, you could not be more wrong, If the former, well, it's pretty clear that there are many women who vote Republican and, of those, many who would be very much in favor of the anti-abortion part of the sex trafficking bill.
I don't think I'm being sexist when I say that, while many men cannot relate to women's reproductive rights and will restrict them without compunction; this is also true of many women who would assert, for example, that if they were impregnated by a rapist they would carry the baby to term. It remains to be seen, of course, whether that assertion would hold up in the event they ever needed to choose.
I don't think I'm being sexist when I say that, while many men cannot relate to women's reproductive rights and will restrict them without compunction; this is also true of many women who would assert, for example, that if they were impregnated by a rapist they would carry the baby to term. It remains to be seen, of course, whether that assertion would hold up in the event they ever needed to choose.
1
The Republicans in the Senate could not be less concerned about female victims of sex-trafficking. These women were mere pawns in the stall-game to embarrass President Obama and his nominee for the post of Attorney General, Loretta Lynch. Anyone who can't see through this smokescreen hasn't been paying attention. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell threw a spoke in the wheel of governance (he promised Republicans could govern) simply to force Ms. Lynch to wait...and wait...and wait while the sands run out of President Obama's hour glass. Sen. McConnell is demonstrating his power. He took his toy and went home until he got his way. Governing, Republican style.
27
Who elected these people to serve in Congress? Oh, wait. We did. We should all be so embarrassed.
20
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for them.
Especially those of you who voted for an inept, community organizer with NO credentials for the 44th President. Embarrassed and ashamed.
2
How can you not include abortion in a provision that's meant to support women who have been forced to have sex? Any man with an ounce of empathy knows that for a woman with a forced pregnancy every bout of morning sickness, every look in the mirror, every increasingly heavy footstep is a reminder of night spent not in love and passion, but terror. It is inhuman to force someone to relive a trauma like that so vividly for nine straight months. That's not a pregnancy - that's a sentence.
106
Some call it inhumane, some call it the GOP. In truth, just synonyms.
Yes ladies, don't forget the GOP priorities - War in Iran at any cost, and controlling your bodies; not necessarily in that order.
Yes ladies, don't forget the GOP priorities - War in Iran at any cost, and controlling your bodies; not necessarily in that order.
18
"That's not a pregnancy - that's a sentence."
Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking. We have become a cruel country on so many levels it makes me want to scream.
Thank you, that's exactly what I was thinking. We have become a cruel country on so many levels it makes me want to scream.
How many women and children fell victim to sex trafficking while Republicans in Congress dithered over whether the victims could fund their own abortions?
35
Or while Democrats stalled the bill because of their opposition to the Hype amendment being applied?
1
How about the illogic of the far right, the ones who support the nutty late Dr. Willke, who said that women do not become pregnant as a result of rape. If that were true, then why do they worry about any abortions as regards women who are being trafficked (and raped) because none of them should ever get pregnant anyway, so even if money were available for abortions, none would ever be spent.
They can't even keep their own (convoluted) logic straight.
They can't even keep their own (convoluted) logic straight.
27
Who said slavery ended 150 years ago? Women still don't have rights to their own bodies and are held captive by Congress.
50
This was the typically recklessly ignorant immature and intemperate action and inaction and reaction of the clucking, quacking and gobbling men and women who posture, prance and preen pretending to be governing as one branch of a divided limited powered democratic republic.
We have a U.S. Congress filled with the likes of Dopey, Grumpy, Sleepy, Lion, Tin Man, Scarecrow, Caligula and Nero.
We have a U.S. Congress filled with the likes of Dopey, Grumpy, Sleepy, Lion, Tin Man, Scarecrow, Caligula and Nero.
16
"Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said he would not schedule a vote on Ms. Lynch’s nomination until the Senate passed the trafficking bill."....Of course, because the issues of human trafficking and the nomination for Attorney General are so obviously deeply intertwined. Please. Even a third grader knows if you can't separate those kind of issues the government can't function. Where is the adult in the room? Where is the third grader?
27
When the GOP stalls, its gridlock.
When the Democrats stall, it's great!
When the Democrats stall, it's great!
11
When both stall it is great. We have more than enough government.
3
When the GOP stalls it's due to stupidity and an utter hatred of women. If someone who has been trafficked for sex needs an abortion only a moronic Republican would want to nitpick where the money came from to help the girl.
46
Look to the cause of the blocking, not the party. And it would help if you didn't jerk your knee so quickly.
9
Aw shucks. I thought we could have Holder till the end of Obama's second term and then get Lynch for 8 years under Hillary.
6
Surprise, surprise, verbiage over abortion delayed passage of the victims' bill. Can't GOP legislators prioritize aiding born persons through crises over grandstanding about fetuses?!
37
Surprise, surprise, with their thousands of legislative aides, the Senate can't read the bill until the last minute, and then have to grandstand over abortion rights.
4
Great! Loretta Lynch's confirmation cannot come soon enough. With a torrent of police brutality incidents needing investigation, the Justice Department must have an Attorney General for the rest of President Obama's term. Congressional Republicans, it's time to decide: vote "yes," for a qualified person to fill a critical post, or "no" to take yet another swipe at Obama.
13
Eric Holder is still AG, so what's the rush, except that he is having to wait to start his new higher paying job.
3
"As a compromise, the fund to assist victims will now essentially be split in two. One pool of money, collected from criminal offenders, will be deposited into the General Fund of the Treasury and used for non-health care services, which will not be subject to abortion restrictions.
Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions."
Am I reading this correctly? The compromise that the Democrats agreed to is that now part of the money victims get can't be used for abortions, and the other part can't be used for any medical purpose at all? Isn't that like the Republicans tossing a coin and saying, "Heads I win, Tails you lose?
Other money would come from that already appropriated by Congress for Community Health Centers. It would be available for health care and medical services and would be subject to longstanding laws restricting the use of federal funds for abortions."
Am I reading this correctly? The compromise that the Democrats agreed to is that now part of the money victims get can't be used for abortions, and the other part can't be used for any medical purpose at all? Isn't that like the Republicans tossing a coin and saying, "Heads I win, Tails you lose?
98
"Elections have consequences" - Barack H. Obama
5
Too bad the congress critters who voted for this were not as perceptive as you are.
Just judging from the content of this article, my take would be that abortion opponents do not regard abortion as a health care service, so they have triumphed by prohibiting funds designated for health care services from being used for abortions. There is also an argument based on conscience, that pro-life taxpayers should not be forced to pay for abortions. This compromise solves that dilemma also: taxpayer funds will not fund abortions; instead only penalties collected from criminal offenders will do so. But those funds WILL be available for that purpose. So this seems to me to be an elegant compromise. Bravo!
1
odd and unclear so called compromise/resolution to this abortion funding issue. They split the funds in half: one half is for healthcare which will prohibit abortion funding; the other half is not for healthcare but abortion funding is not prohibited. How does this compromise allow any abortion funding for these victims of trafficking? Abortion is in fact a medical procedure- so if the funding portion that isn't for healthcare is the only funding that doesn't prohibit abortion- then the net of it is there is no funding for abortion.
The article doesn't point this out nor does it explain how this is a compromise instead of total capitulation by the Dems- once again. The GOP got their way once again at the expense of these poor women.
The article doesn't point this out nor does it explain how this is a compromise instead of total capitulation by the Dems- once again. The GOP got their way once again at the expense of these poor women.
35
The victims will be entitled to healthcare at federally funded community health centers, which will not provide abortions. The other money will be in the form of cash grants to the victims; if they want to spend the money on abortions, that will be their choice.
This was capitulation on the part of the GOP. What they wanted was a guarantee that the funds given to the victims wouldn't be used for abortions, and that any abortions would be funded by liberals making donations to charitable organizations. As usual, liberals do not want to pay for their policy priorities, so the victims will have to pay for their own abortions out of funds intended for living expenses.
This was capitulation on the part of the GOP. What they wanted was a guarantee that the funds given to the victims wouldn't be used for abortions, and that any abortions would be funded by liberals making donations to charitable organizations. As usual, liberals do not want to pay for their policy priorities, so the victims will have to pay for their own abortions out of funds intended for living expenses.
2
It was my understanding that the other money coming from the fines on offenders could not be used for health care.
That is the catch-22.
The Public funding can be used for health issues, but not abortions.
The fines are not to be used for health issues.
That is the catch-22.
The Public funding can be used for health issues, but not abortions.
The fines are not to be used for health issues.
We are to celebrate that after months f obfuscation and delays they finally came to a cowardly middle ground?
I would imagine that women who have bee trafficked have already had plenty of personal choice denied by men. That more men who happen to trade in politics would deny her her choice to terminate a pregnancy conceived by being trafficked is no moral coup. It is more of the same, a stance to uphold, a constituency too serve, and no commission for the actual victim.
I would imagine that women who have bee trafficked have already had plenty of personal choice denied by men. That more men who happen to trade in politics would deny her her choice to terminate a pregnancy conceived by being trafficked is no moral coup. It is more of the same, a stance to uphold, a constituency too serve, and no commission for the actual victim.
112
sorry for the typo - "compassion" not "commission" darn autocorrect
7
OK, so it seems that most of the folks here would have strongly preferred that Democrats not give on this matter. In short, the folks here want to be "obstructionist" to the majority party.
Maybe NYT readers are not so upset that Republicans stick to their positions after all. Maybe it is all misdirected anger towards Democrats who they wish would stick to their positions more often.
Maybe NYT readers are not so upset that Republicans stick to their positions after all. Maybe it is all misdirected anger towards Democrats who they wish would stick to their positions more often.
4
Do we WANT Loretta Lynch as our top law enforcement agent?
Didn't she just let the American division of HSBC off with a fine when they admitted to laundering $800 million for the Sinaloa drug cartel, for years, through it's US banks?
God help us if with whistleblower evidence we can't get the DOJ to file criminal charges.
You can help.
https://www.change.org/p/doj-file-criminal-charges-of-fraud-against-bank...
Didn't she just let the American division of HSBC off with a fine when they admitted to laundering $800 million for the Sinaloa drug cartel, for years, through it's US banks?
God help us if with whistleblower evidence we can't get the DOJ to file criminal charges.
You can help.
https://www.change.org/p/doj-file-criminal-charges-of-fraud-against-bank...
9
mallory middletown
Do we WANT Loretta Lynch as our top law enforcement agent?
***
Someone's actually thinking about her beyond her race, gender and how the GOP can be blamed for her hold up?
She'll likely be mediocre just as Holder was. Remember, it was he who couldn't figure out how to go after the bankers. He admitted it. Not a very bright man.
Do we WANT Loretta Lynch as our top law enforcement agent?
***
Someone's actually thinking about her beyond her race, gender and how the GOP can be blamed for her hold up?
She'll likely be mediocre just as Holder was. Remember, it was he who couldn't figure out how to go after the bankers. He admitted it. Not a very bright man.
It would help put this spat into perspective if we knew the dollar amounts in question. C'mon NYT, help the campaign to cure innumeracy by insisting on numbers of dollars whenever these arguments break out!
Meantime I'm left suspecting that the sums in this case are small, and that the procedure to ratify the next attorney general is part of the larger, never-nding campaign led by the Senate majority leader over the past six years to foil and frustrate any and every initiative by a Black president. McConnell, and many like him, simply cannot stand the idea of following a black man anywhere, no matter that Obama was elected twice by clear majorities. Shameful behavior.
Meantime I'm left suspecting that the sums in this case are small, and that the procedure to ratify the next attorney general is part of the larger, never-nding campaign led by the Senate majority leader over the past six years to foil and frustrate any and every initiative by a Black president. McConnell, and many like him, simply cannot stand the idea of following a black man anywhere, no matter that Obama was elected twice by clear majorities. Shameful behavior.
14
The funny part in all this is by delaying the vote for Ms Lynch, Eric Holder, who the GOP hates, remains AG. The GOP is quite fond of cutting off their own nose to spite their face.
14
What is the cost to the GOP? Lynch is going to continue Holder's policies. Between the two, it's six of one, a half dozen of the other.
i hate to say it and it came maddening slow, but they got together and they cut a deal. two cheers.
1
Remember sex slaves of the world,....your old, white, Bible-thumping United States Senator knows what's best for you and your uterus.
169
Am I the only one who sees the irony in this bill? The act which is most likely to result in unwanted pregnancy, sex trafficking, is used as a platform to voice anti-abortion sentiments! There are three hot-button issues for the Republican base, abortion, Obamacare, and immigration reform, and anything that can be added to any bill to feed in the form of legislation against any of these will be inserted.
31
Only five Republicans willing to vote to confirm Lynch? Pathetic. Never before was it considered a disqualifying factor merely for an Attorney General to hold the same views as the president who nominated him or her. And one must assume that her nomination may never have gone to the floor of the Senate for a vote, were it not for Republicans' desire to see the despised Eric Holder gone.
31
Never before has an AG nominee stated that people have a right to break the law.
1
ebmem:
The Obama Administration's Justice Department is more "lawless and orderless" than law and order. The way it has instructed INS, for example, to stop enforcing immigration laws is staggering. Hard to recall when illegal aliens were stopped and let go without detention -- on the orders of the president.
The Obama Administration's Justice Department is more "lawless and orderless" than law and order. The way it has instructed INS, for example, to stop enforcing immigration laws is staggering. Hard to recall when illegal aliens were stopped and let go without detention -- on the orders of the president.
President Obama is right when he characterized the Republican led Senate as dysfunctional on its substantial delays on the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general. The fact that the nomination of Loretta Lynch to the position “has waited longer than any other cabinet secretary nominee in the past three administrations” confirms that the Republican led Senate dysfunctional.
The dysfunctional Republican led Senate should be Lynched !!! Figuratively speaking, of course !!!
The dysfunctional Republican led Senate should be Lynched !!! Figuratively speaking, of course !!!
63
Lynch was nominated on November 8, 2014, after Reid knew that he had control of the Senate only until 12/31/2014. Why didn't he put her up for a vote during November or December?
Perhaps his exercise accident was karma.
Perhaps his exercise accident was karma.
1
Technically, I think the proper word choice is 'seditious.'
I think everyone is happy that Ms. Lynch is continuing her strong performance as US Attorney for the Southern district of New York, so she is 'on ice' while the Senators have their fight about the trafficking bill. Of course, the Republicans can't wait to see Attorney General Holder leave the Dept. of Justice; it is ironic that they are fighting as hard as they can to keep someone they hate in office.
1
So, McConnell will trumpet this as a victory for the GOP's leadership in the Senate because the Democrats are willing to compromise and vote where the Republicans would not budge a millimeter.
All the GOP has going for it (and this is no secret to them) is that Democrats actually care about governing and won't obstruct it "at any cost". The GOP are the other way around. There is nothing so trivial that they would not jettison the entire country to obstruct it- including downgrading our credit rating, thus increasing the cost of debt servicing, to "cut the deficit".
All the GOP has going for it (and this is no secret to them) is that Democrats actually care about governing and won't obstruct it "at any cost". The GOP are the other way around. There is nothing so trivial that they would not jettison the entire country to obstruct it- including downgrading our credit rating, thus increasing the cost of debt servicing, to "cut the deficit".
162
The modern GOP has been trying to destroy the U.S. Government for years.
Fascists have no use for justice-just money and power.
Fascists have no use for justice-just money and power.
1
Clearly, it's very important to keep money that might have been spent on abortions safe and in reserve for the time when we will want to bomb Iran.
73
There are many issues with this protracted vote for AG Lynch.
The secretive method used by the Republicans and the late discovery by the Democrats is of great concern. The delay and the hostage holding by Sean. McConnell was egregious.
165 days is too long ..."Justice delayed is justice denied."
The secretive method used by the Republicans and the late discovery by the Democrats is of great concern. The delay and the hostage holding by Sean. McConnell was egregious.
165 days is too long ..."Justice delayed is justice denied."
92
Absolutely no blame to democrats for withholding help for the sex trafficking victims. Nice.
1
No blame attaches to Reid for failing to put her up for a vote in November and December of 2014?
So let's say you hold up a bill for sex trafficking victims because in it, there's also a provision that allows for [insert something that you feel is as wrong as the sex trafficking]. Does that make you a horrible person? I don't think it's so clear cut.
Why the sudden interest in sex trafficking victims by senate democrats? Congratulations but what took them so long?
3
Republican "John" Senator David Vitter R. LA is the reigning U.S. Senate expert on the many virtues of sex trafficking.
And how many wives and mistresses have/had Republican Reagan, McCain, Limbaugh, Giuliani, Gingrich, Trump, Hume, Beck, Rove, Ensign, Sanford, Adelman, O'Reilly etc.?
And how many wives and mistresses have/had Republican Reagan, McCain, Limbaugh, Giuliani, Gingrich, Trump, Hume, Beck, Rove, Ensign, Sanford, Adelman, O'Reilly etc.?
3
The sudden interest was really about democrats finding a way to grandstand on abortion in anticipation of the upcoming elections. Lynch's race and gender were bonuses.
We can probably expect any bill that remotely touches on abortion funding to be fodder for democrats' grandstanding.
We can probably expect any bill that remotely touches on abortion funding to be fodder for democrats' grandstanding.
1
Congress continues to embarrass itself with unfettered impunity. We can't stop drugs, we can't stop illegals from Mexico, but we're going to give sex trafficking the old college try, as in "stop" it. Oh well, beats a filibuster anyday. At least it has the faux appearence of Congress actually doing something. After all, sex trafficking has only been going on for some 5,000 years, but our Brave New Congress seems to have a solution. We elected these people, for better or worse. Looking like worse.
119
What's your point? Yes, plenty of legislation that tackles large issues doesn't work, but does that mean no ambitious legislation should be attempted?
And the leadership of the Democratic party bemoans the fact they cannot get their base to the polls. Here is a good example of why.
8
BARNEY FRANKS WAS RIGHT! Barney Franks's famous quip that the Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth is proven irrefutably by the priorities set by McConnell and the right-wing extremists who dare to call themselves "conservatives" and members of the party of Lincoln. The fact that they have so long delayed the appointment of Loretta Lynch is further proof of their showcasing disrespect for the Office of the President of the United States and the person of the first Black President, Barack Obama. Further, they prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that their legislative priorities have nothing to do with governance and everything to do with acting out their grudges and sabotaging the USA wherever possible. History will treat this group of extremists whom I believe resemble a Fifth Column seated in the hallowed halls of Congress. They even have a reincarnation of the late Joseph Mc Carthy in the person of Ted Cruz. Their political tricks make Richard Nixon look like a total amateur. Too bad there will be no Watergate tapes of their nefarious plans. McConnell's proclamation that it was his job to see that Obama was a one-term president was arguably tantamount to treason. He also wants the coal industry to come back to Kentucky. As we all know, global climate change, along with all of science, is rejected by him and his band of Luddites and troglodytes. History will view them as a prime example of enemies of the State and the Constitution.
204
"They even have a reincarnation of the late Joseph Mc Carthy in the person of Ted Cruz."
I'm glad I'm not alone thinking this! The resemblance is uncanny. Every time I see "Cruz" I think "McCarthy"... Ted Cruz-McCarthy.
I'm glad I'm not alone thinking this! The resemblance is uncanny. Every time I see "Cruz" I think "McCarthy"... Ted Cruz-McCarthy.
4
Eric Holder remains AG until his replacement is confirmed. It's hard to see much damage to the President or the country for the delay in Lynch's confirmation, which Harry Reid held up for two months since it was soooo urgent and important to the Democrats.
Correction. Eric Holder remains AG until his replacement is confirmed. It's easy to see much damage to the President or the country for the delay in Lynch's confirmation, which Mitch McConnell held up for two months since it was soooo urgent and important to the Republicans.
4
The Republicans once again subvert the Constitution by inserting their judiciary theology (banning abortion) into the legislative branch of government while simultaneously disrupting the executive branch by delaying and obstructing cabinet appointments.
Nothing spells sedition like the Republican Party playbook.
Nothing spells sedition like the Republican Party playbook.
301
The Democrats once again gum up the legislative works by inserting a controversy about their only sacrament, abortion.
Correction. The Republicans once again gum up the legislative works by inserting a controversy about their only sacrament, abortion.
9
There definitely needs to be a law to punish sex traffickers. Okay. Now a pimp/slaver impregnates some of his product. Mitch McConnell and John Boehner should have to address the female victim personally, face-to-face and say, "we advocate for smaller government, but we're sorry to say that you must have this baby borne of rape, by law". Republicans think there are few places government belongs, and inside my bedroom and inside a woman's body are two of those.
168
Wrong. Abortions are not denied to any woman. Any group that wants to pay for one can get one for any woman.
4
@clarity007 Tucson, AZ - please explain why is it wrong to use the criminal fines put into a victims' fund to pay for abortions. This is money from the criminals who forced these women into sexual slavery. It's not taxpayer money.
16
his product??
really?
She is a human being with a name and a face.
really?
She is a human being with a name and a face.
This is what we get when we vote Republican. Or stay home on election day and let the looney birds have the election booths all to themselves.
135
I'd rather be disappointed with democrats not delivering on their promises than endure Republicans delivering on theirs!
5
This only happened because people started protesting loudly against the Republican machinations around the Loretta Lynch confirmation, and Mitch McConnell was exposed. He doesn't give a hoot about sex trafficking, only about obstructing the President. He was willing to dangerously hold up the operation of a vital security arm of government, just the way his party members are fine about independently negotiating with the Ayatollah and shutting down the government, anything to deny credit for anything to Barack Obama.
This could have happened months ago.
This could have happened months ago.
88
If revenge is a dish best eaten cold, what is spite?
2
We won't see who the Democrats threw under the bus till later.
2
This is about GOP obstruction, nothing else!
6
Women and girls, that's who.
2
"After weeks of difficult negotiations"? Seems to me that there were no negotiations, just obstruction, confirming the overwhelming racism and misogyny of the GOP.
123
Did I read this right? Victims of sexual trafficking and abuse are denied funds for abortion????????????????????????????????????????????????????
This country has it's priorities backwards....I am ashamed of the small mindedness of Congress.
This country has it's priorities backwards....I am ashamed of the small mindedness of Congress.
248
So the Democrats caved, again.
26
How so?
1
Question: What does Loretta Lynch's confirmation have to do with Sex Trafficking?
Answer: Nothing.
This disgusting affair shows how far our representative democracy has fallen... how much we have lost our way.
it is literally unfathomable that our Congress has difficulty simply bringing a vote on an Attorney General or passing a bill against Sex Trafficking!
And yet these same useless blowhards think they deserve to have a say in the Iranian Nuclear Talks?
Answer: Nothing.
This disgusting affair shows how far our representative democracy has fallen... how much we have lost our way.
it is literally unfathomable that our Congress has difficulty simply bringing a vote on an Attorney General or passing a bill against Sex Trafficking!
And yet these same useless blowhards think they deserve to have a say in the Iranian Nuclear Talks?
329
Agree. Those Democrats who have until now resisted helping the victims of sex trafficking should be ostracized.
2
Why didn't the Democrat controlled Senate bring her up for confirmation during November and December 2014?
Was it really necessary to tie up both the Sex Trafficing bill and the Loretta E. Lynch confirmation for this stupendously stupid deal? What a joke on the American people.
112
The Hyde amendment language typically has an exception that allows funds to be used to pay for abortions for rape victims. Wouldn't women who have become pregnant as a result of sex trafficking typically be rape victims? Isn't a trafficked woman someone who is essentially imprisoned by her trafficker in order to be forced to have sex against her will, and isn't that the definition of rape?
I understand that the Hyde language is being extended to private funds for the first time, and that's a bad precedent, but a) why would traffickers be paying for abortions that are unrelated to the trafficking in the first place and b) if the funds are being used for abortions needed as a result of the trafficking, isn't the rape exception available so the funds could be used to pay for abortions?
I understand that the Hyde language is being extended to private funds for the first time, and that's a bad precedent, but a) why would traffickers be paying for abortions that are unrelated to the trafficking in the first place and b) if the funds are being used for abortions needed as a result of the trafficking, isn't the rape exception available so the funds could be used to pay for abortions?
89
There are no private funds in the bill.
Excellent point! However, the Hyde amendment is not legislation. It refers to a series of riders added to various bills over the years that are more-or-less modeled on the original amendment proposed by Henry Hyde in 1976. You're correct that the format has almost always mirrored the original in allowing exceptions for rape and incest (and sometimes the life of the mother). I, personally, don't know if the rider added to this bill incorporates that language. If it does, then I would agree with your interpretation that abortions for freed sexual slave would be fully covered. The language may not be there, however, which would explain the Democrats' objections. We need more information. If the rider's the same as Hyde's original, then the Democrats' original objections may have been exaggerated. If the rider is truly restrictive, then it looks like the Dems basically folded and let the Repubs have this one (which would be a sad outcome, but still better to have this Bill than none at all).
Of course, it makes sense that a Sex Trafficking Victim would be subject to pregnancy by rape and in need of an abortion for a pregnancy that should not have happened. But are assuming that Senate Republicans are capable of rational thought. That is an incorrect assumption.
2
Does the article say how the dispute was resolved?
1
Yes, the Democrats gave in to the Republican demands.
7
How many ways do you spell surrender? One way is to cave to hostage taking? These Republicans will never learn when they are being had. Hope Lynch is rejected, to not do so will condone the lawlessness of O, its that simple.
1
Um. Too bad you have NO idea about what you are speaking. She is a HIGHLY regarded HIGHLY appropriate candidate (even your Bushy said to confirm her).
The degree to which you on the "right" have become unhinged because of the brown dude in the White House is disgusting.
The degree to which you on the "right" have become unhinged because of the brown dude in the White House is disgusting.
7
As a pro-life Democrat, I tend to support the underdogs in any political contest, and I think that unborn babies are the underdog here, though what's fair for them isn't fair for their mothers. I wish we could have it fair for both, but I don't see how.
5
Birth control would go a long way towards solving this issue as would sex education, better wages and affordable health care.
7
Do you also support free childcare for single mothers?
8
Not all fetuses are or will - in any case - be capable of life. All pregnant women are very much alive. Does that help?
14
That deal is an embarrassment to the nation. Why are Republicans secretly inserting abortion restrictions everywhere they can? What does this bill have to to with the AG nominee? Get on with the business of governing!
171
Agree. Why the Democrats held up a bill to help sex trafficking victims is troubling. But congratulations are now in order to the Democrats as they now support helping them. What took them so long?
2
If one of our esteemed Senators had a daughter or granddaughter who was kidnapped and raped, do you have the slightest doubt in your mind whether she would be able to get an abortion?
229
True, but it would be in a foreign country to be sure nobody ever knows. In fact, their wives, children and sisters have always done so. The laws are for others.
4
That isn't the point. The point is who should be paying for it. Pay attention.
3
Madeline. The daughters of our senators:
1) would probably never have a child kidnapped...these kidnappers go after the children of the poor and disenfranchised, children of foreign nationals, people who cannot fight back.
2) Their daughters are able to get abortions anytime they want and they probably do.
What these petty senators are doing is denying medical services PAID WITH FEDERAL FUNDS to these poor people, to the children of "foreigners."
Which is interesting because we pay senators with "federal funds" and they can turn around and pay for anything they want including abortions for their families--at private clinics or fees at a private country club.
1) would probably never have a child kidnapped...these kidnappers go after the children of the poor and disenfranchised, children of foreign nationals, people who cannot fight back.
2) Their daughters are able to get abortions anytime they want and they probably do.
What these petty senators are doing is denying medical services PAID WITH FEDERAL FUNDS to these poor people, to the children of "foreigners."
Which is interesting because we pay senators with "federal funds" and they can turn around and pay for anything they want including abortions for their families--at private clinics or fees at a private country club.
1
This is the worst NY Times article I've read in years. You've buried your lead in your fourth paragraph. Your article should have begun, "Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced the end of his hostage taking...." What's the matter with you guys?
240
And it took 8 paragraphs to get to what the compromise was. Face it, editors and writers have significantly changed how news is presented. Analysis and quotes come first. The actual news comes later. It's horrible.
12
Since the whole premise of fight sexual trafficking is by and large baseless, this is just another example of the plutocratic political class of the moneyed elite, otherwise known as our RINO Congress, incentivize illegal immigration.
9
The very idea that our Senators would deny a woman who has been a victim of sex trafficking an abortion is so outlandish I can hardly believe it. Watching these men in our Senate and House has become sickening. I am ashamed of our Senators from Texas.
550
...unless and until it happens to one of their own. When listening to the budget hearing for funding NIH two Republicans commented to make sure that there would be funding for diseases that specifically impacted their families; however, NIH still did not receive the funding it felt was necessary to keep their research in the US paramount in the world...personal special interests!
32
Remember Republicans put up candidates for Federal office who believed in the feminine powers of " inconception"! There must be other believers in the Senate. Could this belief be in the Republican platform next year? How do Republicans understand rape, an act of violence or an accident transformed into opportunity? These are the same Senators who would take food stamps away from poor children and give tax breaks to large Agriculture Businesses. Children born by victims of trafficking would most likely be children with reduced food stamps. Self righteous Senators are not compassionate Senators.
34
While I applaud your post, I find it difficult to believe that you have just become ashamed of the senators from Texas. The whole country should be ashamed that such men can win elections anywhere.
17
Whom does the Sex Trafficking Bill distinguish as victims and to what class or social ranking does the Bill apply? Is there any criminality attached to a white collar trafficker or does the Bill only apply to minorities?
18
so much effort and so much fanfare to accomplish nothing.
If this is in fact the world's greatest deliberative body, it would have to be the only deliberative body.
If this is in fact the world's greatest deliberative body, it would have to be the only deliberative body.
111
They don't deliberate, the obfuscate.
8
Lynch is someone who in her own confirmation testimony refused to say she would enforce ALL our country's laws--not just those she likes, a la Holder/Obama. THAT's why there's been so much opposition to her nomination, and for the Times to obscure that reality is pathetic.