In addition to being Fox News' "champion for anti-LGBT discrimination," Liberty University's Shannon Bream is also a conduit for anti-choice propaganda and lies. Back in July, Bream validated right wing opposition to Cornelia Pillard who is one of Pres. Obama's picks for the DC Circuit Court. Ms. Pillard, an eminently qualified former CT Attorney General and Georgetown law professor, has earned the ire of the anti-choice movement because she has strong views about women's reproductive rights. During the segment, Bream took Pillard out of context in order to push the propaganda. When Bream's guest lied about Pillard, Bream validated it. Flash forward to the post-filibuster world of late November, now that the GOP no longer has a choke hold on judicial nominees, and Bream - aided and abetted by alleged "news" host Martha MacCallum - is still pimping the same old anti-choice propaganda and lies.
Yesterday, Bream spoke about the importance of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The chyron read "Critics Complain Administration Is Moving To Stack the Court." (The critics here are the GOP who are making the totally bogus claim that filling court vacancies is "stacking the court.") After playing video of CT Senator Richard Blumenthal praising Ms. Pillard, MacCallum wanted to know what critics are saying.
Bream responded that the unnamed critics say that she is "way out of the mainstream." Bream quoted from one of Pillard's articles: "Anti-abortion laws and other restraints on reproductive freedom not only enforce woman's incubation of unwanted pregnancies, but also prescribe a 'vision of the woman's role' as mother and caretaker of children in a way that is at odds with equal protection." What Bream didn't mention was that Pillard was describing the crux of a SCOTUS decision that affirmed a woman's right to control her reproduction.
Without noting her right wing views, video of Carrie Severino was shown. Severino, part of a group, Judicial Crisis, that is opposed to Obama's judicial appointments, described Pillard as very "extreme." She also claimed that Pillard believes that abstinence education "violates the equal protection clause" and that women are "objectified as breeders." (Which, IMHO, is the view of those opposed to abortion and birth control) This is a point that Bream pushed in her earlier reportage and one that doesn't explain that Pillard does not oppose abstinence education; but has suggested that abstinence education, which promotes unequal gender roles, is discriminatory.
Bream furthered the "breeding" meme with the comment that Pillard has used the word in describing the situation in which a woman is forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy. (The actual quote: "If impaired access to contraceptives hinders women's ability to exercise choice about when and whether to have children, it also reinforces broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders rather than reliable breadwinners and citizens.")
So, "extreme" - not in the real world but we're talking about Fox News here. Fair & Balanced, ya think!
H/T Media Matters which also provided the video below.
When George W. Bush was proposing a whole slew of inappropriate nominees to multiple positions, the same group “Judicial Crisis” had a different name – the “Judicial Confirmation Network”, whose purpose was to make sure that all of Bush’s nominees got a “fair hearing”. (read – “make sure they all got confirmed no matter what the Democrats said”)
The difference during the Bush Administration was that the Dems were not filibustering EVERYBODY. They let Bush have most of what he wanted. They let him put both John Roberts and Samuel Alito onto the High Court, even allowing him to make Roberts the Chief Justice without any prior High Court judicial experience. (He had been a clerk for Rehnquist, but that’s really not the same thing as being a justice, is it?) They allowed Bush to appoint a lot of really unfortunate people into his cabinet, with Russ Feingold among others, noting that Bush had the right to a cabinet of his choosing. The Dems were heavily criticized by the left at the time for not blocking everyone, with Alexander Cockburn impishly posing the question: “What if he nominates David Dukes?” (The critics always left out the rest of Feingold’s statement – which clarified that the president has the right to the cabinet of his choice barring any serious concerns about the nominee’s qualifications or serious ethical lapses…)
But in general, Bush got most everything he wanted. His proposals mostly went through the Congress. It was only a small number of appointees or judges where the Dems showed any backbone – and that was only when the situation was egregious. John Bolton was blocked by the Dems because he had openly shown total hostility toward the U.N., and Bush had to get him in a recess appointment. And a few judges were so far out of the mainstream that the Dems simply couldn’t stomach them, including Janice Rogers Brown, Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Charles Pickering, Priscilla Owen and a few others. The GOP always forgets that all the others got in. They don’t mention that when discussing the filbusters of a small number of justices on principle. And they don’t mention that at the time, they were the ones threatening the “nuclear option”. They also don’t mention that the Dems agreed to the “Gang of 14” idea, and to allow a few of those objectionable judges through in order to keep the peace. The key to remember, which the GOP and Fox News would prefer that you didn’t, is that the Dems only objected as a group to a small minority of Bush’s appointments, with very clear reasoning stated for each time they took that action.
The situation under President Obama has been completely different. The GOP pledged to oppose EVERYONE he nominated, no matter who the person was or what the position was. They have challenged everybody he put up there, even when the appointees were Republicans! They have offered blanket opposition to Obama judicial nominations, even before they even knew who the nominees were. The general rule in effect seemed to be that they simply didn’t want any Obama appointments to the court or various agencies to get through. By taking this approach, they have crippled multiple courts and bureaus, since they don’t have enough people in place to do their work. Which gets you backlogged courts, or bureaus that cannot do their work. One could argue that this is exactly what the libertarians would want – a government that is completely stymied. I can’t imagine who else would think this was a good idea. But it’s clear that the GOP has been hoping to gum up the works as much as possisble, say NO to everything that President Obama does, and make sure that he is unable to pass anything or appoint anyone wherever possible. Were they to have their way, they would be able to hold out until the next GOP President gets in, at which point they would of course say that the judicial appointments are an urgent business given how backlogged the courts are, etc, and thus push to get a slew of right wing judges in there.
There’s no question that the Dems have changed their position on the “nuclear option”, and that both sides have played politics with these appointments. The difference has been that the Dems didn’t play at this level of extreme obstructionism. The GOP have made it their mission to block everything they could, and Fox News has played that idea out along with them. The usual play here is for the GOP to blindly object to whatever President Obama proposes, or whoever he nominates, after which the right wing media, like Fox News, or Rush Limbaugh, then backs them up and offers a talking point to give them cover. A major reason to support this website is that at least we have a record of the hypocritical actions taken by Fox News and others, and when they try to deny that the record exists, it can easily be referenced.