Senator Shaheen, firebrand neo-revolutionary
Those of you who aren’t from New England may be unaware of Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire. It’s an ignorance for which you are hereby wholly forgiven, because she usually presents as the most bland and boring of moderates and hardly ever makes the news.
But she is not moderate, and never has been in her entire Senate tenure, although her profile has been exceedingly low. Beneath that kindly and smiling grandmotherly exterior, she has never mounted an objection, as far as I know, to a single part of the extreme leftist program of the current Democratic Party, dutifully voting for all that they propose with nary a discouraging word.
Shaheen was elected in 2016 by a hair over incumbent NH Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte, who had been somewhat anti-Trump. Shaheen’s margin of victory was a mere 1017 votes (see the latter part of this post). Recently, Shaheen’s re-election chances had been threatened by the popular NH Governor Sununu, but a few weeks ago he said he would not be running for the Senate, dealing a major blow to chances of unseating Shaheen.
I have no idea why Sununu made the decision he did, but perhaps he just doesn’t relish the life of a senator and really does feel he can do more as the governor of NH. At any rate, if he had run, I believe that Shaheen’s campaign was going to rest on opposition to an anti-late-abortion bill he signed in NH, and I believe she will still use that approach to the eventual Republican nominee against her.
So now Shaheen pipes up with this [emphasis added]:
During a virtual event Monday featuring New Hampshire’s entire House and Senate delegation, WMUR reporter Adam Sexton had asked if public debate over abortion had “muted” due to many people in the U.S. only knowing life post-Roe v. Wade. Shaheen asserted that nothing would be muted about the reaction to a possible overturning of that decision.
“I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because – to go back to Adam Sexton’s question – I think if you want to see a revolution go ahead, outlaw Roe v. Wade and see what the response is of the public, particularly young people,” Shaheen said toward the end of the event. “Because I think that will not be acceptable to young women or young men.”
These sorts of threats to the Supreme Court have become rather common on the Democrat side, and now Shaheen has jumped aboard, showing her true colors. Apparently she sees a hard pro-abortion line as her ticket to re-election, and has no reluctance to threaten the Court with revolution to further the cause.
To this day abortion is thought of as the ultimate wedge issue. I imagine many Dems are secretly hoping that Roe V Wade is invalidated so they have something… anything they can use in 2022 and 2024.
The trouble with those sorts of threats from leftists…they’re correct.
I don’t see Roe being curtailed except by the wiggliest slipperiest Robertsonian “logic.” But should it be there would be millions of the old pussy-hat brigade in the streets & “blood” on the capital steps & then the BurnLootMurder crew would find some bricks to throw conveniently stacked on the street corners…
Might not be a “revolution” in the strictest sense of the word…but then they’d false flag an abortion clinic bombing & there you go.
The problem with this line of rhetoric is that polls (for what they’re worth) consistently show a large majority of Americans oppose late-term elective abortion. So go right ahead, Democrats. Make your 2022 campaigns about killing near-term babies.
Much as the Left frames opposition to teaching CRT as opposition to teaching about slavery and Jim Crow, they’d find a way to make their championing of late-term abortion something else as well.
Sen. Shaheen threatens, “I hope the Supreme Court is listening to the people of the United States because” bla bla bla.
Funny [NOT], when I was young(er), the Supreme Court’s mission was to heed the dictates of the Constitution of the United States, not the dictates of “the people of the United States,” a-k-a the mob. Oh well.
Since most of the action will be at the State level, I think the left will overplay their hand with court packing rhetoric and further diminish their appeal to everyone but the far left.
For years I have thought this issue would destroy the GOP, but I have changed my view. The issue will backfire on the left.
Kelly Ayotte is a poseur who pretended to be in favor of immigration control, then sold out her constituency in 2013 by voting for the Gang of Eight amnesty. She deserved to be bounced out of office. The pity is that it was in the general election and not the Republican primary. Careerist Republicans delenda est.
(She lost to Margaret Hassan, not Shaheen. It’s Hassan, not Shaheen, who is up in 2022. Shaheen won re-election last year).
What is it with New Hampshire?
Beneath that kindly and smiling grandmotherly exterior, she has never mounted an objection, as far as I know, to a single part of the extreme leftist program of the current Democratic Party, dutifully voting for all that they propose with nary a discouraging word.
The only individuality Democratic politicians display is in the variation in their capacity and inclination to be gross and obnoxious. You want individuality, you get Ilhan Omar. You have very few who manifest some critical distance from whatever is the going line at the moment in the Democratic Party. You’ve got 270 Democrats in Congress, and two occasional dissenters.
What is it with New Hampshire?
Flooded with MassHoles.
Art Deco beat me to it: Maggie Hassan beat Kelly Ayotte. Shaheen was elected in 2008, over incumbent John Sununu, Jr. (Chris’s brother; son of John, Sr. who was Bush I’s controversial chief of staff). In 2014, she was narrowly re-elected over former Senator Scott Brown.
Let me echo M J R above:
The Judiciary in general, and the Supreme Court for certain are not supposed to be “listening to the people of the United States”. Rather they have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, to apply the law fairly and justly as they see fit.
The people of the United States, and their interests, are represented by the members of the House of Representatives. Shaheen ought to direct her demands there.
Sounds like a threat of insurrection.
@Art Deco:Kelly Ayotte is a poseur
Problem with Democrat-lite Republicans is that their moderate voters often find out they may as well have had a Democrat, and enough conservatives stay home that they get one. Immigration is the widest and deepest chasm between the national politicians of both parties and the voters of both parties. Illegal immigration is less unpopular with the broad mass of voters than putting puppies in blenders or the Klan, but it’s pretty unpopular.
Which is why national politicians of both parties talk about changing immigration and never do anything. With the ultimate example being E-Verify, which does literally nothing to keep any illegal out of the workforce and which protects employers who hire illegals from any consequences for having done so.
And can we forget John McCain and his “Complete the danged fence”? He seemed compelled to lie to his constituents on the issue.
By any means necessary, especially if you really have gotten used to the cushy deep state lifestyle and have no other skills that would afford you a similar lifestyle.
If Roe and Casey are overturned, there will be major rioting in big cities.
I also predict that the minor children of Barrett and Kavanaugh will have to have 24/7 security. For that reason, I wouldn’t overturn Roe and Casey. (Not that I ever had a chance for a SCOTUS nomination.)
The Left resorts to threats and violence when they don’t get their way.
Shaheen is a true believer in the One True Faith of the DNC, and abortion is one of their most important sacraments. Like all zealots, she cannot tolerate any interference with the Faith. Is she overreacting and playing to her base? Yes, but it’s all the democrats have, other than failure.
The Right of Revolution is part of the NH constitution.
“ [Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.”
Frederick: You say “E-Verify, which does literally nothing to keep any illegal out of the workforce and which protects employers who hire illegals from any consequences for having done so.”
What do you mean by that?
Problem with Democrat-lite Republicans
She wasn’t that. Her voting record was much closer to the median of the Republican caucus than it was to the median of the Democratic caucus. Her problem was that she lied to her constituents on a salient issue. Fully 1/3 of the Senate Republican caucus voted for that travesty and she was one. They listen to their donors, not to their voters.
Note, Susan Collins is equidistant between the party caucuses. No surprises with her; what you see is what you get.
Cornhead, maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see riots in the streets over the opportunity to kill babies after about 15 weeks’ gestation. And if there are such riots, I think it will only enhance Republican campaigns next year. Most of the people in the streets in this cause would be left-wing old women of my generation.
@Eva-Marie:“E-Verify, which does literally nothing …” What do you mean by that?
So glad you asked.
If you read the E-Verify manual, you will learn some things that may startle you.
An employer must hire someone before even checking for eligibility. (This isn’t just E-Verify, it’s always true. You can’t punish employers for hiring illegals because they are not allowed even to check until AFTER hiring. Employers are not allowed to hire people they know for a fact are illegal, but they are forbidden to attempt to find out that status before hiring. This should remind you of how blue states handle voter eligibility verification…)
When E-Verify comes back and says eligibility is not confirmed, all the employer can legally do is ask the employee to sort it out.
If E-Verify has a final determination that eligibility is not confirmed, it is legal to continue to employ the person. All you do is close the case in E-Verify and notify the government you are not terminating them and this is perfectly legal.
All E-Verify does, is speed up the non-confirmation process. An employer can employ any number of illegals provided they have given him some kind of documents to put through E-Verify. The end result is absolutely nothing.
“Most of the people in the streets in this cause would be left-wing old women of my generation.”
Not to get into an age thing since I’m in my 70s, as I recall the name for “left-wing old women” activists used to be the “Gray Panthers.”
Frederick: At the point that the employer closes the case (with the incorrect information) isn’t he/she required to open a new case with the correct information?
I’m also in my 70s, geoffb, but not left-wing.
Me to Senator Sheehan: ‘Your terms are acceptable’.
Kate, I wasn’t implying that you were a leftist, I just didn’t want to make an assumption about age, yours or the activists you were referring to.
Cornhead:
So the young Antifa, BLM, and PussyHat brigades will burn down all the blue cities? Talk about fowling or fouling your own nest! Karma? Don’t try this in Kenosha, or Texas, or Florida.
Oh please, granny, muster your young American women and men of the revolution and then just, “Say when.”
@Eva Marie: At the point that the employer closes the case (with the incorrect information) isn’t he/she required to open a new case with the correct information?
Only if there is actually new correct information. If there isn’t, nobody has to do anything and it is perfectly legal to keep people employed who have had final non-confirmation from E-Verify. It does nothing by design.
In a sensible system, your SSN or other work-authorizing document would be something that could be scanned at the time of your interview, and if it came up invalid that would be the end of the interview. Every gas station has the technology to see if a piece of plastic is a real credit card.
Instead you have to go to all the trouble of hiring someone, then send in their documents without any skepticism on your part (or you’re liable under Title VII: National Origin Discrimination), wait to see if anyone gets around to verifying the documents, and if they never do, then you can legally employ them forever.
Who would set such an enforcement system up if they had any intention of enforcing the law?
Frederick – that’s good to know. Thanks.
Cornhead,
I don’t think that you meant to say, what you seem to have said: i.e., seemingly admitting that you too would cave in to implied threats and pressure.
@Art Deco,
The sinecured left do seem to have a special talent for searching out locales their policies have not yet morally befouled, migrating there like a flock of starlings, and then naturally, bringing their moral diseases along with them.
Shaheen’s threat of revolution is based on the SC overturing Roe vs Wade. Not tweaking it.
“So go right ahead, Democrats. Make your 2022 campaigns about killing near-term babies.” Kate
A good political ‘counterpuncher’ could wipe the floor with Shaheen.
“Problem with Democrat-lite Republicans is that their moderate voters often find out they may as well have had a Democrat, and enough conservatives stay home that they get one.” Frederick
There are two aspects to that issue. No true conservative is going to be elected in a blue state and unlikely in a purple state. Half the voters who vote Republican are not conservatives.
I have long asserted that until Congress enacts laws that hold the employers accountable with mandatory imprisonment, while also providing the tools that enable employers to ascertain the status of job applicants before hiring, illegal immigration will continue to be a problem.
No benefits + no jobs = voluntary deportation.
I suspect the decision will be to accept the 15 Week rule.
Avoid the riots although there may still be some. After all, those Antifa members need their paychecks too.
“ I have long asserted that until Congress enacts laws that hold the employers accountable with mandatory imprisonment, while also providing the tools that enable employers to ascertain the status of job applicants before hiring”
Yeah, let’s make it even harder for individuals to work independent of the government.
Here’s a thought: Let’s secure the borders.
“The Left resorts to threats and violence when they don’t get their way.” Cornhead
The response to threats should be legal consequence, otherwise ignored. As for violence, when the police are gelded, you fight fire with fire.
But not in a manner that can be easily countered.
Geoffrey Britain: Many years ago I visited Poland – when the Commies were in charge. I was in a queue waiting to buy bus tickets. The lines were enormous with 5 cashiers, total. As each person went up to the cashier, people in the crowd would yell out “Stop asking so many questions.” “Why don’t you have your money ready.” “Hurry up so the next person can buy their ticket.” So in a loud voice I said, “It’s not their fault. Get mad at the government for not providing more cashiers.” There was silence and then the spreading of laughter. The idea that they could do anything to affect the actions of the government was extremely funny. But they did have the power to turn on each other. Let’s not do that.
“Yeah, let’s make it even harder for individuals to work independent of the government. Here’s a thought: Let’s secure the borders.” Eva Marie
I’m simply suggesting what IMO is a more effective and less costly method to secure our borders.
If a system is in place that a prospective employer can utilize, that provides proof it was employed… how would it result in it being “harder for individuals to work independent of the government”? Mandatory imprisonment for employers who then hire illegals would force them to use an actual, effective e-verify system.
Here’s a thought; no drivers license for illegals. Proof of citizenship or legal immigration status required to get a drivers license. DMV verification of drivers license for employer. If no license, proof of citizenship or legal immigration required to get a job.
Border walls are like locks, for honest people. They also create a ‘Fortress America’ mindset.
No benefits + no jobs = self-deportation.
Before you suggest threatening employers with jail first get that DMV legislation passed. It’s a lot easier to bully individual citizens than it is to get the government to move on these issues.
@Geoffrey Britain: So the people who set up a fake system that allows illegals to work without consequences for employers who aren’t allowed to try to keep them out, is going to enact mandatory prison?
“Federal law also prohibits employers from conducting the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes before the employee has accepted an offer of employment.”
Right out of the gate the law says you have to offer the illegal a job before you can possibly know he’s illegal. So, how should you have to go prison?
You know what EEOC says? If you’re an employer, you’re not allowed to ask. You MUST offer employment BEFORE you can check anything. He can start work before the documents have left your mailbox. And those documents might be genuine, but stolen, and no one is set up to check for that.
How are you going to put people in jail for not doing what the law forbids them to do? How do we get from here–you’re not even allowed to ask before you offer employment–to there–you go to jail for employing?
OK, I guess you’re going to make new laws, but with what power? Because this is the system our lawmakers set up on purpose to fool people that we had real laws. This isn’t fixed by sending Mr Smith to Washington. You can write your Congressman, but he is actively involved in deceiving you.
I would expect that BLM and Antifa would get involved in pro abortion riots. After all, Antifa has shown up at anti vaccine mandate protest to oppose the “ NAZIs” that opposed vaccine mandates. They also showed up in California to harass people who were protesting a naked Trans gender in the women’s and girl’s spa.
Cornhead – Bookworm agrees with you.
https://www.bookwormroom.com/2021/12/01/i-think-we-already-know-the-outcome-on-the-challenge-to-roe-v-wade/
Shaheen is only the nominal senator, as she was the nominal NH governor. Her husband, a lawyer who’s part of the NH’s Democratic politburo, pulls the marionette’s strings.
AesopFan; Cornhead:
I often agree with Bookworm, but I don’t here, and I don’t even know why she and Cornhead are emphasizing whether Roe will be overturned. Even though some of the justices discussed general issues underpinning Roe, the issues the Court faces in Dodd can be resolved without even dealing with whether to overturn Roe or not.
And so my own prediction in yesterday’s post on the subject was that they will rule narrowly. My guess is that the ruling will probably state that the 15-week limit for abortion in Mississippi is okay, but that they will not deal with the larger question of Roe as a whole, therefore leaving the right to abortion intact and dealing with each states’ laws (such as Mississippi’s) on a case-by-case basis.
Here’s what I wrote:
The first three would be Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.The second three would be Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. The third three would be Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
In other words, a limited decision, although one that somewhat weakens Roe but basically postpones the more major issues for another day, perhaps never.
I also don’t think the left has some sort of blackmail material holding the last three justices in some sort of bind. I think they are just naturally timid about bold decisions and tend to rule as narrowly as possible, following Roberts’ lead.
They may riot. They may burn. They may murder, or attempt to murder. For they know that they are not committing insurrection. But they also knew they were gold in Kenosha.They were dead certain about it.
The first three would be Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.The second three would be Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. The third three would be Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
My gut tells me that Thomas and Alito would be pleased to toss Roe in the dumpster and the other four are wildcards. On the subject of an opinion which would expunge Roe and Casey completely, anything from 5-4 in favor to 7-2 against is something of which I could conceive. Not a student of her jurisprudence, but just looking at her I think the most likely to sign on to to an opinion invalidating Roe and Casey would be Barrett. Kavanaugh is an establishmentarian to the marrow of his bones and Roberts is a weasel. Gorsuch has gone in some weird directions.
Eva Marie,
I’m suggesting a system. So every component of that system would have to be legally enacted and enforced.
Frederick,
I realize the obstacles. Democrats would fight its passage with everything they have, it would have to be set in an amendment along with other amendments forcing every subsequent administration to enforce it. That’s not going to happen without an entirely new paradigm change in political dynamics. But as things stand, our current republic is on life support with a grim diagnosis. No borders = no country.
Geoffrey: You say no borders = no country. But when I suggested we secure the border, your reply was “ Border walls are like locks, for honest people. They also create a ‘Fortress America’ mindset.
No benefits + no jobs = self-deportation.”
Doesn’t that mean no borders? It suggests to me that every one in the world can decide to come here and as long as we don’t offer jobs and benefits they will self deport. We (according to your statement) don’t get a say so in who comes into our country and how long they stay.
In my view the Left sees themselves in a real war with America as founded. For the moment it is mostly a Cold War which does flare hot at times just like the old Cold War with the USSR. Our Left considers themselves to be the true successors of Mother Russia.
And so they will and do use all the time tested methods that were used in the original Cold War. Infiltration, subversion, blackmail, disinformation, assassination – both character and actual -, etc. I put nothing as past their doing if they feel the need is great. The only caveat is not to get publicly caught out, yet.
@Geoffrey Britain:Democrats would fight its passage with everything they have
Lol. Democrats like Jeff Flake, Lindsay Graham, Marc Rubio, and John McCain.
It is not just Democrats. Nothing can change until conservatives wake up to this.
Debates in Congress about immigration are every bit as genuine as WWE Friday Night Smackdown.
@Eva Marie:Yeah, let’s make it even harder for individuals to work independent of the government.
Here’s a thought: Let’s secure the borders.
The Canadian experience suggests that Geoffrey is right that enforcing eligibility to work is more effective than patrolling the border.
Canada’s border with the US is largely indefensible, by either side. However, Canada, despite being progressive with a generous welfare state, has virtually no illegal immigrant population. And the reason is that Canada has meaningful enforcement of eligibility to work. Not only that, Canada makes it difficult for even legal immigrants to work. (Check into Canada’s requirements for immigration sometime–many of those threatening to move to Canada in response to Trump or Bush got an eye-opening education.)
For what it’s worth, not much, I’ve personally known maybe a dozen people who were working in the US illegally, including some Canadians. I’ve never heard of one working illegally in Canada.
For some context, you know that thing where an American company hires H1Bs and fires Americans? In Canada, you can only work if a Canadian does not want your job:
Obtaining a Canadian Work Permit for Americans
Thanks to the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), it is much easier for a United States citizen to obtain a work permit in Canada. However, there are still requirements that must be met. These requirements include:
You must have a job offer from a Canadian employer
The job offer must be listed in the USMCA agreement
You must be able to prove you are a United States citizen
You must be able to demonstrate that you have work experience and education that make you qualified for the job you’ve been offered.
You may also be required to obtain a positive LMO. This is also called a Labour Market Opinion, and your employer will obtain this on your behalf while giving you a copy for your work permit application. This assures the Canadian government that there are no Canadians available to fill the job you’ve been offered.
Canada’s border with the US is largely indefensible, by either side.
Nope. There’s a water barrier over the most populated parts of it and another segment is mountainous.
Note, there’s no way to get to Canada except via air or sea. Central Americans wishing to evade a southern border wall have to fly to Winnepeg, get past administrative controls at either end, then walk south.
Sure, tell it to the Bronfmans!!
@Art Deco: Nope. There’s a water barrier over the most populated parts of it and another segment is mountainous.
No one can cross mountains or water, I guess. And it’s all mountain and water because Montana and North Dakota and Minnesota just don’t exist…
I live in a state bordering Canada. There’s lots of places you can walk across. Many hundreds of miles between Blaine, WA and Grand Portage, MN where it’s just plains or farmland, leaving aside local trails in the woods and mountains where marijuana is smuggled. If they can smuggle marijuana they can smuggle people.
There’s no way to get to Canada except via air or sea.
I can attest that I personally have traveled by land to Canada more times than I can remember. And Europe’s experience with illegals from Africa shows that the sea is not a magic barrier.
Central Americans wishing to evade a southern border wall…
I guess we’re lucky that no illegals come from anywhere else. Good grief. And no airports in Canada other than Winnepeg?
I’m not sure if you’re trolling or maybe you’re trapped in that famous New Yorker cover of how NYC sees the world?