Pelosi: Don't Let GOP Turn Back Clock on Women

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 23, 2010.

/ AP Photo/Alex Brandon

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is suggesting in a letter to Democratic women that if they don't donate and show up to vote in the midterm elections it could mean a rollback of women's rights.

The letter includes a donation button that says "Don't Let the GOP Turn Back the Clock for Women," and reads in part: "Republicans have pledged to dismantle our most historic achievements for women and families, including a repeal of health insurance reform that has ended the days where being a woman in America qualifies as a pre-existing medical condition."

The letter also suggests - without support -- that "unless we stop the Republicans, this year may be the first year in 30 years that the number of women in Congress actually decreases."

Pelosi wrote the letter under the banner of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is trying to raise $500,000 before Friday. It has targeted women voters to help reach that goal and mount a surge against Republicans with just three weeks left until the midterm elections.

"Women have the most to gain from this election," said Pelosi in the letter. "We also have the most to lose."

Women have historically been inclined to vote Democrat, and an Associated Press-GfK poll late last month found that among registered voters women prefer Democrats over Republicans by a 12-point margin.

"Since 2006, Democratic women have known their power in elections," Pelosi said in the letter.

Pelosi also suggests that Republicans could reverse the Lilly Ledbetter legislation offering greater equal pay rights to women if they take back either of houses of Congress.

In recent weeks, President Obama has reached out to African-Americans and college students - who heavily supported him in the 2008 election - in an effort to boost participation in the midterms by his party's base.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Election 2010

[skeezix06]

Actually. Why worry about the GOP rolling back women's rights when Obama and the democrats have been doing such a good job of rolling back women's rights lately.

[tsigili]

More importantly.....send Pelosi home. She is bad for the US.

[endurorob_5]

More desperation from the dems.

[babooph]

Nancy should read her Bible-women were just put here as an after thought to keep men from being bored...

[yidy]

?A record 140 women have competed in Republican primaries for the House of Representatives and the Senate this year.?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/sarah-palin/7970684/Sarah-Palin-effect-sees-record-number-of-women-stand-as-Republican-candidates.html

[sharkboy234]

Don't turn back the clock we need more jobs and fix healthcare stop republican shift backs GOP is inglorious bastards hate them do dont trust republicans!

[csurfer]

Classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[TheThirdVial]

Why does CBS or any other news outlet even print this type of blatant lie. No where on any conservative list is to repeal any woman's rights. I know I am very conservative and do not support that agenda. I believe a woman's rights are on solid ground. I do not accept the idea of abortion on demand or for any reason. But that is just a difference of opinion than the liberal left and main stream media can't seem to wrap their head around. That anybody would differ on their opinion on issues. And this is an issue that has been contentious for many years now. It is not going to go away just because liberals say it must be so. That is why we have the freedom of speech, that is why we have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. I understand the the liberals think these right only apply to them, they are wrong, it applies to everyone, including dissenters to the current policy.

[pasha128]

You missed Sharron Angle's and Joe Miller's stance on RAPISTS' RIGHTS; Where the rapists' victims are to be required BY LAW to carry the RAPIST's babies to term and provide sole support for the Rapists' children. Even worse Ms Angle and Mr Miller want to impose BY LAW their judgement on the doctor patient relationship blocking life saving medical procedures to mothers whose only option to survive is the termination of the pregnancy. That is a pretty arrogant couple of usurpations of women's rights in this country advocated by the Tea Party / Republicans this year.

[pasha128]

by jwilwade October 11, 2010 11:45 PM EDT
hey variablespanne: Your wrong the only binding opinion is that of the Supreme court. ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are around 10,000 petitions for cases to the Supreme Court a year now and less than 100 cases actually are heard in oral arguments with another 50 or 60 cases decided without oral argument -- if the Supreme Court only decides around 160 cases year out of 10,000 some one has to decide the other 9,840 cases -- clearly those cases are decided by either the district or appellate courts.

[pasha128]

according to this the 9840 cases NOT REVIEWED by the Supreme court are decided in the appellate courts.

http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/HowCourtsWork/TheAppealsProcess.aspx

The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.

[pasha128]

Given that the Supreme Court renders opinions on 160 out of 10,000 application a year. The the appeals courts handle 50,000 to 60,000 cases a year and the district courts handle around 230,000 cases a year (not counting immigration courts and tax courts in the above.) Clearly The vast majority of district court cases are decided without any appellate review -- around 170,000 -- that would infer that in those 170,000 cases the lawyer on the losing side could find no justification in any precedents established in any court on which to base to appeal. IF your work as a district court judge was reviewed by your district's appellate judges and the supreme court justices -- would you not for your own reputation alone be very careful not to buck either of their prior precedents (decisions) unless your case and decision had STRONG Compelling justification to modify and possibly reverse a standing precedent of either level of appellate court levels in which the case could be heard? In fact the statistics indicate that the district judges successfully terminate around 3/4 of the cases they hear with no appeal.

Likewise the Appellate justices observing the precedents of the Supreme Court successfully conclude between 4/5 and 5/6s of the cases without application appeal to the Supreme Court and furthermore over 99% of the appellate court cases are not decided by the Supreme Court at all. so in fact the vast majority of all appeals are decided by the Circuit Courts and are never heard by the Supreme court.

[pasha128]

by jwilwade October 11, 2010 11:39 PM EDT
... And no it can not be changed by the courts only the Supreme court in the end will interpret the meaning of the law as it applies to each case. ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Historically in this country the Supreme Court generally hears fewer and fewer cases every term. Many decisions are made in the lower courts of this country and either refused appellate review (no question by the appellate judges of the propriety of the decision by the district judge) or decided in the appellate court and denied SCOTUS review (no question by the supreme court justices of the propriety of the decision by either the district judge or the appellate judges). So more and more you are wrong and the Supreme Court only reviews cases of an urgent priority or those that in court jargon have ripened and are ready for the establishment of a national standard. Appellate court reviewed decisions in this country are only legally binding in the appellate district of the review however many such decisions are given credence when the other appellate districts confront a related matter unless there is a different precedent in effect in that appellate district. District judges are bound by the national (SCOTUS decisions) as well as their appellate court's decisions and often respect other appellate district decisions when they do not conflict with the preceding two sets of decision they are bound to uphold.

Yes, in this country different appellate districts can have different interpretations of the same law -- DADT is one example of this today. It remains debatable whether the supreme court will impose a national standard for this law or portions of this law before congress amends or repeals the law.

Your assertion that the Supreme Court decides everything is wrong -- the Supreme Court has the OPTION to decide everything but wisely the judgement not to do so. They prioritize their work based on urgency or ripeness depending on the evaluations of the sitting Justices a case by case basis.