May 14, 2009
A Fair Hearing for E-Verify in the Senate?
A comment from Joe Bernstein:
E-verify will not make it through the Senate.It is "inexplicably" being scheduled for hearing before the Judiciary instead of Labor.
Why? Because Paiva-Weed knows she can't any longer just bury it, so she wants to make damn sure it gets voted down in committee. That won't happen in Labor.
Judiciary has a different makeup this session - apparently Raptakis and Blais, who would be good bets to vote for E-verify, have been replaced.Goodwin and a new Senator, Erin Lynch, are on the panel, along with RHODA PERRY, CHARLES LEVESQUE, AND HAROLD METTS.
Do the math.
A question: Are there any rules governing which committee handles which bill, or is this yet another means by which the legislative leadership wields its power?
Paiva-Weed and Metts probably fought like hell against SSM in hopes you'd give them a pass on this issue. They're just doing a little horse trading, that's all.
Posted by: rhody at May 14, 2009 11:58 AMI don't know much about Paiva-Weed,but I think Metts is a church deacon or something and he probably is socially conservative on this particular issue.
I think he's been criticized by a left wing blogger or two on this.
Just recall that in California Black voters went something like 96% for Obama and 70% against SSM.
A friend of mine from college days who is a Black woman in her early 60's is very much in favor of E-verify and against illegal immigration in general and is dead set against SSM,yet she considers herself a liberal.She is also an attorney who passed the NY state bar exam on the first shot,even though she went to law school in New Jersey.That is hard to pull off,so she's a pretty smart cookie.Oh yeah,she voted for Obama.
Now what was the point of this Rhody?Simply that people don't act according to the expectations of social engineering liberals.
When blacks play along with the right, I just remember what happened to J.C. Watts, the former congressman from Oklahoma, who the GOP put in the front row on its socially conservative initiatives just to prove it wasn't racist.
God forbid, when J.C. got uppity and sought a spot in the House leadership, the powers that be showed him the back of their hand, and he ended up leaving Congress. After he did their bidding, he was still denied a seat at the table.
Maybe that explains some of the hardcore conservative animus against Michael Steele.