Is Kirsten Gillibrand Strong on Civil Liberties Issues?
Saturday January 24, 2009
New York Governor David Paterson has appointed Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to serve out the remainder of Hillary Clinton's term in the U.S. Senate. While news stories have focused mainly on the fact that Caroline Kennedy wasn't appointed, Gillibrand may be the stronger candidate of the two from a civil liberties perspective.
It's hard to say for sure, because Kennedy was herself a very encouraging candidate--author of two books on civil rights, hailing from a strong socially progressive Kennedy tradition, and untainted (relatively speaking) by the sorts of political compromises that can define the career and resumé of a more experienced politician.
But Gillibrand has something Caroline Kennedy does not: a legislative track record in New York's notoriously conservative 20th Congressional District. It's very easy for Kennedy to be a progressive, and very hard for Gillibrand to be. Her defeat of Rep. John Sweeney (R) in 2006 put the seat back in Democratic hands for the first time since 1993, and the demographics of the district would have made her seat an appealing target for Republican challengers. She's considered a centrist, and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition (a group for centrist and conservative Democrats).
So it's significant that Gillibrand is pro-choice, supports same-sex marriage, and has a 90% legislative rating from the ACLU. This indicates that she doesn't mind taking a few political risks and sticking her neck out for pro-civil liberties policy. The only mainstream civil liberties issue on which she could be considered weak is immigration reform, where her voting history, while certainly not in Tom Tancredo territory, is problematic.
But her conservatism on immigration reform is matched by her more orthodox conservatism on Second Amendment issues, one of the few issues where conservatism and civil liberties are in clear alignment. She may be the only U.S. politician other than Bill Richardson who can boast both a high rating from the ACLU and the NRA, which gives her a perfect 100% legislative voting record.
All in all, I'm happy with the Gillibrand appointment. We should hope that her views on immigration evolve as she leaves the tense 20th District for a more progressive statewide constituency, and we should likewise hope that her Second Amendment views stay more or less where they are. But she's less of an unknown quantity than Kennedy, and could be a useful ally in getting President Obama's ambitious civil liberties agenda through Congress.
It's hard to say for sure, because Kennedy was herself a very encouraging candidate--author of two books on civil rights, hailing from a strong socially progressive Kennedy tradition, and untainted (relatively speaking) by the sorts of political compromises that can define the career and resumé of a more experienced politician.
But Gillibrand has something Caroline Kennedy does not: a legislative track record in New York's notoriously conservative 20th Congressional District. It's very easy for Kennedy to be a progressive, and very hard for Gillibrand to be. Her defeat of Rep. John Sweeney (R) in 2006 put the seat back in Democratic hands for the first time since 1993, and the demographics of the district would have made her seat an appealing target for Republican challengers. She's considered a centrist, and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition (a group for centrist and conservative Democrats).
So it's significant that Gillibrand is pro-choice, supports same-sex marriage, and has a 90% legislative rating from the ACLU. This indicates that she doesn't mind taking a few political risks and sticking her neck out for pro-civil liberties policy. The only mainstream civil liberties issue on which she could be considered weak is immigration reform, where her voting history, while certainly not in Tom Tancredo territory, is problematic.
But her conservatism on immigration reform is matched by her more orthodox conservatism on Second Amendment issues, one of the few issues where conservatism and civil liberties are in clear alignment. She may be the only U.S. politician other than Bill Richardson who can boast both a high rating from the ACLU and the NRA, which gives her a perfect 100% legislative voting record.
All in all, I'm happy with the Gillibrand appointment. We should hope that her views on immigration evolve as she leaves the tense 20th District for a more progressive statewide constituency, and we should likewise hope that her Second Amendment views stay more or less where they are. But she's less of an unknown quantity than Kennedy, and could be a useful ally in getting President Obama's ambitious civil liberties agenda through Congress.
Comments
Is it true that certain amendments of the US constitution cannot be ratified?
thx
i think you have it a little backward, jeff. there is one provision (and onlo one) which cannot be amended. (you can imagine the political struggle over this one.)it’s what in enlish hiostroty would be called the rotten borough provision. anything in the constition can be changed but not the number of senators from a state. imagine what that’s meant? california has more people than the 13 or 14 smallest states combined. but the state has 2 votes vs 26 or 28
What should capture our attention is that amendments are in place that were NOT ratified. We should all wonder why no one draws attention to them.
Find out which ones they are, and you’ll wonder no longer.