Against It Before He Was For It
by Holden Watch
Yes, it's approaching the absurd, and we're getting a little weary of pointing these things out, but we found another classic case of T. Timothy Holden trying to have it both ways. We'd love to hear his typically tortured explanation of this small discrepancy:
In April, Tim Holden voted to pass HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (Roll 223).
But, BEFORE his vote for passage, he voted with the Republicans in favor of recommitting, or killing, the bill - unsuccessfully, of course.
In other words, this time Holden was AGAINST it before he was FOR it.
This time Timmy went one up on John Kerry, who, it seems, only votes FOR things before voting against them.
Sneaky, very sneaky. Holden will use a vote for a preliminary motion, one certain to fail, to provide political cover later when/if his vote for the bill becomes an issue. We've often said that we cannot find a single instance in which Tim Holden cast a principled vote. This is but one more example of Holden's politically expedient instinct for self-preservation.
American religious communities are wary of the bill. Because it is very vague, they worry that activist jurists may interpret it to suppress faith-based disapproval of alternate sexual lifestyles and limit free expression protected by the First Amendment. Rather then addressing actual crimes, religious groups fear the bill will criminalize speech. They see the bill as an attack on religion, which, given its origin, it may very well be. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) was the sponsor. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) pushed it through the House.
Most States and the District of Columbia already have hate crimes statutes. By superseding those, the bill represents another unprecedented expansion of federal authority.
It also legislates against the American tradition of equal justice. When a "˜hate crime' is weighted more heavily than a "˜common' one, law enforcement resources and the courts are slanted in favor of the former. It seems to us that murder is murder, assault is assault, and so on. Laws already on the books carry penalties for these offenses no matter the motives. Hate crimes legislation panders to Democratic special interests and short-changes all other Americans who become victims of crime.
Government is too intrusive, encroaching as it does on the lives and freedoms of Americans. This is but one more example of government overreach. Those in Congress who enable those intrusions do not serve their constituents fairly - or, in many cases, at all.
This is surely another bill Tim Holden didn't read or even think about beyond its impact on his chances for reelection.
As he has done so often, Tim Holden voted as his patron, Nancy Pelosi, instructed him, but once again he tried to disguise it by splitting his votes on the bill.
Shameful, of course, but not surprising. As we've said before, we know this guy.