• Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., will be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Sen. Leahy's probable chairmanship will "undoubtedly become known as the worst of the unintended consequences" of the '06 elections.

"His impact on the confirmation of federal appeals-court judges will repeat the 'black hole' experience of the period of May 2001 through January 2003, when Leahy also chaired the committee," Hausknecht said.

"For example, the same month that Leahy became chairman in 2001, John Roberts was nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals," he said. "Some 19 months later, Leahy still hadn't even given him a hearing.

"He treated 11 other nominees with similar contempt," Hausknecht added.

Pro-family legal analysts expect nothing different out of Leahy this time, Hausknecht added.

"I also anticipate that any openings on the Supreme Court will engender a campaign of obstruction, led by Leahy, of such magnitude that it will make Justice Alito's contentious confirmation process look like a walk in the park," he said."
.
I'll reiterate once more:  Appointing freedom-hating, Constitutionally blind agenda-driven judges to the federal courts is the far right's top priority.  If Leahy takes the chairmanship again, our Constitutional freedom is a little bit safer.
.
But there's more:
.
""What they are going to have votes on, instead, will be increased federal funding for comprehensive sex-ed programs; they will also try to water-down the current pro-life provisions that prevent federal funding for abortions, particularly in military hospitals overseas. So the tone of Congress is going to change."...

..."Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have both consistently voted for the pro-abortion position on issues," Christensen said. "They have taken extreme positions on increased federal funding for Title X (sex-education) programs and programs that put money into the coffers of Planned Parenthood. They have not supported the issues that most pro-lifers, most values voters, support at all.""
.
Being "pro-family," in the Religious Right, simply means being anti-sex, fearful of anything that treats human sexuality openly and honestly.  Their fear of sex education, and their desire to suppress it, is so far out of the American mainstream that even most religious conservatives consider it misguided.
.
And pro-life?  Hell no.  I have an unassailable pro-life background, having wanted to join Operation Rescue at one time.  That's one reason why I consider the Religious Right's fear of sex woefully misguided -- not only is their desire to suppress sex education nowhere justified by the Bible, but statistics and results show that the societies with the lowest rates of abortion are the societies with the most open and honest attitude toward sexuality.
.
Conservatives can rightly criticize the hard-core coastal Left for being out of touch with mainstream America.  But what many voters don't know -- and Democrats, for some reason, aren't telling -- is that the Religious Right leadership, and the lawmakers they helped elect -- are equally out of touch with mainstream American values, out of touch even with the values of most Christian conservatives.
.
Buchanan is right.  Why the silence on these issues, Dems?  The best thing about Democratic control is being talked about -- but only by the far right wing.  They need to be answered in the public square.
.