Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 11/22/2004 7:15:48 PM PST by Corsica Bella
Thursday of last week, the GOP Judiciary Committee members voted unanimously to name Arlen Specter Committee Chairman. That’s the bad news.
The good news is the price Specter was forced to pay. He was put through the ringer and forced to make a number of important commitments: to change his attitude of “independence” to one of being “pre-disposed” to support Bush’s judicial nominees; to speed any Bush nomination on to a floor vote in the Senate; and to support, if necessary, a rule change requiring a simple majority vote to move a nomination to the floor, rather than the 60-vote requirement which has enabled Democrats to filibuster Bush’s nominations. He also indicated he would not be an obstacle to tort reform. Specter had to make these commitments in writing and make them public in a press conference, which he did.
As a result, Specter’s ability to torpedo the President’s agenda has been severely impaired. Frist, Santorum and the Judiciary Committee Republican members harnessed the groundswell of conservative opposition to Specter and made the best use of it they could under the circumstances. They avoided the risk we all knew was involved -- that an unprecedented break with Senate tradition would provoke Specter to join Committee Democrats in their obstructionism, and form an open alliance with Snowe, Chafee, and Collins, if not go the Jeffords route entirely. Instead, they put him on a tight leash, and served notice on him that conservatives are watching and that he’s expected to play by the rules. Having been given the benefit of the doubt, an egregious breach of his commitments would result in a powerful backlash and his possible removal as Chairman.
I believe our efforts bore fruit. Still, as conservatives we need to remain alert and ready for action, should the RINO begin to waffle.
He does not have to mind you gave him the Keys!
well said! This is what I thought the party leadership should do all along. Now we have a vote for the nominees and such that we didn't have before, because Specter will be too scared to vote against them. After all, not giving him the Chair might have made him go the Jeffords route, and no one wants that.
Anyone that trusts Specter is a fool in his own right.
He will still block them
You are, of course, assuming that he wasn't lying to you. After all, he made a commitment to his local paper that he wouldn't support "extreme" nominees.
So, take your pick. Who was he lying to? The GOP, whom he disagrees with, or the newspaper, whom he agrees with?
If a Dem is elected President in 2008, he would also be "predisposed" to supporting those nominations as well.
He can either betray the party and lose his seat or vote with us and face the possibility of losing his seat. Whatever happens, let's look on the bright side: the 2010 primary!
I still don't see how making Specter "agree" to anything prevents him from doing just this (obstruction). He's in his 70s, isn't he? Isn't this supposed to be his last election anyway? So let's say a conservative nominee for the USSC comes along and he decides, nope. Isn't the only recourse to his obstructionism to remove him as chairman? Once he's chairman, the spectacle of removing him makes things worse for the Repubs IMO. Plus, it assumes they'd have the intestinal fortitude to actually do it, something I question given their reluctance to "break tradition". Or is it common for committee chairs to be replaced?
That's a top-notch post. Thanks.
"The good news is the price Specter was forced to pay." It is said that ignorance is bliss ... Specter has paid nothing. Everything that could possibly 'come due' has been sent out into the unknown future. Wake up.
At the risk of sounding negative, what makes anyone think specter will honor any commitment?
There is a rope and a tall tree waiting for Specter if he back-stabs the Repubs. I don't trust that lizard, but he knows there are about 10 million eyes on him...
Frist told him of the Dahmer procedure
Wow, smart move!
What leash?
What, exactly, is the Senate Leadership going to do when Specter reneges?
'If a Dem is elected President in 2008, he would also be "predisposed" to supporting those nominations as well.'
Great point. Just think what Hillary & Specter could accomplish together...
...I want to see this supposed gun to Specter's head that will ensure that he "votes right."
Point taken. I guess they were trying to avoid the risk of having Specter joining the liberals or becoming an enemy. I wanted him out too, but maybe it wasn't a good idea. I hope he gets booted if he reneges on his promise
Cynical me, here's what I think: They give a moderate Repub (so called by the MSM) the chair under the guise of not breaking tradition and getting his word he'll support W's nominees. But really, they were afraid of looking "too conservative", worried that the MSM would trumpet how they were brought to heel to those "radical right wingers". (Haven't we all gone on home yet, anyway? The election's over!) Of course, if Specter nixes a conservative nominee and they try to remove him for it, the results are the same, aren't they? i.e., they look too conservative and are called names. So we're left believing that they will have the fortitude to do then what they don't now. Are your fingers crossed yet?
Not quite. Remember, he made these commitments in writing and made them public. But yes, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
What a dope this author is. The model for the Specter debacle is the Blues Brothers. Specter is Belushi and we are Princess Leia.
Not at all. See #19. ;-)
*yawn* Off to bed I go.
well, that's MY posting name, but in reference to Specter, I will hold off any judgements until Bush sends up the first couple of nominees to see just what goes on. I have reservations about Specter's honesty and integrity, but perhaps he doesn't want to go down in history as the guy who reneged on his written word!
Dream On! Specter is going to be lionized in the press as the courageous Senator who "saved a woman's right to choose" from the predations of the evil Taliban wing of the Republican party. I am sure he can smell the publicity now. Make no mistake. Bush and the Pubies have already shafted us but good.
Specter is the enemy, with whom there is no compromise...He is of his father, the Devil.
But one good thing about his elevation is that he'd have to try to be worse than the gelding Hatch. One thing you can say about Specter is that he has a pair.
LOL!
Yes, and Hillary lets him visit them in Chapauqua occasionally.
He's pinned down like a bug under glass.
Prediction:
Pro-life Rehnquist is the first to retire and MacSpecter "vigorously" DEFENDS the pro-life candidate Bush names to replace him. 20 RATs vote against the nominee but the other 80 senators support this nominee. Assuming Bush picked a sitting justice (Thomas?) to replace Rehnquist, Bush names a second court appointment, which Specter then "happily" works to confirm him as well. At this point, a bunch of conservative Senators say they were wrong to doubt Specter and that he's "on our side"...
One year later, a pro-abort justice (Stevens?) retires. Bush names a nominally pro-life, highly qualified minority justice (Estrada?) to replace him or her. Specter, realizing such a change could affect his precious "woman's constitutional right to choose", BORKS this nominee into oblivion. He says it has nothing to do with abortion ("after all, I voted for Thomas for Chief Justice"), but because his nominee is "insensitive" to "civil rights" or some other such garbage. Specter refuses to relent until Bush nominates some pro-abort RINO, and by that time it's too late to remove Snarlin' Arlen MacSpecter as Chairman, and the damage has been done.
Wait and see.
Prediction:
Pro-life Rehnquist is the first to retire and MacSpecter "vigorously" DEFENDS the pro-life candidate Bush names to replace him. 20 RATs vote against the nominee but the other 80 senators support this nominee. Assuming Bush picked a sitting justice (Thomas?) to replace Rehnquist, Bush names a second court appointment, which Specter then "happily" works to confirm him as well. At this point, a bunch of conservative Senators say they were wrong to doubt Specter and that he's "on our side"...
One year later, a pro-abort justice (Stevens?) retires. Bush names a nominally pro-life, highly qualified minority justice (Estrada?) to replace him or her. Specter, realizing such a change could affect his precious "woman's constitutional right to choose", BORKS this nominee into oblivion. He says it has nothing to do with abortion ("after all, I voted for Thomas for Chief Justice"), but because his nominee is "insensitive" to "civil rights" or some other such garbage. Specter refuses to relent until Bush nominates some pro-abort RINO, and by that time it's too late to remove Snarlin' Arlen MacSpecter as Chairman, and the damage has been done.
Wait and see.
Frankly, I don't think Arlen has any principles and since he's not standing for re-election there's nothing to guide him but his desire for power.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Well formulated.
This is the exact prescription Arlen used with Thomas, then Bork. He is without conservative principles and is dishonest in the main so we may expect the repeat as you've outlined it.
1. If Bush names Thomas as CJ..I can't see the Dems/libs wasting a lot of effort and PR opposing him..It's the SAME vote, and all the CJ does extra is to name who writes the opinions. It would only make them look obstructionist, but to no avail.. It doesn't seem a smart move politically..It they sign off on Thomas as CJ, they get PR points, and it then makes it easier for them to oppses the second nomination.
2. Spector has had some health issues...there were questions about his stamina and his faculties during the primary race. The chair of the SJC is a hard post with all the commttee hearins, and the floor fights in the Senate. Many times Hatch looked exhausted. Possibly Spector could step down from the chair for "health reasons" durng the summer recess..
If just one Bush appointee to a Judgeship fails to clear the Judicial committee and be given a chance for an up or down vote for confirmation before the entire United States Senate, we won't blame the antics and ruses by those pro baby butchering democrats on the committee, that we are fully expecting, based upon four years of observations. If the appointees are philabustered to death in committee, the blame rests squarely upon Specter for either being too gutless to use the atomic options available to him, or too inept to trigger the machanism!
You have been given a chance to redeem yourself, Senator! One you really do not deserve, and Your feet will be held to the fire for the entire term of your chairmanship.
You will do the right thing or else of neccessity you will learn to walk on your bloody pro-abortion hands.
This kinda reminds me of a land for peace deal with Arafat.
That statement is sick on so many levels, I don't know where to begin.
Thanks for the ping.
A leopard can't change his spots! Only in Spectre's case, his markings are scars from his extremist views (based on Scottish Law).
I went to bed early and I missed your post last night. However, I replied your post #19, see post #21. I think the problem here is that you're making assumptions based on speculations.
What happens if he decides a conservative USSC nominee is too conservative and holds a press conference saying "yes, I know what I agreed to, but such extreme out-of-the-mainstream views as Nominee X espouses have forced me to withhold support."
We don't know if that is going to happen, and if it does, I'm sure GW, Frist, Rove, etc, will be ready to deal with it.
Cynical me, here's what I think: They give a moderate Repub (so called by the MSM) the chair under the guise of not breaking tradition and getting his word he'll support W's nominees. But really, they were afraid of looking "too conservative", worried that the MSM would trumpet how they were brought to heel to those "radical right wingers".
I don't think this is the case. I give the President more credit than that. I don't think he's afraid of the media, and he didn't set his agenda base on media demands. GW ran on a conservative agenda, and those of use who voted for him agreed with it. What the President has said is that he doesn't want judges whose judicial activism trump the Constitution and the rule of law. He wants judges who uphold the law and follow judicial precedent.
Based on these facts, I will take a wait-and-see approach.
I made the above point on a previous thread. But you said it so much better.
What's that you say, you're NOT? Then however did you come by such a notion? It already happened, in the past. It's the Bork scenario all over again.
Amen and Amen to that!
You are correct. He will block the one[s]that are really important.
But the individuals who makeup the power structure of the Republican Party already know this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.