Likely new Senate judiciary chairman warns Bush against nominating anti-abortion judges

SFGate.com ^ | 11/03/04 | LARA JAKES JORDAN

[CrosscutSaw]

The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

[inquest]

I still don't see the difference, whether we're talking about Democrats or liberal media. They're both going to keep a very watchful eye on anyone Bush nominates, especially after the nominations he'd been making during his first term. They'll go over that person's record with a fine-tooth comb, and do whatever they can to blow out of proportion anything they can get away with blowing out of proportion. And if Specter approves the nominee anyway, that'll only provide an excuse for them to accuse him of hypocrisy, and push him further to the left.

[cicero's_son]

We'll see--you may be right.

Whatever the case, I have total confidence in the President and his advisors on these matters. They will do the right thing. If Spector stays, it will be because the President wants him to stay.

[MeanWestTexan]

BUMP to the top!!!

Contact Frist about this RINO. Please!

http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm

[MB6.3]

It's those photos that make anti-abortion judges who would threaten Roe v. Wade loser at confirmation. It's a polarizing issue and Bush won't go near it. If this is our main issue, then Buchanan is correct. Women's "reproductive rights" is a big issue that unites the majority of women (majority defined as 50+%). That's why that appalling catch phrase "if you don't believe in abortion, don't have one" caught fire. Having said that, we need to take a serious run at "parental consent" and get some common sense back in this. As the father of two teenage daughters, that's a hot button for me. There's no way we'll find ourselves in that situation (knock wood) but Kerry's crap in Debate Two about some father raping is 14 year old daughter is total smoke screen. If we want an easy values winner, IMHO, this is it.

[RonF]

I didn't listen to the debates (I had other obligations, one being that I was born 20 miles from Fenway Park). I'm not familar with any comments regarding fathers raping their 14 year olds.

However, I am quite aware that the problem of 25 or so year old men victimizing 13- and 14- and 15-years olds is serious enough in the city of Chicago that legislation was passed in the State of Illinois this year making the penalties for statutory rape much more serious if there is a significant difference in age between the victim and the perpetrator. Drugged out guys who can't get a woman their own age are apparently picking out very young girls to satisfy their urges. And some of these girls are getting pregnant. Decry the MSM if you want, but I think they had this story right.

[TomasUSMC]

Yes, but in the future, if the Dems get a majority, they may get rid of the rule anyway and then take advantage of it. Better we do it now. Make hay while the sunshines.

[TAdams8591]

I absolutely agree!

[TAdams8591]

I hate to break the news to you but one of the reasons PA went with Kerry in the end(51% to 49%)is because Bush and Santorum supported Specter over Toomey. Had they supported Toomey, not only would Toomey have won, but Bush would have won PA. They were incorrect in thier assessment that Specter would help Bush.

[SunkenCiv]

The procedure is established the first time someone tries it.

http://www.recallmccain.org/LegalFront.htm

[F.J. Mitchell]

I can only speak for mrself, but from observing the actions of Specter for many years, it is easy to visualize him behaving exactly as did Tom Daschele.

[Uncle Jaque]

Re #360:

"Get over the Hillary obsession."

As long as she is in a position of power, she bears watching.
Since I do watch and think about other things besides Hellary, I wouldn't really consider it an "obsession" per se..

Now I pay pretty fair attention to Michelle Malkin and Lauri Dubh, too - but I don't think that I'm particularly "obsessed" whith them... Although I can see where some fellows might be.

"You keep bringing up the FBI files,..."

Has she ever surrendered them, that you know of?
Do you even care?

"... but you never seem to connect that the files are very old,..."

Possibly.
Pardon me while I adjust my TinfoilHelm here, but you don't think that she still has her moles in the FBI keeping them regularly updated, do you?

How did she get them in the first place, hmmmm?

Did Sandy Burglar smuggle them out of the FBI vaults in his capacious underpants?

I've heard anywhere from 550 to over 900 FBI files found their way over the Hildabeast's lair; that's a helluvva pantload, Pilgrim!

Now I don't know, perhaps some one else in here can edify us; but how much turnover in the rank and file of the FBI Washington Office has there been since the Clinton Syndicate was in power?

I can't prove it of course (I doubt that many people could, even if they were foolish enough to try), but I'm quite confident that she still has her contacts and sources.

"... and the majority of the folks whose files she may have had are no longer in power."

Yup. like Nute Gingrich, eh; see what happened to him when he crossed the Klintons one too many times?

Wonder who was collecting data on HIS sex life, eh?

Have you noticed how circumspect and cautious our Congress critters seem to have been since Nute, Jim Trafficant, and Torch Toriccelli were summarily dispensed with by the Democratic leadership and friends?
It seems to be quietly understood by politicians in both Parties just what happens to those who displease Her Majesty representing (if not "from") New York about once too often.

"...We have had significant turnover in Congress after the fact. This was not by accident."

What do you mean by "significant"? 5% over the past 4 years? So we finally managed to dump Daschole; that's significant, I'll grant you; but it looks like pretty much the same old gang to me.
How many Barbie Boxers did we lose? Nanny Pelosis? Teddy Kennedys?

How about our darling RINOS like Snowe, Collins (our 2) McCain, Specter, (is Lugar still there?) and several others whose names I can't think of at the moment?

"...If you want to write off the second term now, be my guest."

Oh, I don't think I'm "writing it off" just yet, but I am keeping my level of expectations consistant to the level of demonstrated performance over the last 4 years.

At least it will not be the utter catastrophy that a KERRY reign could be expected to bring us.

I do expect some progress, as has been seen in the WOT, some tax reform (cut in half by our ME RINO Snowe, I might add)perhaps a slowdown of the leftist takeover of the Judiciary perhaps - I don't expect them to ever give up - and maybe some marginal educational reform.
Maybe...

Should Frist or Bush ever try the "Nuclear Option" to blow a non-socialist (much less a pro-Life) Judicial Nominee past the Dems, I have little doubt that Hellary and gang has a little "Nuke" option themselves; Pubbies know it, and I will be flabbergasted if they work up the gonads to even attempt it this term, any more than they dared to pull it over the last 4 years. They play dirty in Washington, and I don't think we know the half of it. All I can do is form studied suspicions on the basis of observed behavioral patterns in combination with the little we are told.

Hardly an exact science.

"... I'll wait and watch first before I immediately jump to conclusions..."

I've waited, and I've watched before, over the years.

But if you want to call that "Jumping to conclusions", then by all means have at it; no one could criticize you for it any more than I rationally could, really.

Actually, I can't find any fault with that approach at all.
It's just that after years of waiting and watching, I can't share your commendable faith or optimism this time.

Having had my faith, hope, and optimism dashed asunder so many times over the past 56 years or so, it is now becoming increasingly difficult to find all the pieces or remember where I left the glue.

"... - I'm weird that way."

That's funny; "weird" seems to be a term commonly used to describe me by others when they attempt to describe me to others.
Although I try not to advertize it too much, most folks just seem to figure it out pretty quickly upon making my acquaintance.

Whatever happened to "Weird Rights", or "Weird Pride Day" at Disney World, huh?
Where does the Weird and Eccentric Coallition hold their meetings, anyway?
Do the Schools have kids read "Tommy's Daddy is Weird" in class?
I think not!

When is CBS coming our with "Normal Eye for the Weird Guy"?

Know of any Weird beaches nearby? Weird Bars?
What color ribbon do we wear on our lapels so that other weirdoes we meet can tell that we are weird too?

If I invented a colorful, festive "Weird" flag and waved it around, would people know that it means that I'm Weird, and Proud of it?

Nah!; they'd just think that I was being weird.

OH!; Wait!!!... ~~{B^{*~

UJ - Weird in ME

[MB6.3]

Absolutely legitimate concerns you've expressed, but I'm of the opinion that Parental Consent can be worked to accommodate situations like this without overbearing regulatory involvement. A word of caution on how much stock we all put in some MSM stories driven from a sense of social outrage ;-) That's not to say I discount your comments, just MSM has taken some deserved lumps of late.

Ciao

[traviskicks]

"If anything to me it means sometimes his nominees may be conservative and sometimes not."
---

Well, it means they will be good judges with integrity, professionalism and fairness. To have a litmus test is to say 'I will promote someone who will undo Roe vs. Wade' is just like Kerry saying he would appoint someone who will keep the ruling in place. They are both equally disturbing and either statement should bring strong condemnation by those who truly understand the law and the Constitution.

If you are already ruling on the matter before the case is even brought then what is the need for judges? Who interprets the law the president or the judiciary? I know many people on here want the president to specifically select a judge who would overturn Roe vs Wade. I strongly disagree with this whole line of thinking. Infact, its dangerous because it interfers with the constitution of the United States.

The judiciary should be independant of the executive branch and should be selected based on their professionalism, integrity and knowledge of the law.

[inquest]

Who interprets the law the president or the judiciary?

Nobody is given that power exclusively of anyone else. The President has the right and obligation to make specifically sure that his nominees understand the Constitution.

[TAdams8591]

Kerry has a Litmus test.

Sorry I disagree. I want to hear that Bush has a litmus test, that he will undo the unconstitutional decision made in the case of Roe vs. Wade.

[F16Fighter]

"The ingrate-RINO Specter doesn't have time to celebrate -- his ultra-leftist agenda simply cannot wait."

Already??

Dubya and Santorum's ill-advised and cowardly support of Spincter in a razor-thin primary over the conservative candidate Toomey was sure to bite them in the @ss, but this fast?