We won the election by a massive turnout of the Republican base. We must not let a RINO thwart our victory.
I will raise hell. I for one WILL NOT be cowed into a liberal agenda after such a big win. We need to tap into the Delay's of the Republican party to call on the president and all conservatives to give them hell up there on the hill. UNBELIEVABLE!!
O.K. Here's an analysis that I'd like to see. During President Bush's first term, a small proportion of his judicial nominees were turned back because they were portrayed as having extreme viewpoints. Much was made of this for a while.
Of those Senators that opposed the President in this matter that were up for re-election, how many of them won or lost? And for how many of them was this an election issue?
Regardless of Senator Spector's motives on this, what kind of political traction does this issue provide? If President Bush pushes a nominee that becomes portrayed (fairly or not) as having extreme views, and the issue comes down to a cloture vote, is it likely to hurt or help him? Is it likely to hurt or help the Senators involved (since some of them will be facing election 2 years from now)? Can we draw any conclusions on these questions based on the Senatorial elections that have just occurred?
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court." "With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.GAG!
As I recall, this chucklehead voted AGAINST impeachment for Clinton.
That did it, warning the President on anything should cost this SOB his chairmanship.
Senawhore Sphincter is an idiot.
"likely?" Means he doesn't have the job now? Then why would anyone give it to him? Too bad more support wasn't thrown to the Republican who opposed him in the primary. I think he's a Dem in sheeps clothing.
Wasn't it spector who got some interventionist support from bush when he was running against a conservative in the primary?
Spector may not survive our move to the 'life' side of the road. The nation has spoken... there WILL be more restrictions to the 'abortion on demand' industry, although we probably won't COMPLETELY outlaw it in the near term.
It is not altogether clear that Spector will win the majority of the Senator's support for this position any longer...
"Who would be better?" will be the question when the Senate reorganizes... but "Who couldn't be better than Spector?" might be the better one.
Who do we have with 'gravitas' to replace this guy on the Judiciary Committee? Perhaps we could make a short list.
We won.
We may NOT overturn all aspects of abortion, but as Senator Thune says... we CAN put some further restrictions on abortion that marginalize it legally. And we will.
what happened to orrin hatch ?
Spector owes W big-time. If he repays that debt by blocking W's legitimate legislative initiatives, Spector will wind up in one of Dante's lowest circles of hell. Let's hope he has some ethical core and/or political sense, however unlikely that may seem.
It is forgotten in all this that Bush said he would not have a 'litmus test' of nominating judges.
So, if he is to be taken at his word, which I believe he will be, we can assume that he will nominate good solid conservative judges.
Personally, my greatest wish is to have a judge declare the federal government's forcible allocation of our tax money to the fat and bloated public school monopoly unconstitutional.
This is especially harmful on minority and the poorest of the poor who cannot afford to move school districts and who may live in democrat areas that oppose all school choice.
After all the bitching around here about Orrin Hatch... good to see the Scottish Sphincter get some scrutiny.
"would characterize myself as moderate; I'm in the political swim. I would look for justices who would interpret the Constitution, as Cardozo has said, reflecting the values of the people."
That is more of that "living document" nonsense. If the "values of the people" change, then they should ammend the Constitution as the founders intended. It is not up to the High Court to ammend it. I want STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS on the Supreme Court. Spector is not a moderate, he is a liberal. He is the one pub. I really would have rather not won reelection. At least a dem. doesn't hide behind a cardboard elephant.
The president promised to pick strick constructionists, and I think we moral conservatives have a right to expect him to keep that promise. It is time to use the "nuclear option" on a Senate (Dem. or Rep.) that blocks court appointments.
I am hoping Coburn and other real conservatives going to the Senate will reign RINOs like Spector in.
This is why Specter and other socially liberal Republicans have a Republican President who will sign their bills into law rather than a Democrat who will veto them. This is why Specter and other socially liberal Republicans are in the majority party in both houses of Congress, and why Specter will be sitting in cushy Majority Leader offices chatting with Bill Frist rather than caucusing in coat closets.
Many social conservatives had grave reservations about the war in Iraq (I'm one of them), many don't make enough money to make tax cuts particularly attractive (I'm not one of those, but most of my friends, family, and fellow churchgoers are), many don't own a gun, etc...
But the way you win elections is with coalitions, where you put enthusiastic people with different but compatible goals together on the same team.
When I talked to social conservatives, one of the first thing that came out of their mouths regarding why they were fired up to vote for Bush, it was their faith that he would appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would follow the law, not invent it -- and that means overturning Roe v. Wade.
This is not an issue for compromise -- not unless the GOP wants to lose the enthusiasm of conservatives for whom social issues are what provide the passion of their electoral involvement.
But that rule expires at the end of this session of Congress.
When the new session begins, the Senators will enact a new set of rules governing the conduct of it's business. These rules will be adopted by a simple majority. We have at least 55 Republican Senators. There is no reason to enact a new 60% rule that will let the Democrats block all of President Bush's nominees.
Let your Senators know that if they vote for a 60% rule that you will no longer be silent when they try to blame their failure to get nominees confirmed on the 60% rule.
We'll fix his wagon. He better not screw with us. We are kingmakers. We on FR and across the conservative American diaspora, can build someone up, just as soon as we can TEAR THEM DOWN. They follow our orders now. Thank you. That is all.
I'm not sure how the defense attorney for Ira Einhorn (the Unicorn murderer and the Geragos of his time) who secured Einhorn's release allowing him to escape can set an agenda for this President...
Spector? Keep him off the committee!
Continuing:
Rehnquist (sp?) is the most likely justice to leave the court in the near future. He's conservative. If he is not replaced, that leaves the court likely to have a 4-4 split. Since 4-4 splits leave the lower court's decision intact, you could get a frenzy of forum shopping by special interests bring test cases. Consider, for example, that decisions from the 9th Circuit would not get reversed in such a scenario. How much damage would the opposing side take if they simply refused to confirm someone that they might be able to paint as too extreme?
If cloture can be broken, that would be something else. But otherwise, conservatives might be faced with the choice of either compromise or disaster.