Replies

Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Thread 1)

Whereas, liberal Senator Arlen Specter is in line to be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has a stated litmus test against pro-abortion judges.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has stated he will fight against conservative judges

Whereas, in the past liberal Arlen Specter has helped defeat great judges like Robert Bork,

Whereas, the Democrats have loaded the Judiciary Committee with extreme liberals such as Kennedy, Feinstein, Leahy, and Schumer.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter is in a position to turn our huge and historic election victory into a defeat by killing the nomination of all decent judges,

Be it resolved, that we will do whatever it takes to get liberal Arlen Specter off the Judiciary Committee

Bush helped this back-stabbing liberal to win re-election. There is no way we can let the SOB to stay on the Judiciary committee, let along become Chairman.

I find it interesting that Specter would make such an obviously antagonistic statement so soon. It does nothing but rally those opposed to the filibustering of judicial nominations, as well as put the conservative senate Republicans on notice. Possible scenarios: (1) move to make a strong, conservative Republican senator chairman of the Judiciary Committee (with all due respect, Hatch never was able to stand up to liberal Democrats on the Committee). (2) When the new Congress comes into session in January, 2005, both the House and Senate must adopt/renew the rules under which they will function. The rules of the previous Senate do not control the new Senate. Remember how, in 1992, the first thing Gingrich did was make procedural changes in how the House would conduct its business. In 2005, the new Republican majority of 55 (this is important because there are five "republican" senators -- 2 from Maine, one each from Rhode Island, Pa. and Arizona -- who could vote against rule changes) less 5 gives any rules change vote a possible 50-50 tie, plus to tiebreaker vote of the Vice President (51-50). Adoption of new rules by a new Senate cannot be filibustered because that procedure is not a constitutional requirement, rather it is only a rule of a prior Senate and, therefore, is not binding (unless and until readopted by the new Senate). A simple 51 majority, therefore, can change any rule, including filibuster and cloture rule in the new Senate. The change in the filibuster/cloture rule need not be broad and sweeping. It could be limited to judicial nominations for various reasons, some constitutionally based, that are too long to go into now.