Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judciary (Day 2)

Call Frist's office right now.

Nashville office of Senator Frist 615-352-9411

Washington Office is a voice mail 1-202-224-3344 (fax in WA. is 202-228-1264)

Exactly what rule was she referring to? Why can't the Senate leadership put whomever they choose into the chairperson of the judiciary's seat? That sounds like BS.

Blocking Arlen Specter from a committee chairmanship is not jumping off a cliff.

I think there is two things wrong here.

Revolution or not, the public isn't with you on the overturn RvW argument. We do not have a coalition majority on overturning RvW. The MSM knows this and that is the trap. Spector is the MSM bait.

Also never forget -- Bush campaigned for Spector, remember?

My approach is to forget overturning RvW and achieve the goal another way. RvW will then wilt on the vine and die. In the end, we win. Just like Gingrich once stated about the Healthcare Financing Administration -- remember that? Tactics.

That's why I left abortion completely out of my letter to Frist.

Specter has initiated a war on conservative jurists, and has gone about disparaging the current members of the court. That's reason enough to have him watch the judiciary committee's work from the sidelines.

Bush campaigned for Spector -- remember that? Must be a reason. Best to follow the CIC than to second guess him. Bush said today 'judges that strictly interpret the law'. But sadly that also means RvW. But Bush was clearly signaling his judicial plan of attack.

Strategy and tactics defeat the enemy. I am sticking with Bush on this one.

We don't need to win a public opinion poll. We need to nominate and confirm honest intelligent judges. If there are roadblocks to that, they should be removed.

I just talked to a middle cheese friend and he said don't make the assumption that Spector is the next Judiciary chairman. He also said don't feed the MSM monster.

Your "middle cheese friend" (whatever that is) doesn't know what he's talking about. Specter's movement to the Senate Judiciary Chairman slot has been a topic of conversation and published articles for a long time. Here's an article from Human Events from August of 2003 which discusses it and how to prevent it:

Will Specter Chair Judiciary?
Human Events Online
by Timothy P. Carney
Posted Aug 18, 2003
Liberal Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005. This means the confirmation of the next Supreme Court justice could be presided over by a pro-choice senator who holds that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and who helped sink the Supreme Court nomination of conservative judge Robert Bork.
If voters do not oust Specter in next year’s primary or general election, the Judiciary gavel and control over confirmations to the federal courts will fall into Specter’s hands unless a few powerful GOP senators are willing to stop it.
The simplest solution to the problem would take a personal sacrifice by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa). When the party’s term limits on committee chairmen force Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to give up the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee at the end of the current Congress, Grassley will be next in line for that position. To assume that role, however, he would need to surrender the gavel of the powerful Finance Committee.
But, according to a Grassley spokesman, the Iowa senator (who faces an easy reelection this year) is unwilling to surrender Finance, which drafts all tax law and Medicare legislation. That leaves Specter as Hatch’s heir-apparent at Judiciary.
New Senate Republican Conference rules limit senators to eight years as chairmen. The only other time seniority is bypassed is if the senior senator on a committee already holds another chairmanship.
Hatch’s eight years expire at the end of the current Congress. (The few months of GOP control before the Jeffords defection in the 107th Congress are not counted against term-limits.) Grassley, who is serving his first full year as Finance chairman, is eligible to run his committee until after the 2010 elections.
The Grassley gavel trade is not the only way to block Specter, but it is the easiest and the cleanest. Such a sacrifice on Grassley’s part would become unnecessary, of course, were Specter to lose reelection, either to conservative primary challenger Rep. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.) or to Democratic Rep. Joe Hoeffel (Pa.) next November.
Also, the members of the Republican Conference could make one of two rule changes to prevent a Specter-led Judiciary Committee. First, they could waive the term limit for Hatch. Alternatively, they could circumvent rules and tradition and skip Specter for Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), a pro-life conservative who is fourth in seniority.
A final option, more peaceful than either of the above, is that the leadership could talk Specter into taking the chairmanship of some other committee, perhaps by offering a spot on another coveted panel.
The case is strong that conservatives and pro-lifers (as the Senate Republican leaders claim to be) ought to be ready to take drastic measures to keep Specter from running the Judiciary Committee.
The single most important function of the Judiciary Committee is to vet federal court nominees, especially nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Assuming President Bush wins a second term in 2004, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee need to defend Bush’s nominees against assaults from the likes of Senators Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.), Pat Leahy (D.-Vt.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.).
The Judiciary Chairman must be the champion of any Supreme Court nominee. so he must be enthusiastic about all presidential judicial nominations. Specter, however, subscribes to the pro-abortion judicial activism of the left.
In October 1999 and then again this Spring, during debate on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion, Specter voted in favor of an amendment holding that Roe v. Wade, which in 1973 seized the abortion issue from the states and elected legislatures, was correctly decided and ought not be overturned. The amendment passed both times.
Even pro-choice legal scholars maintain that the Roe decision is based on "penumbras" and "emanations" rather than the text of the Constitution is a prime example of shoddy jurisprudence. Most noteworthy is pro-choice law professor John Hart Ely, who laid out the absurdities of Roe in his 1973 essay "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade."
In 1987, Specter grilled Federal Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork, President Reagan’s conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. In his book Passion for Truth, Specter explained why he resisted Bork’s nomination, which was eventually voted down by the Senate. "The Constitution has turned out to be much more dynamic than [Bork believes]: a living, growing document, responsive to the needs of the nation," wrote Specter. "Bork’s narrow approach is dangerous for constitutional government."
Specter had approved of William Rehnquist’s promotion to chief justice and Antonin Scalia’s nomination (though he notes in his book that both "yes" votes were cast grudgingly) and later would come to the rescue of Clarence Thomas. But blocking Bork, he explained in his book, was essential to preserving the balance of the court.
‘Gentleman from Scotland’
Noting his fear that Reagan and Bush might get to fill three more vacancies (in fact they filled two more), Specter wrote: "A court dominated by Bork’s intellect with three similarly disposed new appointees plus Rehnquist and Scalia could adopt original intent and weaken or even reject judicial review. I concluded that the country couldn’t take that risk."
Specter voted yes on the nominations of liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as well as swing justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor. In his book, he notes no reservations or objections to those judges as he did with Rehnquist and Scalia.
The Judiciary Committee, in addition to vetting judicial nominees, has jurisdiction over many abortion-related bills. In this Congress, Specter has garnered a 50% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In past Congresses, he has hovered between 0% and 25%. This year, Specter has voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban, but supported funding for abortions on military bases and for International Planned Parenthood.
In many circles on Capitol Hill, Specter is known derisively as the "Gentleman from Scotland" for his bizarre attempt to escape judging President Bill Clinton’s high crimes and misdemeanors. At the end of the impeachment trial, Specter appealed to Scottish legal tradition, explaining that he found President Clinton neither guilty nor not guilty, but, "not proven." Specter then proceeded to vote not guilty on both counts.
The import of keeping Specter out of the chairmanship is not a matter of revenge, but a matter of ensuring that President Bush can feel comfortable nominating conservatives and constructionist judges?and that those judges will be confirmed
Already in this Congress, Specter has shown resistance to such nominees. While casting the deciding vote to report the federal Appeals Court nomination of Alabama Atty. Gen. William Pryor out of the Judiciary Committee, Specter indicated he might join the Democrats in opposing the conservative’s nomination on the Senate floor.
Similarly, Specter is stirring up resistance to the nomination of Leon Holmes, according to GOP Senate staffers close to the confirmation process.
Some White House advisors are already counseling the President to nominate White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to the high court once a vacancy occurs. Gonzales, they reason, will overcome the filibusters that face conservative nominees.
With Specter running the process on the Senate floor, the White House would have more reason to nominate such a ~~moderate~~ liberal.
If the White House is to feel comfortable nominating a judge such as Pryor to the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary chairman will have to be conservative - meaning not Arlen Specter. This will take an act of courage, either by Grassley, or the GOP Senate leadership.
Mr. Carney is a reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report

This proves false your claims that the MSM has just invented this the day after the election. Now, please be helpful here or just be quiet and let us work together to counter this threat to Bush's judicial nominees.

See post #206

Bush campaigned for Spector -- remember that? Must be a reason. Best to follow the CIC than to second guess him. Bush said today 'judges that strictly interpret the law'. But sadly that also means RvW. But Bush was clearly signaling his judicial plan of attack. Strategy and tactics defeat the enemy. I am sticking with Bush on this one.

Bush campaigned for Specter because we needed to keep or enhance the Republican majority in the Senate. He didn't believe Toomey would carry Pennsylvania in the General Election. Hindsight now shows that we didn't need the Senator from Pennsylvania so Bush should have just kept out of the Primary.

Now we've got to keep Specter from obstructing Bush's nominees.

Thanks Spiff. The battle goes on. But at least it is not so intense just yet. But planning ahead is the key to success.

" "BUSH may WANT Sphincter as Chair. Then BUSH has plausible deniability to keep Pro-Life while retaining "moderate" abortionists in the GOP."

If that were true, I and 4 million other voters would have sat out this election."

Sphincter challenged BUSH stating he better not attempt to appoint Conservative judges (para phrase). Yes, we would have sat out the election, but Sphincter didn't throw the gauntlet until after the election. If BUSH lets him assume the chairmanship, I and 4 million + sit out the next election. I didn't vote for BUSH to take care of business and con us, e.g. judges, illegals etc. (screw seniority, Specter can be stopped)

Spector is in line (by senority) to chair
the Judiciary and he wants it.

Didn't say the MSM has just invented the issue -- it's their staple issue to use against Conservatives.

Bush campaigned for Spector -- remember that. What's that all about. All I said is the middle cheese said there is a lot of resistance amongst Senate Conservatives -- Spector as chair is not a foregone conclusion.

There is now a working majority for the pubbies in the Senate. Each Senator is now dramatically less important.

Bush campaigned for Spector. What's that all about?

Spector IS in line, by senority, to chair the Judiciary.

THAT is a fact.

fwiw. here's the actual transcript...

> November 3, 2004
> Transcript
>
>
> JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary
> Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January.
> With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with
> Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months
> and what part do you intend to play on it?
>
> SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to
> the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by
> term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to
> be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some
> of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions,
> so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate
> procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the
> Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had
> appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on
> Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on
> Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not
> known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the
> President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent,
> the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to,
> I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the
> Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off
> with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and
> expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
> range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of
> Presidential Discretion but there is a range.
>
> ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with
> the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there,
> you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The
> party is going one way and you are saying this.
>
> SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the
> right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is
> unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the
> campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my
> statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision,
> which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992
> decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and
> Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or
> pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be
> confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on
> integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a
> nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a
> doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I
> think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.
>
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> to send somebody up there like that.
>
> SPECTER: Can't hear you
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly
> anti-abortion.
>
> SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is
> going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a
> number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the
> President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced
> that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the
> President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the
> considerations that I mentioned.
>
> JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent
> up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially,
> you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have
> supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is
> this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the
> Republican party to be big tent and moderate.
>
> SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and
> what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had
> reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to
> whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him
> out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I
> satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of
> California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the
> doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had
> a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was
> aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and
> every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but
> there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in
> Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas,
> had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both
> Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women,
> Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas
> editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had
> made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context
> that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a
> religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential
> for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would
> be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old
> statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him
> and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge
> whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been
> raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court
> judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any
> whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some
> dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year
> record.
>
> HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you
> said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the
> party, bring it to the center.
>
> SPECTER: Correct
>
> [BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]
>
> [BREAK-Stem Cell Question]
>
> MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are
> looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your
> way in the next year or two?
>
> SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the
> mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect
> to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced
> any words about that during the confirmation process.
>
> MACINTOSH: Meaning?
>
> SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely.
> I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on
> trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of
> them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here
> this morning.
>
> ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously
> renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that
> what you're driving at?
>
> SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon?
> I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell
> Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm
> saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from
> the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some
> other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am
> repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.
>
> ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment?
> You're the only person I can think of?
>
> SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.
>
> JORDAN: Like who?
>
> SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight
> possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.
>
> JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?
>
> SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?
>
> JORDAN: Yes.
>
> SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my
> comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara,
> I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if
> you become President, I'll have it for you.
>
> [BREAK-Election 2010 question]
>
> [BREAK-Iraq questions]
>
> Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of
> President Bush's judicial nominees?
>
> AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That
> obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful
> that I can support them.
>
> [BREAK-Election question]
>
> [End Press Conference]

Yeah, so?

This isn't about abortion. It's about Specter disparaging Rhenquist and Scalia and the other current members of the court. It's about Specter threatening to water down Bush's mandate.

The Republican Party is now, more than ever, the party of George W. Bush. He'll spend his political capital on his judges, you can take that to the bank.

Didn't say the MSM has just invented the issue -- it's their staple issue to use against Conservatives.

I have no idea what you mean unless you're under the mistaken believe that you can somehow be a conservative (or a Republican for that matter) if you are not against abortion. The Republican Party platform is pretty clear on the matter.

All I said is the middle cheese said there is a lot of resistance amongst Senate Conservatives -- Spector as chair is not a foregone conclusion.

We know this. And we're doing what we can to foment that resistance to ensure that Specter does NOT get the chairman slot.

Grassley is in line to chair the judiciary committee. That's the fact.