HERE'S THE PRESS CONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT , FROM SPECTER'S OFFICE

NROTC ^ | 11/3/04 | Arlen Specter

[TAdams8591]

Exactly. During the debates he said as head of the Judiciary he would push only contrast candidates. He told Philadelphia and Pittsburgh papers he would confirm only candidates who would protect Roe vs. Wade.

It's the same old same old Arlen.

After the primary against Toomey, I called Santorum's office and was told Specter's being head of the Judiciary was basically a done deal.

If a deal was made it seems Arlen did plenty to break it even before he was elected including having his name on signs with Kerry (i.e. Kerry/Specter).

Time for Bush and Santorum to break their end of the bargain.

[TAdams8591]

contrast=centrist

[Jim Noble]

The analogy between Brown vs. the Board of Education and Roe v. Wade is completely inappropriate.

There was a perfectly reasonable Constitutional rationale for Brown, although the Warren Court did not use it (i.e., they should have overruled Plessy vs. Ferguson). A USSC decision that guarantees citizens equal protection of the laws is perfectly defensible and does not do violence to the Constitutional system. In my opinion, the Constitution would have to be amended to permit legal segregation, not to ban it.

Roe v. Wade, on the other hand, has no Constitutional basis whatsoever. The assertion of power by the Court annnounced in Roe is even worse than the result of the decision itself, for a court with the power to invalidate a law without any (real) basis to do so is a court without any limit whatsoever on its power.

Requiring lawyers who would be appointed to Article III courts to swear fealty to Roe v. Wade is like Stalin requiring scientists to swear fealty to Lysenkoism.

There is no "right" to abortion in the Constitution. There is no Federal power to preempt state legislation on this matter. Anyone who believes otherwise is unfit to be a judge in any court in the country, NOT because they would permit baby-killing, but because they would destroy the Constitution to further their personal goals.

[NittanyLion]

I got an automated response.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

I got an automated response, but haven't read it since it was automated....

[ex-snook]

Thanks for ping.

I believe Bush knew what he was getting when he backed Specter against Toomey. Specter was a known commodity. Don't expect him to flip-flop.

[MamaLucci]

Specter was TECHNICALLY misquoted, but the reporter definitely reported the true meaning of Specter's comments. Specter's arrogance must cost him the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, IMHO. Too bad I don't have a Republican Senator to call, but I am going to call Senator Frist's office today.

[Burlem]

The judiciary committe will be meeting next week to discuss the chairmanship. Please call Frist, (202) 224-3344, ask Him NOT to confirm Spectre. You can also go to the Laura Ingraham web site and link to all the senatorial names and numbers.
http://www.lauraingraham.com

[1Old Pro]

The funniest part is that he thinks HE should be considered.

[1Old Pro]

SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.

HUH?

[1Old Pro]

I believe that Dr. Frist is afraid to tackle Specter. He thinks if Specter were removed from Judiciary, that Specter would switch parties and carry with him . . . Collins, Snowe, Chafee, Hagel, and a couple of others to make Harry Reid majority leader.

I think that this may have been true in the past few years, but no longer for two reasons. 1) Bush made a deal with him in exchange for campaigning for him. 2) we just picked up 4 more seats.

[Salvation]

Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it says about those who support abortion

What does this say about Senator Specter?

[pollywog]

I have tried all day to call Frist's office. BUSY BUSY BUSY......