Posted on 11/04/2004 3:10:29 PM PST by swilhelm73
I seem to recall Specter saying more of the same in the weeks leading up to the election - meaning he wasn't taken out of context, he's been spewing this same vitriole for the better part of a month now.
Regards
Spectre is being too big for his britches. This really ticks me off, especially after W went to bat for him in the primaries.
Washington DC Web Address:
http://frist.senate.gov/
Washington DC Web Mail Address:
http://frist.senate.gov/index. ...
Washington DC Address
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4205
Phone: 202-224-3344
TTYD Number: 202-224-1911
Fax: 202-228-1264
I emailed Frist earlier today...didn't even get an automated response.
ANyone get any sort of response?
Yes, he has. And here's my take on what he said. I think he just dug his hole even deeper.
SPECTER: 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.
Clearly he believes, along with the Democrats, that that "broad range of acceptability" does not include pro-life Justices and judges.
> 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.
Meaning that any pro-life Justice who would conceivably rule in a way that weakens or overturns the tragic Roe v. Wade decision is going to have a hard time with Specter. Sounds like he just established his litmus test here.
> 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.
So, here's where he throws down the guantlet. He says that the President must be "mindful" of Specter's views on pro-life judges or Justices who might, conceivably rule in a way that may weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade.
> 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.
If you can read this statement by Specter and believe that he's not going to be an obstacle to confirming or even to allow a floor vote on confirmation of Bush's pro-life, conservative judicial nominees, then you need to do something about your reading comprehension skills or you have a degree in Scottish law.
> JORDAN: Do you expect to continue supporting all of > President Bush's judicial nominees?
> > SPECTER: 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.
Specter is practically daring Bush to nominate pro-life, conservative justices here so that he can shoot them down. His agenda is made very obvious by this statement. He's saying that his support depends upon whether the President's nominees meets Specter's pro-abortion litmus test.
I'm thrilled that this transcript was released. It further bolsters claims that Specter should NOT be appointed the Chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. His statements are an outrage.
Got an automated response from Frist. But I also called my own senator and left a detailed message with a human being. This stuff is beyond outrageous, and Bush/company need to nip it in the bud.
Just another liberal who's more interested in Justices towing an ideological line instead of interpreting the Constitution.
Well, my Senators are Kerry and Kennedy, so I have no recourse there...
I got an automated response when I e-mailed Frist this morning here:
http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
Maybe his Web site is overwhelmed now...
And this was supposed to make us feel better about him???
I don't think Bush would have made it without the pro-life vote (certainly, here in North Florida, that was one of the biggest considerations that got usually non-voting folks out to vote). Specter is doing him no favors with this.
I'll probably send a real letter tomorrow, too.
So he will put all of them through committee but he will not vote for them on the floor? As long as he doesn't join the filibuster either then okay.
But at least with Kerry, you do have recourse before you don't.
Oh, but he is nuts to equate Roe to Brown.
btt
And this was supposed to make us feel better about him???
I don't think Bush would have made it without the pro-life vote (certainly, here in North Florida, that was one of the biggest considerations that got usually non-voting folks out to vote). Specter is doing him no favors with this.
If they are his words, they don't bode well for advancing conservative causes, and respecting the serious dissenting opinions in Roe and Planned Parenthood. The dissenters mock O'Connor's reliance on stare decisis, and assert that this social decision is for the people to make, not for the judiciary. I happen to agree with that (the dissenters), and believe that Bush has made clear his sense of judicial temperament including the good sense to withhold judgment on matters that are better decided by legislation or political process. Obviously, Specter disagrees with the president in that regard, on the subject of abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.