Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 11/04/2004 3:10:30 PM PST by swilhelm73
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: 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.


2 posted on 11/04/2004 3:13:59 PM PST by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
Calling Dr. Bill....??
Will the good Sen. Frist pickup the white paging phone??
Puhh-leeeeeeze put team players on the SJC

Regards

3 posted on 11/04/2004 3:14:11 PM PST by Wings-n-Wind (The answers are out there; Wisdom is gained by asking the right questions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

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


5 posted on 11/04/2004 3:17:13 PM PST by shiva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is unlikely.

Just another liberal who's more interested in Justices towing an ideological line instead of interpreting the Constitution.

9 posted on 11/04/2004 3:20:02 PM PST by nosofar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

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.


12 posted on 11/04/2004 3:22:49 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

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.


14 posted on 11/04/2004 3:23:39 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

Oh, but he is nuts to equate Roe to Brown.


17 posted on 11/04/2004 3:24:28 PM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Legislatures are so outdated. If you want real political victory, take your issue to court.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

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.


19 posted on 11/04/2004 3:24:54 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
Thanks for the transcript. This is from Specter's office? Or are these his words "out of context?"

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.

20 posted on 11/04/2004 3:26:19 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

So he considers himself a candidate for the Supreme Court?
Rigth after saying we need some "greatness"?
What qualifies him to sit on the SCOTUS?


21 posted on 11/04/2004 3:26:30 PM PST by visualops (Get your Viking Kitty patches at http://www.visualops.com/patch.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
DUMP THIS SKUNK RINO....PUT HIM ON ANOTHER COMITEE....

IF W HAD SUPPORTED TOOMEY IN THE PRIMARIES HE PROBABLY WOULD HAVE WON AND WOULD HAVE WON THE GENERAL ELECTION AS WELL...W WOULD HAVE GIVEN THE GOP FAITHFUL EVEN MORE REASON TO GET TO THE POLLS AND MAY HAVE TAKEN PA AS WELL
23 posted on 11/04/2004 3:33:54 PM PST by jim from cleveland (W04&4more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

Bush wanted Specter, now let him live with him. Bush had no problem running Trent Lott off, how come he is too chicken to run Specter off?????


26 posted on 11/04/2004 3:40:17 PM PST by cynicom (<p)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
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.

Stari decisis didn't save the laws against homsexual behavior, despite the fact the decision overturned wasn't even all that old.

Besides which the Roe v. Wade precedent does not prohibit any and all restrictions on abortioins. It only prohibits them as applied during the first trimester. During the second trimester it allowed restrictions, and it allowed outright bans during the third trimester, IIRC. That decision was based on the understanding of the day (actually the best lay understanding, the scientists already knew better). Since our knowledge of fetal developement is more complete today than 33 years ago, the decision would seem ripe for review. For example we can now "hear" the fetal heartbeat at 18 days. My daughter was able to hear her baby's heartbeat at both 7 and 11 weeks.

It's a crying shame that Specter can't be replaced with a real Republican.

27 posted on 11/04/2004 3:42:02 PM PST by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
"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"

Someone needs to put this barely elected a-hole in his place!

31 posted on 11/04/2004 4:31:38 PM PST by monkeywrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

I didn't vote for the President only to have Arlen Spector pick Supreme Court justices.


32 posted on 11/04/2004 5:26:37 PM PST by He Rides A White Horse (unite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73

great -- thanks for finding and posting this. I called Sen. Frist this am.


33 posted on 11/04/2004 8:11:43 PM PST by cyn (Prayers always for Terri Schiavo and her family.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...
Pro-Life PING

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

36 posted on 11/04/2004 8:56:14 PM PST by cpforlife.org (Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: MHGinTN; Coleus; nickcarraway; narses; Mr. Silverback; Canticle_of_Deborah; ...

FWIW -- On Brit Hume there was some coverage of Specter and some video of his statements. Replay of show starting now and that piece in a few min.


37 posted on 11/04/2004 9:02:31 PM PST by cpforlife.org (Birth is one day in the life of a person who is already nine months old.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
Sen. Specter Backtracks on Supreme Court After Outcry

Oh dear, was it something we said? Sen. Arlen Specter is

scrambling to undo the damage caused by his attempt to boss President Bush on nominees for the Supreme Court.

A reader from State College, Pa., wrote us this morning: "Called Santorum's office re: the Specter story and they said they have been getting lots of calls. Specter's # has been busy all morning. I suspect, given the mandate Bush now has, people are frosted. I think this is a big story waiting to happen. Thank you."

The above was posted on another board, it was from newsmax.

40 posted on 11/04/2004 9:18:22 PM PST by Burlem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: swilhelm73
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.

43 posted on 11/05/2004 3:32:38 AM PST by Jim Noble (FR Iraq policy debate begins 11/3/04. Pass the word.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson