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
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
Just another liberal who's more interested in Justices towing an ideological line instead of interpreting the Constitution.
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.
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.
Oh, but he is nuts to equate Roe to Brown.
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.
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?
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?????
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.
"SPECTER: Correct"
Someone needs to put this barely elected a-hole in his place!
I didn't vote for the President only to have Arlen Spector pick Supreme Court justices.
great -- thanks for finding and posting this. I called Sen. Frist this am.
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
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.
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.
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.