Posted on 11/05/2004 8:05:42 AM PST by jebanks
www.notspecter.com
Great website!
Yes, they do. It is more of a "Holy cow, 137 people called on such-and-such and issue..." But the message gets through. Big time.
And we have to send the message here. They need to know that we do care about this so that they are willing to break "Senate tradition" -- we are VERY close to winning this one, friends. We just have to keep up the calls.
Spector's not dumb, and he saw the way the wind was blowing. He has been a stong supporter of the Second Amendment, and deserves to be given a chance. Besides, it is much more harmful to a Senator's career to have a chairmanship revoked by members than to deny that position to someone based on phony quotes by liberals.
Folks might not remember but Specter kept Jeff Sessions - who now sits with him on the Judiciary Committee - off of the federal bench some years ago.
I'd love to know what Sessions is thinking right now.
Paybacks are hell?
You mean like Trent Lott?
DId something recent trigger this jump on Spector, did he say something recently about this?
Spector may have "backed down" but he is, at his core, not trust-worthy - as my father told me year's ago when we were have some problems with snakes, "when you've got your shovel on the snake's head, don't lift the damn shovel, cut the snake's head off."
I used to work for a Congressman. They definitely get passed on and they definitely make a difference. Keep these calls up.
Phony quotes? All right, hyperpoly8, here's the actual transcript of the press conference. You tell me what part of this transcript screams out at you "Oh yeah, I'm on board with the President."
I have worked this issue for several years now and given this guy ample opportunity to be helpful. He has been a thorn in the side from the get-go. I'm not willing to "give him a chance" on the eve of a Supreme Court battle. Sorry.
>
> 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]
Specter is not a friend of the 2nd Amendment!
People shouldn't worry so much about Specter, he supported Thomas, and I think he has supported all of the people Bush has sent up in his first term. Look, Specter is weak on many issues, but that is why you don't have to worry, specter doesn't have the backbone to try and stop any of Bush's judicial nominees. If he ever did stand against one, it would be one with no pray of getting 50 votes on the floor.
I just tried to call my Senators' offices and can't get through. Thank Laura Ingraham for a complete list of all Senators numbers on her website. Ol' Specter is as good as done.........unless Frist gets weak-spined. I called his office yesterday.
Since you can't get through, call the members of the Jud. Comittee:
Here:
Hatch (202) 224-5251
Grassley (202)224.3744
Kyl (202) 224-4521
DeWine (202) 224-2315
Sessions (202) 224-4124
Graham (202) 224-5972
Craig 202/224-2752
Chambliss (202) 224-3521
Cornyn 202-224-2934
Get your senator's phone number/e-mail from the directory at www.senate.gov.
What a dork!
Did you read the transcript of Spector's press conference? It's posted at The Corner on NRO (scroll down).
Here's a quote:
"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."
And:
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.
He's hopeful that he can support them? A little campaigning by the President for Pat Toomey, and Spector would be just like Tommy Daschle - looking for a new line of work.
We need a genuine conservative heading Judiciary; Jeff Sessions would do fine.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Sent this to half a dozen Judiciary members & followed w phonecalls:
Please ensure that Arlen Spector is NOT appointed to the Judiciary Committee!
Certainly NOT the chairman!
I don't need to hear about how he "qualified" his earlier statements.
I heard his original statement, and words mean things.
Consevatives won this election and its up to the liberals to move to the right, not vice versa.
I CALLED ALL OF THEM AND SEN. BILL FRIST.
The number for Senator Graham (SC) is the wrong #. It is Sen. Grassley's number.
The assistant said they are being swamped with calls. "Senator Cornyn gets the message!"
Like I said earlier, I called all of them. When I called Sen. Session's office, the young lady said: "Our phones are ringing off the hook."
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.