Thank You, Arlen

Holly calls for justice from the grave...

I know loyalty plays into a lot of this.

The problem with loyalty, Mr. president, is that not everyone else respects the concept as you do.

I heard Hannity, for one, speculating that we should challenge Arleeene on this before granting the chairmanship. I say he has already shown he cannot be trusted with the responsibility.

At least with a RAT you know what they will do.

It was clear as early as April that the GOP would be expanding its majority

Totally wrong.

About 20,000 votes in 4 states separated the GOP 55-45 majority from a 51-49.

Bunning almost went down, as did Thune, Murkowski and Martinez. A loss by Toomey would be dangerously close to 50-50 and Vittner eeked out 51% in Louisiana. Plus, until the last week, Bowles was leading Burr in NC.

Further, PA went 51-49 for Kerry which was very close and also made Kerry expend resources there which he could have diverted to OH or FL if PA was not so close.

"At a time when we should be celebrating, Specter is creating division and his nomination will only keep conservatives home in the next 2006 election. We can only assume that Specter will behave according to his own statements. In which case, his Chair of the Judiciary is totally unacceptable."

You are exactly correct. If Bush appoints a bunch of left-leaning judges because that's all he can get through Specter, I am through with the Republican party. Bush has a mandate. The Republicans have a mandate. If they don't fulfill it, they can't blame it on RINO's. They helped the RINO's stay in office. If they don't fulfill the mandate, they are betraying those who elected them, pure and simple.

They need to find a way to keep Specter off of this committee so that he can't create mischief.

Sphincter told BUSH no judges who would favor repeal of Roe V wade would pass "his" committee. Bush has saif nothing. I believe that Specter is a foil for BUSH and the GOP so that they can claim to be Pro Life while Specter stymies the judges needed for reversal. In essence he will facilitate the retention of "moderates" in the GOP and attract them "moderates" of the Degenerate Party, thus expanding the GOP's base. In essence we are being disenfranchised.

I don't think so. If that were true, then Specter wouldn't have snubbed Bush & the other Congressional candidates in the election.

I think Specter's just a slimeball.

I am hoping I am wrong about the meaning of Bush's support for Specter. Thanks for the ping.

Have Republicans in D.C. tried to offer Arlen Specter another chairmanship where is views do not create a convict of interest.

I, and I am sure others too, don't want to lose a Republican Senate seat to a Democrat when we need as many as we can get for other things like tax reform and terrorism.

is views = his views

Senator Specter has an Agenda — Liberal Judges

“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.” – Remarks by Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004.

President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” – Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.

Senator Arlen Specter's shocking comments the day after President Bush's decisive re-election raise troubling concersn

SIGN THE PETITION

Specter denied the legitimacy of President Bush’s historic mandate.
Specter announced a pro-abortion litmus test for the president’s judicial nominees. Specter claims that Roe v. Wade is “inviolate” and insists that “nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it.”
Specter’s illegal litmus test would disqualify all constitutionalist nominees from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.
Specter’s illegal litmus test demands that all nominees violate the canons of judicial ethics by announcing or pledging how they will vote in a particular case.
Specter will not promise to support the President’s nominees. Instead, he merely “hopes” that he can support them. The day after the election, when a reporter asked Specter if he would support the president’s nominees, the senator hesitated and equivocated: “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 criticized President Bush’s first-term judicial nominees: “The nominees whom I supported in committee, I had reservations on.”
Specter insulted Janice Rogers Brown, president Bush’s nominee to the important U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Specter referred to Brown, a distinguished conservative and the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, as “the woman judge out of California” who he had reservations about.
Specter insulted the entire Supreme Court of the United States, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. When a reporter asked Specter “Are you saying that there is not greatness” on the Supreme Court, Specter replied: “Yes. Can you take yes for an answer?”
Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.
Specter accused President Bush of ignoring the Senate’s advise and consent role: “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 say quite ignored, but close to that.”
Specter wants to encroach upon the president’s appointment power. Obstructionist Democrats filibustered ten of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. Now Specter wants the Senate to become MORE involved in judicial appointments: “My hope is that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views.”

Specter's record over the last 20 years demonstrated a pattern of very troubling conduct on Judiciary Committee issues

SIGN THE PETITION

Specter fought against the distinguished Judge Robert H. Bork, betraying President Reagan and his fellow Republicans.
Specter voted against Judge Bork on the judiciary committee, and against Bork’s confirmation on the Senate floor. By joining liberal Democratic senators and radical left-wing groups in their opposition to Judge Bork, Specter gave those groups aid and comfort, and was instrumental in Judge Bork’s defeat.
Judge Bork warned Americans that Specter does not understand the Constitution and that Specter, along with Senate Democrats “professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles in the actual Constitution.”
President Ronald Reagan called the left-wing assault against Judge Bork “an unprecedented political attack” on a Supreme Court nominee and “a tragedy for our country.” Specter rebuffed President Reagan’s plea to support Judge Bork.
Specter helped defeat the nomination of conservative Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship.
Specter warned filibustered appeals court nominee William Pryor that just because he voted for him on the committee did not mean that he would vote on the Senate floor for his confirmation.
The “National Review” exposed Specter as “The Worst Republican Senator” in a prominent September 1, 2003 cover story. According to “National Review,” Specter “is not a team player…is an abortion rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tax reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court.”
Specter refuses to support the elevation of Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice: “I’d have to think about that,” Specter equivocated. Ditto for Justice Antonin Scalia: “I’d have to think about that too.” Specter once slandered Justice Thomas as a “disappointment.”

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee must be someone devoted to the Constitution as written and the rule of law

SIGN THE PETITION

The situation is urgent. Chief Justice Rehnquist is gravely ill. A Supreme Court vacancy is imminent.
President Bush may be called upon to nominate a Supreme Court justice within the next several weeks.
Court watchers predict as many as three Supreme Court vacancies during President Bush’s second term.
President Bush will likely have a historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalist principles.
The President needs as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee a loyal, reliable, conservative partner who will shepherd his nominees through the confirmation process.
Under intense political pressure, Specter tried to recant portions of his post-election statements the day after he uttered them. That means nothing. His 20-year record of party disloyalty and tormenting conservative nominees means everything.
As chairman, Specter will act as a vexatious intermeddler, second-guessing President Bush’s Supreme Court and lower court nominations. This imperils the President’s legacy.
Under the Senate’s seniority rules, Specter is slated to take over the Judiciary Committee, but under Senate rules and procedures, he can be stopped from becoming committee chairman.
The window of opportunity to stop Specter is limited. Once he becomes chairman, it will be impossible to unseat him.