Posted on 11/05/2004 10:22:33 PM PST by MplsSteve
No, here is why Hugh is wrong. Specter is deliberately ignoring the will of the people to impose his own opinion on the committee. The election was very clearly a mandate for Pres Bush. On the VERY 1st day Specter came out and opposed the President. Fine, Specter can oppose the Pres but we can ALSO oppose Specter. Since he finds it impossible to support the Pres, the Party has every right to limit his power he ONLY achieves on the bases of the party's electoral victory. With out the party Specter is just one Senator, since he refuses to support the party position, the party has ever right to marginalize his role in the party.</p>
Hewitt is correct. Because of the filibuster rule, no one Specter might oppose is going to get confirmed anyway.
And as Hugh points out, Specter has the credibility necessary to sell nominees to the other side.
Except we now have the votes to change the rules to simple majority so Specter is irrelevent.
We got rid of one pain in the a$$ obstructionist 4 days ago. To ask that we might chair the Judiciary Committee with someone who has similar views as the opposition party, when it comes to selecting judges, is asking too much.
Hugh speaks the truth.
To come across as thugs at a time like this historic time would be a mistake. Let the dims be seen as the thugs.
Kind of courious why certain Repbs are more worried about US getting along with the Leftists then they are in the Leftist getting along with us. In case you all missed it, WE WON. We have the votes. THEY need to get along with US, not vice versa.
I think we are being played as fools by running headlong in to a leftie ambush.
No, Specter went out and was Specter. Now that the Party has bitch slapped Specter he is trying to back track and claim it was all a Leftist plot.
It may well be that sending abortion to the public square will hurt the GOP, and splinter it. But the public square is the place to hash out tough issues, and putting the health of a party aabove that sort of has it backwards. Moreover, allowing these issues to fester, just makes the disease more virulent when it breaks out, because the public square has not had the time to reach a synthesis and compromise, and modulate the debate, and at least leave folks with a sense they had their say. In any event, over time, as compromises are reached and enacted into law, the salience of the issue will fade. That is my prediction, if and when the passing on of Roe unfolds.
He only supported Thomas because he himself was coming up for election in six months.
If you read his statement you will see what he thinks of Thomas and the present court.
Specter has to be taken down not only for his liberal views, but also for causing this firestorm the day after a great victory.
How stupid can you get.
He just slapped the face of millions of Conservatives the very first day after election.
The Republican party has been quick to sacrifice their own like Newt, Bob Livingston, Trent Lott and to step on people like Don Nickles and Tom Delay all good men most Christians when the left screams for blood at the slightest slip.
Well this is one we want.
Tell Specter to go set in a corner of the Senate and give us someone who fights not accommodates the Kennedys the Schumers and the Fiensteins on the Judiciary committee.
Hastert's choice not to give Crane a committee chair is that of the discretion of the Speaker of the House. That's the way the House operates.
The Senate GOP is different. They place a high emphasis on seniority. They place such a high emphasis on seniority that if two freshmen senators come in at the same time and one of them is a former governor, that senator will get a leg-up on seniority.
I am fine with allowing Specter to remain as committee chair...as long as there are a sufficient numbers of GOP senators to over-ride him if he tries to obstruct a vote.
Arlen's own words, spoken the day after the election, should keep him from gaining the chairmanship, IMHO. He speaks in code to his liberal supporters, and cannot be trusted with the important task of shepherding the President's judicial nominees through the Judiciary Committee. Keep the pressure on.
Interesting assessment. Shall we ask the 40 million Americans who were deprived of life without due process of law? There is a reason that President Bush got 58 million votes and it wasn't so that he would have to kiss the butt of a recalcitrant committee chairman. No convincing evidence has ever been presented that unborn Americans are less worthy of Constitutional protection than any of the Supreme Court Justices who deprived them of that protection. We are supposed to be more civilized than the savages who cut off people's heads, aren't we? Why, then, do we allow for the slaughter of the most innocent?
Hewitt seems to have forgotten that human lives are at stake and Arlen Specter has demonstrated that, for him, a woman's convenience supercedes the right to life of the unborn child. How many more must die, before God decides He's seen enough?
Right on! It was that kind of thinking that got us Bob Dole as a candidate in '96. Dole is a good man, but it was obvious he was no match for Clinton. But because "it was his turn," the party fell in line.
Let's not make the same mistake here.
Pete Sessions? I thought it was Jeff?
Magic Bullet!
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.