Posted on 11/05/2004 10:22:33 PM PST by MplsSteve
To paraphrase California Gov. Arnold. "Why should we talk to losers?" It is our time to provide the compasionate conservative influence on American society. It is part of the eb and flow of our national destiny.
Do you really think the Dems would acquiesce so easily to our point of view if Kerry had won? I think we know the answer to that.
...A great deal of extra-constitutional nonsense has grown up in the traditions of the Senate. The GOP majority ought to insist on a rule that assures that every nominee that gains a majority vote of the Judiciary Committee be brought to the floor. This is a long overdue reform of reactionary practices such as "blue slip" holds and filibusters of judicial nominees. Conservatives are not demanding the right reforms when they aim at Senator Specter. They should be insisting on a rebalancing of the processes employed by the Senate according to constitutional norms.
Ahh, seems like Specter was trying to strong arm "W"
However - Hewitt has a VITAL point. We need to get rid of this "60" vote crappola. I have NEVER understood how the republicans let the dims push this down their throats - effectively wiping out our majority advantage altogether!. (You can bet your bippy that, should the dims ever get the majority - even of 1 - again, that "60" rule will be rescinded poste haste.
Perhaps we need to focus on getting rid of this "60" rule that has been the most heinous obstructionist tool aver devised?
It has, essentially, put the dims in the drivers seat
Hugh's just being center-right. He's a moderate, and that's his job.
So let the Hugh Hewitts of the world fight for balance, expediency and protocol...me, I'm fighting for Conservative values. Down with Spector!!
The ascendency rules in the Senate are a farce. The Democrats will toss them the minute they regain a one seat majority! Why is it that the Democrats can break "tradition" with impunity and yet the Republicans always have to leave their balls at home and play by the rules?
Yes, we need to address the composition of the committee, and ensure the rules are changed to disallow filibuster. However, we don't need "moderate support" such as Specter. If his support for Bush's appointees was so great, why does the blood of good men stain the chamber floor?
Specter is not only opposed to pro-life issues; he is opposed to any constructionist jurist. We are not seeking the simple overturn of one or two flawed cases though right-winged judicial activism; we want a return to Constitutional jurisprudence. Specter will consistently prove a stumbling block to that aim, and that is why he needs to be dumped.
Well, I suspect that this issue regarding Specter is sympomatic of the broader issue concerning whether the leadership of the Republican Party really wants to overrule Roe v. Wade and return abortion in a comprehensive way to the political process. A remodeled Supreme Court could overrule Roe as easily as it once overruled Lochner, but what consequences might that have for Republican Party politics?
Moreover, the struggle within the Republican Party over abortion would not be limited to local state politics. Since the Roe decision, both parties in this country have shifted the boundaries of federalism in favor of the federal government. For example, if the federal government can constitutionally regulate disputes between a physician and patient (tort reform), what would stop it from regulating the types of medical procedures about which a physician and patient are permitted to agree (abortion)?
Roe v. Wade has to some extent sheltered Republican politicians from the politics of abortion. It has served as a shield against demands for comprehensive action against abortion. Similarly, electing Specter to chair the Judiciary Committee could provide a procedural shield to the appointment of justices who might endanger the substantive shield that Roe v. Wade is now providing many pro-choice Republicans.
What happens to guys like Giuliani or Pataki (and many, many others) in the kind of environment that would exist following an overruling of Roe?
I think that the people who are suggesting that this Specter question goes to the heart of the abortion issue have a good point. ;-)
I think he's wholesale wrong about Specter.
Specter is arrogant. He's a stoolie of the puppet masters.
He's an aggressive infanticide supporter. He supports the whole globalist agenda.
He's already brazenly threatened the President about judicial nominees. No way he's going to be wimpy about pushing his globalist agenda as Judiciary chairman, if he gets in.
We need to see that he does not.
Could it have been because Specter was one year away from a re-election battle?
Dennis Hastert refused to let now defeated Rep. Phil Crane, R-IL, chair a committee that was by rights his. So there is precedent for denying Specter the chairmanship. Will it happen? NOT A CHANCE!!!!
Probably the poster meant that is Specter loses the chairmanship, he and five other GOP liberals will turn Democrat and give Harry Reid the majority leader (not minority leader) position. In such a case, the reelected Patrick Leahy will be grinning in the catbird's seat at least for two years.
Why would it "destabilize" the institution - as Hewett claims -- to choose a chairman by a means other than a blind seniority system?
If you permit Arlen Spectre to chair the judiciary committe,
I am one of MILLIONS of Christians who will take it as a betrayal of everything we thought we were working for when we supported your party.
I can assure you -- if that happens, MILLIONS of us will either sit out the next elections, or give our votes to third or fourth parties.
It's not the open virulence of Democrats that hurts the most, BUT SUAVE BETRAYAL BY PERCEIVED FRIENDS.
Spectre today = loss of presidency, house, and senate by 2008. I can promise you that.
How many times are FReepers going to repeat this crock?
He voted for Thomas ONLY because he was up for re-election the following year. AFTER he was re-elected (again, barely) he denounced Thomas. Specter is slime, period. Very disappointed in Hewitt.
I believe the margin will change from 11-10 to 12-10 or 11-9.
I hope that Senator-elect Coburn gets the vacancy on the GOP side, if one develops. Of all the freshmen, he seems to have the right temperament and ideological consistency (including pro-life commitment) for a Judiciary assignment.
I've been freeped for days because I agree with Hugh Hewitt.
1. Specter will support Bush's nominees and in so doing will provide a useful foil to moderates and the MSM. Well, Specter is supporting these nominees, so they can't be that bad. We'll get more accomplished with less controversy.
2. Frist is running for President. He must keep Specter in line. If he fails to do so, his presidential run is in prompt shambles, tatters. In fact, raising expectations on our side for Frist and Specter to produce may yield even greater results than if we have a conservative chair who is assailed by the MSM week after week.
3. Specter likes the limelight. Fine. Let him have it. I'm even willing to carve out a hero's nitch for him if he gets the job done by the 2006 midterms and we have two or more new USSC confirmations and a host of circuit court nominees confirmed.
4. Specter in the chair role will help the RATS to realize that they must throw in the towel on this counter-productive filibuster strategy. If we alienate Arlen, a bunch of GOP moderates will side with enough RATS to maintain the filibuster, and we accomplish nothing.
5. There is a sea change in the Senate due to the election results, particularly the defeat of Tom Daschle. The ramifications are huge, and tremendously benefit the GOP. Let's not inject new recriminations. We are the winners, let's act accordingly.
6. This said, we should change or enact a rule such that the filibuster of a circuit or district court nominee is prohibited... 51, not 60, is the legitimate number.
Question for you..amid all the blooging about Spector, has anyone seen any reasonably intelligent gues as to why he spoke now, the day after the election? That's what I don't get. Assumingthe quotes are correct, and I believe they are, they reflect nothing different than what we've always know about Spector, indeed what W and Sabotrum knew about him when the decided to back him against Toomey. So why did Arlen open his mouth now?. Is there a hiden agenda at work..or did he just blab because he was near a mike?.
I agree. I am tired of the kool-aid kids with their "big tent theory" That is for the other side. Time to pull the right back to the right.
I totally disagree w Hugh on this one.
His historical examples of Judiciary successes are not valid in the current Senate tactical climate.
Conservatives are under no obligation to give power and authority to RINOs.
Things will move slowly enough, even after we add to the Conservative foundation laid on Tuesday.
I don't expect R v Wade to be overturned soon, but I DO expect PBA to be outlawed!
The quicker the route to a more conservative Judiciary, the better off we will be.
There will be sufficient roadblocks to slow the transition.
We don't need to aid the Devil further.
did he just blab because he was near a mike?
Yes, I doubt that it even occurred to Arlen that his being Arlen was impolitick in this case. Arlen rejects that biblical admonition that one "ought not to think too highly of himself." Arlen's little "miscommunication" is not that much different from Trent Lott "congratulating" Strom Thurmond at the 100th birthday party.
I think it made sense for him to speak out now before the Senate decides whether to elect him to Chair the Judiciary Committee. I don't think he wants anyone to later claim surprise if and when he works to kill Supreme Court appointments that might threaten Roe v. Wade.
I think that the Republican Party has an opportunity to overrule Roe v. Wade and I think that Specter wants the Republican Party to decide if that is what it really wants to do. ;-)
W campaigned for him in the primaries then stabbed him a week later saying he wasn't a rubber stamp for the President. You really think he can be trusted ? We here in PA have watched him pull a Brutus too many times to trust him.
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.