Posted on 11/07/2004 10:43:35 AM PST by TakeChargeBob
Huh? The answer is so obvious, I'm going to do a liberal response, and answer your question with a question.
How will keeping Spector as chairman of the committe help our side appoint constitutional judges?
I agree. Back off Specter and let W do what he does best, tick off Democrats!
Tactics and strategy to accomplish our goal is what we need.
This is too important an issue to send messages. We need to get the job done. There is no thought to rehabilate Specter. We can utilize the gift if we are smart. Let's not lose our eyes on the prize. I would end your thread in the following way.
We didn't work this hard in the election just completed, to not have our judges confirmed. I could care less about Specter. As strange as it seems, if by not outsting Specter, is our best chance at accomplishing our goal,(especially if Specter is a deciding vote on the uphholding the constitution vote - aka nuclear option). It is well worth it.
Doesn't help or hurt us. My point is that it's moot. I don't particularly care for the guy, but we don't need him at this point - that is, unless we get a bunch of Republican defections. All we need is 51 votes to effect cloture. My only concern would be if he jumped to the Democratic side ala Jeffers. I'm looking to appoint strict constructionist judges.
My real question is why all the hoopla? My guess is that all of this is an effort by the "pro-life" folks to get Roe v. Wade overturned - bad for our side on both a practical and legal basis.
That's a heck of allot of if's. The best plan is to deny Spector the position he seeks by jamming the switch boards with phone calls.
It's time for feet to be held to fire. Now, starting today.
Republicans seeking a compromise are ignoring the fact that Specter made a PROMISE to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette to block appointments of judges who believe in the right-to-life. In other words, while he is chair of the Judiciary Committee, only one kind of judge will pass muster.
See this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272109/posts
So, do you believe his promise to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, or do you believe whatever he says now in order to get the chairmanship? And when he gets it, you have no more options. You're stuck.
I am sure this whole mess is creating a real heartache for the insiders in the GOP and in the Senate. For any number of reasons, they would like not to rock the boat. But we need good judges, and if we have to sacrifice some political capital to be sure that we get them, it is well worth the price.
You haven't convinced me; I'll continue writing with urgency to the members of the Judiciary Committee and to my own Republican senators. But, if Specter still gets the chairmanship in spite of it all, at least I might have some hope at that point that your perspective might play out.
Don't get snippety here - I doubt anyone around here is indifferent to judicial activism and legislating from the bench.
I trust the President will not even nominate any "Souters" to the bench. With the past two elections, when it comes to judicial appointments, the President has a mandate to nominate whoever he so desires. No compromises.
If Democrats continue to filibuster, you will see the President make even greater use of his power to make recess appointments. He will continue to take this route before he nominates any "Kennedys". (Souter was a flat out mistake, Kennedy was a compromise)
I think a rule change is a nice idea, but suppose it doesn't happen? And in any case, it's not going to happen this coming session.
Specter will probably vote with the Dems in any case. While I think a technical numerical advantage was the objective behind supporting Specter (I don't think Santorum could have won), I'm not sure it's a real advantage. And if there's no way of guaranteeing his activity in the Judiciary Committee, does it really matter if he gets mad and goes off to join the Dems?
The problem with recess appointments is that they are temporary, and hence mainly symbolic.
We need real appointments, and we need to get moving on it soon. Rehnquist is obviously not going to last much longer, and we can't wait till the next session, hoping that Specter will either just go away or behave himself, to start on this.
I think the rule change is going to happen almost immediately - certainly within a year.
And I agree that the appointment of Souter was one of the biggest mistakes of our time ... Right after Eisenhower's appointments of Warren and Brennan! I have an "I like Ike" tie clip, but I sometimes wonder what he was smoking.
Is there such a thing as a senatorial recall election, in Pennsylvania. Something has to be held over Specter's head.
I am looking at the overall/big picture here. Basically, I think the party is in a position to have more leverage over Sen. Spector than Sen. Spector has over the party. I cannot stand Spector, but I just think there is a possibility we can have our cake and eat it too.
I think Spector is hungry for power and will be willing to make these kinds of promises to those GOP senators that would vote for him. If he will not explicitly make those promises herein mentioned, then they should throw their support behind Sen. Kyl.
I have faith that a man, even Sen. Spector, that unequivocally gives his word, will honor that word. We should require that of Spector and nothing less will be acceptible.
Discussion of the Democrats and the media is a moot point. They will blast Republicans no matter what we do, so we might as well govern as we see fit.
Be mindful of the Presidents power to make recess appointments
I appreciate your active involvement in trying to get something done. We are all after the same ultimate prize as getting good qualified judges confirmed. There should be no compromise.
I just want the best strategy implemented that will help us get the job done. I think that goal one is utilizing the nuclear option - i.e. affirming the constitution. If we get this in place, we will have clear sailing.
What would say if Specter were the deciding vote who could be turned if the chairmenship was at stake? (I have no idea of the vote count for this). If your answer would be to stop Specter, you have lost the point entirely.
I reiterate that it seems that the Bush administration and probably the Senators will not want this fight. regardless of what you feel or believe, if Specter now says the right things, he will probably not be stopped. I say lets use our gift and get leverage now.
It was my understanding that anything the Senate must vote on can be filibustered, but since this is only a procedural vote for Senate's own rules (meaning the president and the House has no input), the filibuster will eventually die a natural death if the Senate is kept open for enough hours (days) straight. :-)
Once the "magic number" are gone, the vote can proceed, if I correctly understand.
Anagram Arlen Specter and you get.....'Clear Serpent' who needs to 'Learn Respect' because of the 'Recent Pearls' he spoke to the media pundits.
We cannot rely on a verbal promise!
The rules of the comittee have to reflect these condition, so if he back out on his word he still is powerless to stop a nomination.
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.