Posted on 11/07/2004 10:43:35 AM PST by TakeChargeBob
Too many around here are just being reactionary and not looking at the big picture.
That big picture includes the possibility of working with Spector. The GOP has power, in chairmanships to committees, and Spector has votes to make.
If Spector cannot agree to certain things unconditionally, we go w/ Sen. Kyl.
Do you know if we have the votes to effect the "nuclear option?"
I agree the "nuclear option" is not the best way to describe it anymore.
I think states already have the option of making their own rules after the 2nd trimester. Many states already have anti-abortion legislation on the books and therefore new legislation isn't necessary. But the merits of overturning Roe is for a different thread.
We all want good judges on the bench regardless of Roe.
How is what you describe any different from the current situation? In any case, at some point you have to do the right thing regardless of the consequences.
I don't think this is JUST about Roe (although it probably will be overtunred, at some point, I believe). If Specter is going to be difficult with strict constructionists, and has already announced it, I think we have a problem.
Only with the contingency that if he reneges, he'll have his butt yanked out of that seat faster than you can say "Jack Rabbit".
All we need is 51
Don't worry, WE'D know about it if he did, and make many other active conservatives aware of it, too.
I agree with your "I don't think this is JUST about Roe (although it probably will be overtunred, at some point, I believe). If Specter is going to be difficult with strict constructionists, ..."
I was going to describe myself as a 'strict constructionist' too; but, I find that to the Left, that is "code for anti-abortion". Even though the term is often used of Justice Scalia, perhaps a different term should be used.
In any case, a judge/justice who interprets the law, rather than 'legislates from the bench' is the goal, and such appication will eventually overturn Roe.
Wishy-washy Republicans: Spector, Chafee, Collins, Snowe, McCain, Hagel, Voinovich...
I know a few are on record opposing the "nuclear option," but I don't know how many and if any minds have changed.
I couldn't have said it better.
The key is the best strategy that gets us to the goal.
What I am missing from those differing from my suggestion is a course of action that has better success. It appears that they are caught up with Specter retribution than in determining how best to get the judges confirmed.
The think is like this. we can't trust Specter so lets block him. The repercussions or the end game is not well thought out.
As you so aptly put "If Spector cannot agree to certain things unconditionally, we go w/ Sen. Kyl."
If that is incorrect and a 2/3 majority is required to implement a rule change permitting a 50% up of down vote on USSC nominees, then I understand the concerns expressed. If not, though, it would seem that we do not need to worry about how Specter would react to being denied the chairmanship.
Who those who can clarify this please chime in?
He has VETO power too, but has never used it.
You got it right for the most part. The nuclear option is a procedural move and therefore cannot be filibustered. If approved it would still require 60 votes for cloture, but that # would diminish by 3 on each subsequent vote until it is down to a simple majority. I don't know if it is restricted to confirmation hearings or all bills
It sounds like that option (the "Nuclear Option" for Senate Confirmation procedures) is available one way or the other, so it does not need to be considered in deciding what to do with Specter.
Therefore, I want to marginalize him, and not just because he is a "Borker."
I have been angry at him for years for his deceitful and intentional undermining of the Republican Platform at the same time he claims to be a party member. We should have a procedure for ousting those who clearly are traitors to the party, or at least disqualifying them from holding any important positions. It makes no sense to give power away to those opposing you, and I do not care to play that game even if some convoluted rationale for it can be contrived.
You're right about Senator Spector's past, and I can't stand him. But if there is a way for us to achieve the end result (i.e. confirmation of as many conservative nominees as possible) while letting Sen. Spector ascend, then we should not remove him just out of spite.
If we have the votes already for the nuclear option - throw Sen. Spector to the wolves.
If we do not have to votes for the nuclear option and Sen. Spector may make a difference - It would be foolish to dismiss Sen. Spector out of spite.
"If we do not have to votes for the nuclear option and Sen. Spector may make a difference - It would be foolish to dismiss Sen. Spector out of spite."
I agree.
We're going to give the press a gift tomorrow, a story they can build into a mountain that will overshadow the mandate.
Have you been drinking? Spector rebelled against the President ONE DAY after our victorious election! After the President helped get him re-elected! Spector lies and has a history of reneging on promises. He has already sided with the democrats and said in so many words that the President "knows what can happen to nominees." Threats!
Spector is OUT! And WE will help do it so the President's hard won political capitol is spent on something more worthy than a lower than low RINO.
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.