Posted on 11/07/2004 3:55:20 PM PST by joanie-f
I believe the three most overpowering crusades that this administration, and the next congress, have to initiate with historically unprecedented passion and resolve are:
(1) containing the threat of terrorism, no matter the financial and (unfortunate) human cost, and no matter the time commitment
(2) seeing to it that Supreme Court and federal judgeship vacancies are filled with justices who have a resolute reverence for the original intent of the Constitution
(3) crushing the massive, unconstitutional power over every aspect of our lives held trial lawyers, by instituting major, unrelenting tort reform measures
There are other, generally economic, issues – major overhaul of Social Security, major revamping of the tax code, and regaining sanity in federal spending and monetary policy -- that need addressing. But the three issues above affect the very lives of every American (and every American in utero), and the minimal acceptable quality of life that every prosperous, free people should be willing to endure.
I do not recall in my lifetime the Republican party enjoying such positive odds for genuine conservative, Constitution-respecting governance. When was the last time a Republican President enjoyed a majority of this size in both houses of Congress? Not during any of our lifetimes, for sure.
There has been no better time in our history for a President and congress to ‘spend their political capital’ to do what is right for this republic. There has been no better time to turn a deaf ear to calls for bipartisanship (from a party that only practices such when it is to their own partisan advantage), calls for healing (from a party whose ideological credo thrives on class/racial/social division), and calls for societal compassion (from a party that employs that altruistic tool only in order to increase the socialist, nanny-state power of government).
In virtually every campaign speech that this President has made over the past year, he stated that he would nominate federal judges who revere the original intent of the US Constitution. With the prospect of one, and maybe two or three, Supreme Court justices retiring within the next four years, there is no greater calling than for him, and senate Republicans, to do all that is within their executive/legislative power to see to it that newly-appointed members of the Supreme Court, and federal judgeships, faithfully adhere to their Constitutional job description.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that the chair of the senate Judiciary Committee to be elected on a seniority basis. The senate may elect anyone from among its membership to chair that all-important committee. It is now time to discard dangerous and liberty-erosive tradition and political protocol and, instead, elect as chairman of the judiciary committee a Constitutional scholar who reveres the genuine Constitutional definition of the judicial branch of government.
Under such a common sense, preserve-America definition, Alren Specter does not qualify.
More than half a million Pennsylvanians foresaw the current major crisis that is facing us regarding the potential appointment of Arlen Specter as chair of the senate Judiciary Committee. That’s why, despite big money/strong-arm tactics/profligate lies/temporary democrat primary registration crossovers (all committed by the Specter forces alone), Pat Toomey, a virtual unknown, came within 1.5% of winning the Pennsylvania Republican senate nomination in April. The four-term incumbent Specter won by a mere 16,000 votes, with more than one million votes cast. And Toomey would have won by a comfortable margin, had the President and our junior senator placed principle before political protocol and endorsed him rather than his unworthy opponent, who sports a long history of deceit and betrayal.
I am also certain that Toomey would have won the senate seat handily on Tuesday, and not only would we not be faced with the specter of a Specter chairmanship of Judiciary, but we would have a junior senator with major Reagan-esque leanings sitting in one of Pennsylvania’s senate seats. But, as they say, that’s water under the bridge. I simply hope that President Bush now has a new, and exquisitely personal, understanding of the phrase biting the hand that feeds you. Arlen Specter has one mean and powerful bite.
To those Pennsylvanians who have followed Specter’s infamous four-term career, it reads like an immutable script: (1) enter, stage right, having counted on moderates and conservatives to return you to the stage to begin with; (2) spend about five and a half years moving consistently stage left, while arrogantly defending yourself against those who, dutifully and sincerely, remind you that you are not playing the role you were cast to play; and then (3) half-heartedly meander back toward the right for the six months preceding your next re-election bid, hoping that the move right will eclipse the previous five and a half years of leftist role-playing. It always worked … until Pat Toomey shined a spotlight on the shenanigans. We’re wise to you now, Arlen. And it’s a good thing for you this is most likely your last term. Toomey would defeat you resoundingly in 2010.
Specter’s duplicity dates back to the mid-1960s, when he sat on the Warren Commission and formulated the ‘single-bullet theory’ to explain Oswald’s assassination of JFK. There are many right-minded people who believe he is responsible for a major cover-up of that crime, and its ramifications.
Around twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan nominated Jeff Sessions (who now providentially/coincidentally sits on the Judiciary Committee with Arlen) for a federal judgeship, Specter betrayed his constituents by voting with the democrats in killing the nomination. This betrayal marked the beginning of the now entirely too common act of killing the nominations of those with whom you don’t share a political ideology … and the Constitution be damned. Before Sessions’ defeat, a federal judicial nominee had only been turned down once in the four decades since the Roosevelt administration. So Arlen Specter effectively set the stage for politicized judicial confirmations – a mighty arrogant, and toxic, unconstitutional precedent that laid the groundwork for the awarding of judgeships based on leftist political ideology. And the liberty-eroding effect of this perversion of power on every aspect of American society has been monumental.
And Arlen continued wielding his leftist-agenda-driven power the following year, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork to sit on the Supreme Court. Bork had a sterling resume as a judge, and a Yale law professor (one needs only read his Slouching Towards Gomorrah to comprehend the sheer genius, judicial purity, and uncompromising allegiance to the Constitution that this giant of a man represents). Specter played a major role in Bork’s defeat, and I, for one, will never forgive him for his vicious character assassination of a man whose shoes he isn’t fit to shine.
Some believe that Specter regained his principles (although it’s difficult to regain that which one never possessed to begin with) when he defended Clarence Thomas against the left’s attacks in 1991. But one only needs to look at the timing of the Thomas hearings to understand Specter’s newfound fairness. The hearings occurred less than a year before Specter’s next re-election bid. Too little time to erase from the memory of conservative Pennsylvanians yet another betrayal. So he was forced to do what was right … simply because of the timing of the hearings.
Specter’s final betrayal occurred during the Clinton senate impeachment trial in 1998, during which he could have played a major role in ridding us of the most immoral, treasonous, criminal President we have ever known. Instead, he effectively ignored the US Constitution, and instead relied on (purported) ‘Scottish Law’ to allow the President to continue his reign of horror. He asserted that under the venerable ‘Scottish Law’ (which appears to trump the American Constitution), there are three possible verdicts in an impeachment trial: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. Voting ‘not proven’ (and enjoying the dubious distinction of being the only senator to do so) allowed him a cowardly retreat from alienating either his genuine leftist base, or the conservative/moderate supporters he needed to fool, yet again.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was so taken aback by the stupidity of Specter’s argument that he ordered Specter’s verdict to be recorded as ‘not guilty’.
And Arlen Specter’s probable lame duck status in this, his fifth term, means that, without concern for re-election for the first time in a quarter of a cerntury, he can move left over the next four years … and remain there.
Arlen Specter’s crimes against our republic have been many. But I believe the four above are the most grievous. He should not even be sitting in the US Senate, much less chairing the committee that will have enormous impact on the seating of federal judges, in an era in which activist judges have assumed the arrogant role of declaring the Constitution irrelevant when it comes to matters of leftist societal engineering.
There has never been a more opportune, or more urgent, time in our history for a President and congress to remain true to the conservative base that placed them in office. As regards (1) through (3) above, any compromises with leftist ideologues, and their barking cohorts in the media and academia, to which this administration and congress agree will amount to a betrayal of the populations of that overwhelming number of red states that sent a resounding message on Tuesday that they want American back on track.
The forty-third President, and members of the 109th congress, must govern like the conservative leaders they purport to be. The red states, and many inhabitants of the blue, believe it’s a matter of now or never.
Senate Majority Leader:
Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee:
~ joanie
Perhaps he could spend the years wiping the butts of the puppet masters since he values their priorities and goals so much.
I don't want Specter anywhere near the Judiciary Committee.
Jack.
Amen!
Amen!
Amen!
Your bold blue paragraph is something every American should know, and most of us didn't. Specter was one of the instigators of political judicial appointments. So he is a major culprit in something that should have nothing to do with someone who is chariman of the judiciary committee.
This is the best writing I've seen about why this man needs to be stopped. Thank you!
You have asked for my thoughts.
I agree with your 3 issues. Issue 2 - getting the appropriate justices confirmed was the point of my thread earlier today.
Your comments about Specter are compelling. This is why he must only be allowed to get the chairmenship under certain circumstances.
The point I wanted to raise is what is the best strategy to get to our goal. By Specter's foolish initial comment right after the election, he has given us an opportunity. He has already tried to back off the comments. The white House might let him slide - consider Rove's comments today.
Can we turn Specter into a useful vote. The critical item is what is the vote count that is needed to enact the nuclear option. I believe it is 50. If Specter's vote can be the difference we would be better served in having a requirement of 50 for judges even if it meant having Specter as chairman. as a second condition, perhaps the Senate rules can enact power to the majority leader to be able to change chairmen.
We must keep our eye on the prize. Also another point. We cannot totally throw the RINOS overboard - except for Chafee. We need them not to filibuster or help with other votes. Unfortunately, we do not have enough members in the Senate to enact our will without some problems. That is just reality.
The operative question is what is the best strategy. Just to throw Specter overboard makes him a more certain enemy. It may weaken our ability to get our judges through. If he is not allowed to have the chairmenship then it might be easier for the Rats to use this as an excuse to maintain the filibuster.
I have no love for Specter and feel similarly to what you do. More importantly, I want to keep my eye on the prize.
I ask what is the most effective strategy? If you deny the chairmanship to Specter then what? I created my thread to suggest an alternative view.
Too many of the people commenting on this issue are focused on the anger and retribution - which are well deserved. We should not make the Rats mistake that lost them the election. All I want is the most effective strategy to get solid qualified judges confirmed. We must not fail in this quest.
There is nothing in the Standing Rules of the Senate either that I can find.
More comments tomorrow...
If those are the big three issues, Specter should have no role because any answers he might have would be wrong.
I was hoping on election eve that his role would be retired. Now I see he made promises to newspapers that he wouldn't support Bush's judicial nominees for endorsements. Heaven only knows what else he promised to get reelected. He needs to be flat our ignored by the President, and the GOP need to treat him as what he is, the opposition.
But it's a diversion.
I see this as an attempt to create a backlash among the less religious.
I also see Specter's comments on abortion as an attempt to augment this backlash.
What I am trying to say is that Specter is trying to marginalize his secular opponents by dismissing them as "right-wing snake-handlers and tongue-talkers".
The only (practical, not rational) problems I see with your proposals are:
(1) Arlen Specter has a clear, and historically long, record of broken promises (As the most recent of hundreds, just look at his win in April's Pennsylvania primary. Anyone who understands politics knows that he has to have promised the President and Senator Santorum significant backing for conservative legislation in exchange for their endorsements, but it wasn’t twenty-four hours before he already began to distance himself from them, declaring himself an independent leader).
(2) As far as granting Frist the ability to remove chairmanships, that would be a viable option, were it not for the conceivable difficulty in getting that rule passed … and the possibility of granting too much power to future Majority Leaders of a more tyrannical bent than Frist. It might open up an unwanted Pandora’s box.
This is not to say that I disagree with anything you have said. Quite the contrary. But it is deeply discouraging how spider-like the modern political process has become. There are so many ramifications of each and every decision, or considered decision, that somehow right and wrong get lost in the shuffle.
~ joanie
Thanks for all the good information, joanie. I'll get busy with calls tomorrow.
All I have been trying to suggest is that maybe there is a better way to use this snake salesman. We know we have some leverage because he wants the judiciary chairmanship. we need to extract that leverage. As a failsafe, we need to have the majority leader have the power to change chairmen at any time.
It is also a given that he does not deserve the chairmanship. Most, if not all, of the people expressing their opinion on this site is in agreement with that.
Unfettered from concerns about reelection - Specter is at best a question mark. At worst, he will take the Rat position most of the time. This is reason enough to be afraid of Specter. Perhaps there is a price worth paying. If we can get our judges confirmed, then the price of having him as chairman is cheap.
It comes down to tactics and strategy. If Specter is dumped then what? This needs to be compared to a course of action with leverage extracted from Specter and then what. All I want is the most effective strategy.
You're very welcome, joanie......*~*.
Thanks for your reply. You make terrific points, all of which I agree with. Nothing is easy as it seems. I loved your description of the spider like process and how right and wrong gets lost in the shuffle.
What we need to focus on is how to best maneuver thru the webs keeping our eye on the right - in this case getting our judges confirmed. I suggest that this needs to be developed further. I am afraid that many of us are focused on Specter without regard for the ramifications. I would like to see a practical gameplan developed that culminates in our goal.
What was Bush thinking when he campaigned for Specter over Toomey? It certainly wasn't the good of the Nation.
Frankly, I'd like to hear Bush apologize for his support of Spector just as much as I would like to hear Kerry apologize to the Viet Nam vets for calling them war criminals.
No, there is not. I looked over it with a fine tooth comb on Wednesday after he won re-election, and included that fact in calls to Frist and Santorum. I plan to call all of the Republican members of the committee tomorrow, and will remind them of that fact, too.
Please make sure you post that link in any responses you make on Specter threads, John.
~ joanie
I am overwhelming you with 'joanie responses' tonight, but this one requires a huge STANDING OVATION.
What about if Specter is left on the Committee, but just not given the Chairmanship due to "it's best for the party"?
What does Specter's long record of broken promises tell us about the people of PA?
This is by far the best expose I have read about Specter. I agree with someone else on this thread that this should be in every newspaper in the country.
I wish Rush would read it on his show on Monday.
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.