The Spectre of Specter

GOP USA ^ | November 8, 2004 | By Kay R. Daly

[vannrox]

Not 24 hours had passed since the stunning election victories for the White House, Senate and House before Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, began dictating terms for confirming judicial nominees to the President of the United States.

Specter, next in line to assume the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has a spotty record on judicial confirmations. He joined the left in "Borking" Robert Bork, but was a champion for Clarence Thomas, only to express public regrets for his support of Thomas later. Specter voted for Chief Justice Rehnquist, but stopped Senator Sessions' nomination to the federal bench dead in its tracks. On numerous occasions, Specter has raised "concerns" about President Bush's judicial nominees because of ideological differences of opinion. In one case, Specter voted a nominee out of committee, but vowed to vote against the nominee in the floor vote.

It is not only judicial nominations that Specter could throttle, but any tort reform legislation. He has proven his distaste for reforming the legal system by voting against medical malpractice reform. Never mind that having a baby and receiving any kind of obstetrical care is close to impossible in some states because of runaway medical malpractice costs, Specter seems to be more allied with trial lawyers than mothers seeking medical care for themselves and their babies. One can only imagine how quickly he might move to quash any other tort reform efforts.

The dangers of an unreliable Judiciary Committee chairman, particularly when the Supreme Court could yield two to four Supreme Court appointments in the next few years, cannot be underestimated. Concerned Women for America has an audio link on its web site that lists the myriad of ways that a Judiciary Committee chairman can influence a nominations battle. Given the looming nominations battle to replace the ailing Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, this issue should not be taken lightly.

Conservatives across the nation rallied to the voting booth on Tuesday citing "moral values" as the reason. Clearly this overwhelming response still baffles leftist pundits.

The answer, though, is simple. Liberals, unable to get their agenda through legislatures, Congress or at the ballot box, tried to force their issues through the courts. Activist judges whittled away at religious liberties including the Pledge of Allegiance, the display of the Ten Commandments and forced acceptance of homosexual marriage. The obstruction of extraordinarily qualified constitutionalist judges by a minority of United States Senators was the final straw. Ask Tom Daschle how that obstruction thing worked out for him.

The War on Terror is not the only mandate for the President of the United States. The values voters who turned out in record numbers last Tuesday voted to preserve the Constitution. Our founding fathers did not risk all during the American Revolution to fight a tyrannical king only to have us hand our freedoms to tyrannical black-robed jurists determined to emanate in any microscopic penumbra.

Nor did conservatives who rallied to the polls last Tuesday would have guessed that the mandate they were giving to the President could be stymied by one Senator destined to wield the chairman's gavel against the President's own judicial nominees. But that is the place we find ourselves in.

It is not an easy task to buck Senate tradition. But fresh off of Tuesday's election, it would appear that conservatives across the nation are burning up the phone and fax lines on Capitol Hill to do just that. And it should continue by phone, fax, email, or carrier pigeon, without so much as a pause until the message has been delivered to every member of the Republican caucus. Multiple times.

There are wise naysayers inside the Beltway who make a career prognosticating doom for any undertaking. Every conceivable catastrophic scenario imaginable is expressed in quiet, somber, doubtful tones in an effort to dissuade, distract and discourage.

But conservatives did not come this far, work this hard and make the extraordinary gains made on Tuesday to be deterred by the niceties of Senate tradition.

The mother of all nominations battles is just around the corner. More will follow. The results will have a profound effect for generations to come. The real victory is just within our reach.

Work those phones.

--------------------

[vannrox]

FAX and e-mail and WRITE.

[Thebaddog]

What voodoo does Specter have that Bush and all the rest are out there campaigning for such a sour, self-serving crank. Does Specter have pictures, or what?

[Always Right]

Get Involved!

Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Day 6)

Urgent!  Committee Assignments are being made THIS WEEK!  There are spots on the Judiciary Committee to be assigned.  Tell Sen. Frist and Sen Kyl we need Conservative members on the Judiciary and NO Arlen Specter!

Specter's in line for Chairman, but it can be Challenged!  It has happened in the past.  Moderate Lugar challenged the Great Jesse Helms for Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  A Challenger will have to come forward with the GOP members of the Judicial Committee meet on November 17th!  We need to find a member with the Courage to Challenge.

[BibChr]

Here are The Questions MacSpectre should, and won't, be asked, and required to answer plainly and specifically:

1. Did you do the right thing in Borking Bork?
2. If another Robert Bork — or Robert Bork himself —were to come before the committee you hope to chair, would you deal with him in the same way?

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board

[uncbob]

Specter will gave as SOON as the NOW gang or other liberals that voted for him start banging on him he will cave

[Constitution Day]

BTTT

[Lesforlife]

Does anyone know if an individual can be
nominated for a SCOTUS position more than
once?

Wouldn't it be sweet revenge to have
a Supreme Court Justice Bork?

[Joann37]

Right. Why did Bush campaign against Pat Toomey (sp)?, and for Specter, during the primaries? Didn't Bush anticipate Specter's pro-abortion stance at this date?

[Virginia Queen]

This is the website for the U.S. Senate. Pick your Senator and write!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?State=SD

[Virginia Queen]

There is nothing that prohibits it. But, realistically, why would someone who has been unsuccessfully subjected to the process what to do a re-run? I wouldn't.

[BibChr]

I know no *law* against it. Yes, it would be sweet.

Dan