Posted on 11/08/2004 5:26:23 PM PST by mdittmar
Sen. Arlen Specter pledged on Monday not to oppose Supreme Court nominees just because they are anti-abortion as the moderate Republican fought to keep alive his bid to head the Senate panel that oversees judicial nominations.
"Absolutely not, and it's not just what I'm saying — I have done it. I have not applied a litmus test, and have voted to confirm pro-life judges," he said in a television interview.
But conservative critics kept calling for someone other than the Pennsylvania senator to be Judiciary Committee chairman in the newly elected Congress, and other Senate Republicans said little or nothing in Specter's defense.
Specter, who favors keeping abortion legal, is in line to replace the more conservative Sen. Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, as chairman based on seniority.
Peterson Jury Urged to Keep an Open Mind N.J. Governor Delivers Farewell Address Moderate Senator Fights for Top Judiciary Post He angered conservatives last week by saying he thought it unlikely the newly elected Senate — even with its Republican majority expanded to 55 — would confirm a Supreme Court nominee who wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark case legalizing abortion.
The question of who wields the gavel in the Judiciary Committee is crucial. President Bush may make several nominations to the Supreme Court during his second term because Chief Justice William Rehnquist is ailing and other judges are thought to be close to retirement.
The Senate is expected to pick a chairman next week. First, the Republican members of the committee must nominate the chairman by secret ballot. Then, according to party rules, another secret ballot vote is taken by all Senate Republicans.
If they reject the committee's recommendation, the matter is sent back to committee with instructions for it to nominate someone else.
Specter is a loose Liberal. He's only contrite now because he's seen the Conservative outrage up close and personal. He's screwed us enough times that he does not deserve our trust in the least.
The threat to remove him from Judiciary Chair if he renigs on an agreement with Bush could be held over his head to force him to comply.
Bull. Once he's in the Judiciary Committee, getting him out will be much harder. And between you and me, I'd rather knock off a tick before it sinks its jaws into my hide.
Specter's going to have to pay Bush back for his re-election when Bush comes knocking at his door.
Specter owed his re-election to Bush from the start and he STILL warned Bush not to send Conservative, pro-Life judges his way. And you think we should give Specter the benefit of the doubt? It is to laugh.
OK, you seem to know what is going on. Please explain in detail HOW HIS FEET ARE BEING HELD TO THE FIRE ????
Bush should spend every cent of it on a combination of saving America from terrorists and saving the unborn from murderous ghouls in their own land. EVERYTHING else can go on hold as far as I am concerned.
If we work and make even more gains in '06 we will be in a much stronger position.
We are not bulletproof yet.
How so?
He's made the statement that President Bush should be careful who he nominates. This does not sound like a man who cares what others think of him. This sounds like a man who will do as he pleases, whenever he pleases, and critics be damned.
What?! And have him pull a Kennedy on us, like after the Education bill???
Bush was of course too Presidential in allowing his own party screwing with his Judicial nominees and allowing them to get filibustered in the Senate by both Conservative and dare I say SQUISHY Republicans.
I am from NY, therefore he is not my Senator but I know he voted against Bork and I know he's a RINO.
I'm just trying to prevent Rep. infighting from occurring. We need to move forward and enact Bush's agenda without too much infighting. We need to fight the Dems, not each other.
The WH and Frist know we are serious about the judges. If Specter does something punishable as chair, punish him. Keep him on a shoet leash.
Calling Robert Bork, Mr. Bork please pick up the courtesy phone, Or turn on the TV at the bar and wacth this idiot..
My, my!
Great minds do think alike! ;)
Reuters calls Spector a moderate....
Guess it depends upon your perspective.....
According to Rueters Islamic terrorists are freedom fighters
Hamas is a boy scout organization and Arafat is a male supermodel
I am willing to let Bush make the decision. Are you? He is not signaling that he wants Specter out.
From Hugh Hewiit's blog.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/
The effort to stop Arlen Specter from gaining the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary continues, though Karl Rove's comments yesterday signal the president's confidence that Specter will get the job done. I haven't persuaded anyone at The Corner yet, so time to try again. Opponents of Specter have to ask themselves a few questions. In fact, I'd like to seem them answer these questions in text:
Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that he would vote for Bush nominees to move from the committee to the floor?
Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to end filibusters on the floor?
Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to confirm nominees once they had made it to the floor and once a filibuster had been broken?
What would the effect of blocking Specter have on the conduct of his colleagues from the GOP's "center-left" wing, especially Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine and Chafee of Rhode Island? Would blocking Specter increase the likelihood of their opposition to Bush nominees? Can opponents of Specter guarantee that they can have their cake and eat it to, or might these four (and perhaps Hagel of Nebraska) respond by returning fire on nominees?
Specter's opposition to Bork in 1987 was 15 years ago. Specter supported Clarence Thomas and every Bush nominee since W's election in 2000. On what basis do opponents of Specter base their belief that he will oppose Bush nominees in the second term?
What would the effect of blocking Specter be on the re-election of Rick Santorum in 2006? What would the effect of blocking Specter be on the chances of turning Pennsylvania "red" in '08?
If Specter in fact blocked any future nominee from coming to the floor and obtaining an up-or-down vote, I would then join the call for his demotion. But the first act of governing as a majority should not be the rejection of part of the governing coalition's majority because of ideology. Majorities are fleeting and have to be nurtured, not disciplined unless the nurturing fails. There are a couple of Democrats worth wooing in a reverse Jeffords (remember him?) Blocking Specter ends that and any other attempts to regularize the nomination process, returning it to its constitutional design.
It is the process that is broken, not the individual. Specter committed himself to a timetable for nominees and the entire Republican caucus needs to make this the priority. It might feel good to have a little purge, but that would be destructive of the ends for which this majority has been assembled, and the center-right needs to keep its eyes on the ball, which is the Supreme Court, not the man in the chair.
Better the Chairman you know (and have to watch closely) than the Jeffords (one, two, three or four of them?) you don't.
The Washington Post has a great post on the evangelical vote. This is one of the two great stories of election '04, the other being the surge in the Latino vote to Bush. I hope those Rove-Mehlman lieutenants in charge of organizing these groups get a bonus and a plea to stay on and keep working. Salutes to Dr. Dobson and other key leaders, World Magazine, my evangelical colleagues in broadcasting and blogging and other forces in the evangelical community for tireless efforts to prompt people of faith towards participation. It is a start, but by no means an end.
It may strike some readers as odd that I devote most of this post to arguing against the blocking of Senator Specter's chairmanship and end it with a salute to evangelical voting strength. But the two are tied together closely. Evangelicals have to give the majority coalition in which they are dominant part the opportunity to deliver political accomplishments over a period of time, and they must accept less than perfection on the part of the coalition --because it is a coalition, not a pure majority. This is why I wrote my book this past year, and why it remains necessary to keep reminding people that there are not enough conservatives in this country to gain a governing majority. It is easy to lose sight of that undeniable fact just after a sweeping win. But if the center-right does forget, it will be back in the minority in two short years. Keep the elections of 1986 in mind. Weakened by Iran-Contra, the Republicans lost control of the Senate and lost seats in the House. Losing control of the Senate brought on the Borking of Bork. The majority matters, and it would be disastrous if the maneuvering of late 2004 contributed to a replay of November 1986 leading to a 2007 replay of the confirmation debacle of Robert Bork.
Kind of hard to burn a ghost isn't it. Specter is a good name. He is what he ain't. He flip flops every time the year before his re-election.
Gotta start somewhere. And besides, I'll wager that when we make an example of Specter, a lot of erstwhile RINOs are going to straighten up and fly right.
I favor nipping this in the bud. If we do not take a strong stand with Specter, we will be in much the same position we were with Daschle as Senate Majority Leader -- for every gain we make, we will have to give up something we value.
it's obvious...how long do you think you will last this time?
have we sparred before?
I miss my old pals Mortin Sult and OPH-Palpatine but I know you are neither of them....you're more brawn less acid.
anyhow....you know what they say about opinions I'm sure.
we shall see how this plays out.
cheers!
Liberals Lie...even Liberal republicans.
Don't trust Mr single bullet theory.
Sphincter must go.
For Anyone who says that abortion is ok......what else is ok with you who will allow baby killing?
You know....I agree with that.
Simply said and cogent.
I hope he is only triangulating. Then if the GOP Senate maneuvers him out of the Judiciary chair due to the uproar, Bush will not get any of the blame.
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.