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.
bump
We need to ram through the Nuclear Option as well. This is WAR
What leverage does Bush have over Specter once the Senator gains the chairmenship?
Specter's views are at odds with Bush's, and *stridently* so.
How can we expect this lame duck legislator will ignore his "conscience", the media, and his own stated views with merely gratitude as a counter?
I know. He sounded REALLY ungrateful. He didn't help deliver Penn either.
I have learned to have faith in GWB so if I get the impression he isn't happy with Specter, I'll be all over it.
I don't want the Dems to enjoy our infighting. They should be crying in their beer and contemplating what's wrong with their party and their agenda.
When will you kool-aid drinkers realize this is not infighting ? SPECTER IS A RINO ! He IS a DEMOCRAT !!!!
What are the rules for removing a Chairman? If we have a majority of the positions on the judiciary and all the Rep Senators on the committee vote against him for some given reason, wouldn't he be forced out of the position?
You all lost. Get over it.
Keep the calls coming and Specter's OUT!
My concern with Specter has nothing to do with my trust of the President. My concern is that, once Specter is in place, he will renege on any agreements he made with the President.
Specter's history indicates that he is an opportunist who serves his constituents on the Philadelphia Main Line. Their interests are his interests, and their interests are liberal.
My question to you is, do you know of any way that Specter can be reined in after he's named Chairman? I mean a legal solution, not a protest. What is our recourse if Specter acts as many of us suspect he will?
This is a very serious question. We have a number of "what-ifs" -- what if Specter and five others jump ship, what if all the moderates decide to work against us -- but the most dangerous what-if is the one we have a chance to stop right now. What if Specter refuses to allow pro-life nominees a hearing.
What is our course of action then?
Sorry -- meant to ask you the above question (151) as well.
Any Republican but Spectre.
We do not have 60 votes to confirm. Unless we go nuclear, which might be a good idea, we have to go slow. I'll let Rove make the decison.
"How can we expect this lame duck legislator will ignore his "conscience", the media, and his own stated views with merely gratitude as a counter?"
We don't know. Nothing is a guarantee. Who would have thought that Sandra Day O'Connor would advocate that we should start looking at International Law for Supreme Court Decisions?
He might provide cover for Bush's nominees. If he proves to be a jerk as chair, there should be the option of coup by the other Reps on the Committee. If enough pressure is brought to bear when he actually does something, then he should be voted off the island. I just think doing it now may alienate other Reps.
Just asking...
Shouldn't Chuckie, the third part of the McHagar Trinity, be on the list?
That's what I'm wondering. Are we taking Specter at his word (bad choice -- bad, Bad choice), or is there something he wants that he will get only if he cooperates.
If that's the case, what could it possibly be? It would have to be huge, like you said. And why would Bush want to reward a state with a democrat governor and a crazy mayor (Street, of Philadelphia).
Bush did not get much of a mandate in historic terms. He won fairly decisively, but I myself would not call it a mandate.
A mandate Jr.
Rove ? Just who elected him king of DC ?
So you have no problems with the GOP Senate rolling over for the Democrats, both of whom spent 2 years screwing President Bush and his judicial high court nominees? Specter as chairman or not, don't complain that Bush's nominees get blocked again.
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.