Moderate Senator Fights for Top Judiciary Post

Reuters ^ | Nov 8, 2004 | Reuters

[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.

[reformed_democrat]

there should be the option of coup by the other Reps on the Committee

Much as I would love to see that, the chances of a coup in the Senate are slim and none. And slim just left town.

[OwnershipSociety]

I don't know what can be done once Specter gets in.

[hansel]

I don't know. I would like to know if it is in the rules that a Chairman can be voted out of the spot. If he can or the rules can be changed so he can, then we should go that route. It will not alienate anyone unnecessarily and would seem less reactionary.

If there is no such chance then that is another story.

Does anyone know?

[OwnershipSociety]

Bush then

[reformed_democrat]

So you have no problems with the GOP Senate rolling over for the Democrats

??

I think you and I are on two different threads.

I'm concerned that Specter will pose more of a problem as head of the Judiciary Committee than he would pose as a democrat. I believe you contend that, unless Specter is given the Chairmanship, we will have an even more difficult time getting our judges appointed.

My question is: If Specter is appointed Chairman, and if he does not allow conservative nominees a hearing, do we have any recourse other than a protest?

[BigSkyFreeper]

If he proves to be a jerk as chair, there should be the option of coup by the other Reps on the Committee.

I don't see that happening. The "other reps on the committee" didn't have the cajones to stand up and defend Bush's nominees on the Senate floor, they left town in the middle of the night, leaving a just a few to get horsewhipped by Schumer, Reid, and Clinton and being spooked out of their collective skulls by a large placard with the words "491 to 1" written in huge print.

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'm aware Specter is not trustworthy. My concern is for the rest of the GOP who didn't have the intestinal fortitude to actually stand up and defend each and every single one of Bush's nominees when the vote came to the Senate floor. Many of them didn't even bother to show up at the Senate floor debate, and those that did got whipped on the floor by Schumer, Reid, and Clinton.

[Axenolith]

I'm not prepared to trust him at this time. It might be a bit easier if he hadn't flew off the handle with the dumb ass remarks.

Bush should never have supported his reelection. Regardless of whether the up and comer would have had a good shot, Specter as an example to others who try to sneak in liberal BS under the guise of being a Republican would have been worth far more than keeping his cobweb covered RINO butt warming a seat in our section IMO...

[OwnershipSociety]

Politics makes strange bedfellows. I heard that somewhere.

[reformed_democrat]

. . . a Chairman can be voted out of the spot. If he can or the rules can be changed so he can, then we should go that route.

That sounds like a reasonable request.

Those who support Specter for Chairman should start a call-in campaign of their own requesting just that.

My greatest fear is that we will have come all this way and gain nothing. I would solve that by removing what I see as an obstacle before it can trip me up. If you can remove this obstacle another way, that's fine, too.

We just can't lose. Not again.

[Natural Law]

He isn't even "moderate" when compared to Kerry.

[smokeyb]

Truer words were never spoken. Ever wonder why he got so many more votes no PA than Bush did ? Ever wonder why so many KERRY/SPECTER signs were springing up in PA ?

[Walkingfeather]

"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.

and this is the outcome we want clearly in his mind if he is confirmed, we want him on the defensive having to prove to us he will confirm our judges.
I think hugh hewitt has a point, if we blow our power majority we will be screwed for the 06 elections where there are like 12 republican judges up for re-election.

READ THIS POST IT CHANGED MY MIND

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1340110

[OwnershipSociety]

I concur.

[swilhelm73]

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?

A truism of the court is that many conservatives turn left after being appointed. Lord Acton's maxim on power corrupting seems to be the principle at work...

and that brings us to Specter and his quest for the SJC...

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.

So then you are willing to take his word all by itself. I should point out he has also given his word to others that he will keep conservatives off the SC (or at least from attaining a majority) and personally save R v W... He is certainly lying to someone, no?

Now this gets me to two questions, that I've yet seen answered. The first I asked earlier;

1) What exactly can Bush and/or conservatives do if Specter does help bork another justice. I'm asking for *specifics* and something that is within the realm of the possible. I should note, the argument that you have advanced that we should give him a chance before trying to take him down depends completely on this question being answerable.

2) Why does Specter want the SJC chairmenship to begin with? He is neither a pro-lifer nor a strict constructionist. The job of the SJC chairmen is either to help, or help stop, the President's judicial picks from being appointed. Certainly his personal political views and "legacy" aren't advanced by helping strict constructionists be appointed.

OTOH, both his political views, and his "legacy" would be greatly advanced by being the monkeywrench in remaking the Supreme Court. Not only is this latter case compelling, I see little else that could be his motiviation.

[smokeyb]

Oh, please ! Don't be posting DU trash threads on here !

[hansel]

I definitely understand your perspective about not wnating to come this far and lose. I only came to my position after a lot of thought.

I also don't want to lose by alienating a lot of people who we will need to vote with us to confirm nominees and also pass Bush's agenda in general.

I think the best route to accomplish both (not alienating anyone yet being able to hold Specter accountable) would be to see what the rules are and if they can't vote a chairman out then change the rules so they can.

I just don't know right now what the rules are to make a suggestion other than the above. I don't think the nuclear option would be wise unless we know we will win and we know the positives will outweigh the negatives.

[Tripoli]

Since my first vote was for DDE, I know you want my $.02 worth. If specter gets the chairmanship and then lives up to his lying, sneaky history, we can do NOTHING.

Nothing, unless he pulls a Clinton with an intern, a Lott in a speech or some such thing. It is much easier to stop him now than later.
Its a risk to go for him now, but it would be next to impossible later.

No Specter, none of the time!

[hansel]

About your #1 see my post #163.