Posted on 11/08/2004 6:42:54 PM PST by GeneralHavoc
Not including senators from massachusetts, of course.
BUMP
bttt
We can still win this!
BTTT
I've even called Specter's office and asked him not to support himself. No stone unturned!!
What I get from this is that Frist and Santorum want to hide behind the committee members, which makes both of them chickensh*ts.
FoxNews had a piece on this tonight (maybe Brit Hume's Special Report) which showed the calls re Specter that Cornyn was receiving.
Thanks
What does this say about Senator Specter?
I don't think GeneralHavoc can read any better than you can. You might want to ask another Freeper.
haha, yer funny ;)
The chairman can smooth the way through confirmation for a nominee or allow a nominee to be Borked by an unending string of hostile witnesses making unfounded charges.
"Senate rules" didn't keep the Senate from removing Trent Lott for one innocuous statement, don't let your Republican Senator and Frist hide behind "Senate rules".
Specter is stuck in the middle of his constituents and the right wing. If he pleases his voters he gets in trouble with NRO. If he pleases NRO he gets in trouble with his constituents.
To push him off the chairman seat when Specter feels entitled to it is likely to strain his loyalty to the party. Dubya Cheney Specter Allen Rove Rush and Hannity understand the situation. They have weighed out the odds and made their choice. I agree with them because I respect their abilities.
If we reject Specter because some think the GOP has enough votes we are destined to lose more seats. This will be a wake up call to all moderates that the right wing doesn't want them in the party, and the GOP leadership has no interest in protecting them from the extremists of the party.
I won't let the right wing make the GOP a minority party again without a fight. I do not want the rats back in power, but I believe a number of anti-Specter posters would be ambivalent about it because 2 months ago many of the same posters said they wouldn't vote for Bush because he was soft on protecting the boarder, or some other pet issue of the month.
They don't want to win. They want to complain and they can't do that when Specter and Bush are sending Pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court, but they can if rational leaders make rational decisions and stay on course.
It has not even been one week and the Republicans are being deluged with calls and email. Some people think they have nothing better to do than read the illiterate uninformed rantings of the inbreed. Get a job you losers.
A stitch in time saves nine.
Specter is the last possible person you want leading the fight to confirm Bush's judges!
Senator Specter has an Agenda — Liberal Judges
“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.” – Remarks by Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004.
President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” – Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.
Senator Arlen Specter's shocking comments the day after President Bush's decisive re-election raise troubling concersn
Specter denied the legitimacy of President Bush’s historic mandate.
Specter announced a pro-abortion litmus test for the president’s judicial nominees. Specter claims that Roe v. Wade is “inviolate” and insists that “nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it.”
Specter’s illegal litmus test would disqualify all constitutionalist nominees from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.
Specter’s illegal litmus test demands that all nominees violate the canons of judicial ethics by announcing or pledging how they will vote in a particular case.
Specter will not promise to support the President’s nominees. Instead, he merely “hopes” that he can support them. The day after the election, when a reporter asked Specter if he would support the president’s nominees, the senator hesitated and equivocated: “I am hopeful that I’ll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the president’s judicial nominees. I’m hopeful that I can support them.”
Specter criticized President Bush’s first-term judicial nominees: “The nominees whom I supported in committee, I had reservations on.”
Specter insulted Janice Rogers Brown, president Bush’s nominee to the important U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Specter referred to Brown, a distinguished conservative and the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, as “the woman judge out of California” who he had reservations about.
Specter insulted the entire Supreme Court of the United States, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. When a reporter asked Specter “Are you saying that there is not greatness” on the Supreme Court, Specter replied: “Yes. Can you take yes for an answer?”
Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.
Specter accused President Bush of ignoring the Senate’s advise and consent role: “The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn’t say quite ignored, but close to that.”
Specter wants to encroach upon the president’s appointment power. Obstructionist Democrats filibustered ten of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. Now Specter wants the Senate to become MORE involved in judicial appointments: “My hope is that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views.”
Specter's record over the last 20 years demonstrated a pattern of very troubling conduct on Judiciary Committee issues
Specter fought against the distinguished Judge Robert H. Bork, betraying President Reagan and his fellow Republicans.
Specter voted against Judge Bork on the judiciary committee, and against Bork’s confirmation on the Senate floor. By joining liberal Democratic senators and radical left-wing groups in their opposition to Judge Bork, Specter gave those groups aid and comfort, and was instrumental in Judge Bork’s defeat.
Judge Bork warned Americans that Specter does not understand the Constitution and that Specter, along with Senate Democrats “professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles in the actual Constitution.”
President Ronald Reagan called the left-wing assault against Judge Bork “an unprecedented political attack” on a Supreme Court nominee and “a tragedy for our country.” Specter rebuffed President Reagan’s plea to support Judge Bork.
Specter helped defeat the nomination of conservative Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship.
Specter warned filibustered appeals court nominee William Pryor that just because he voted for him on the committee did not mean that he would vote on the Senate floor for his confirmation.
The “National Review” exposed Specter as “The Worst Republican Senator” in a prominent September 1, 2003 cover story. According to “National Review,” Specter “is not a team player…is an abortion rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tax reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court.”
Specter refuses to support the elevation of Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice: “I’d have to think about that,” Specter equivocated. Ditto for Justice Antonin Scalia: “I’d have to think about that too.” Specter once slandered Justice Thomas as a “disappointment.”
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee must be someone devoted to the Constitution as written and the rule of law
The situation is urgent. Chief Justice Rehnquist is gravely ill. A Supreme Court vacancy is imminent.
President Bush may be called upon to nominate a Supreme Court justice within the next several weeks.
Court watchers predict as many as three Supreme Court vacancies during President Bush’s second term.
President Bush will likely have a historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalist principles.
The President needs as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee a loyal, reliable, conservative partner who will shepherd his nominees through the confirmation process.
Under intense political pressure, Specter tried to recant portions of his post-election statements the day after he uttered them. That means nothing. His 20-year record of party disloyalty and tormenting conservative nominees means everything.
As chairman, Specter will act as a vexatious intermeddler, second-guessing President Bush’s Supreme Court and lower court nominations. This imperils the President’s legacy.
Under the Senate’s seniority rules, Specter is slated to take over the Judiciary Committee, but under Senate rules and procedures, he can be stopped from becoming committee chairman.
The window of opportunity to stop Specter is limited. Once he becomes chairman, it will be impossible to unseat him.
afa.net
Copyright ©2004 • American Family Association
All Rights Reserved
Senate Republicans are said to be seeking to add two more Senators to the Judiciary Committee, bring the total number of Republicans to 11. I've heard that Senator Sam Brownback from Kansas is a possible addition. I've also hear incumbent Senator John Thune, South Dakota mentioned. Does anyone know who the most likely new members really are, and shouldn't we add them to the contact list?
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.