Posted on 11/10/2004 2:06:25 AM PST by Always Right
Our Resolve:
Whereas, liberal Senator Arlen Specter is in line to be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has a stated litmus test against pro-abortion judges.
Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has stated he will fight against conservative judges
Whereas, in the past liberal Arlen Specter has helped defeat great judges like Robert Bork,
Whereas, the Democrats have loaded the Judiciary Committee with extreme liberals such as Kennedy, Feinstein, Leahy, and Schumer.
Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter is in a position to turn our huge and historic election victory into a defeat by killing the nomination of all decent judges,
Be it resolved, that we will do whatever it takes to get liberal Arlen Specter off the Judiciary Committee!
Updates:
11-10 Update: The media is trying to tell us that the outrage over Specter's arrogant threat is dying down. However, inside reports are telling us Senate staffers are still busy full time answering anti-Specter callers. Phone lines are busy and angry voters are having a difficult time getting through. Ignoring the media spin, the outrage isn't about to die. It is important to note that NOT ONE member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has come out in support of Specter. Senator Cornyn, Kyl, and Graham have expressed serious concern, and are waiting to see how it plays out. Believe me, these Senators share our same concerns and the Phone Calls are having an impact! If one Senator is going to come to Specter's defense, it will likely be Senator Hatch. Outside of Hatch, I don't anticipate Specter getting too much support. Specter is not out of hot water yet and we are not about to turn down the heat.
Thomas Sowell: "It would be a tragedy for him to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he could mangle nominees, and in the process mangle the Constitution of the United States."
6 More Years?: Specter defenders are saying Specter will be a good soldier and if he does screw up we will oust him. But how? Once Specter is in, he is in. Senate leadership isn't going to pull some unprecedented and undefined action to remove Specter. Specter will be Chairman for the next 6 years assuming the GOP controls the Senate. Bank on it. Now Specter may play good soldier for a year, maybe two. But what about years 3, 4, 5, and 6? Specter is going to go back to his old self, there can be no doubt. Is the smooth sailing in the short term really worth it? I think the balance of the Supreme Court will be decided in those later years when we will see the real Arlen. Is the short-term fix worth the long term risk?
Specter Still Not in the Clear: Fox News story and video! Fox did a story on the hundreds of web based efforts to stop Specter. If you watch the video, the second site that is flashed up is FreeRepublic! According to the video, the White House is not going to help Specter, but leave it all up to Specter. The effort to stop Specter is still going strong!
11-9 Update: The response to this effort has been extraordinary. Senators have reported they have been getting more calls about Specter than anything this year with the exception of gay marriage. Don't be discouraged by speculation from talking heads or people are fearful of backlash. There is a process for selecting the chairman and the process is just getting started. I fully expect the initial selection to follow protocol and select Specter. The GOP leadership will leave it up to the members of the Judiciary to make a switch. On November 17th, the GOP judiciary members get to decide if one of them is going to challenge Specter. Even if none of them decide to challenge in an open vote in committee, it still has to be confirmed by the whole GOP caucus. If 11 Senators decide they want a closed vote on the Chairmen selection, they will have a closed vote and Specter can be thrown out at that time. Any talk that someone knows how this process will play out is total BS. Keep up the pressure! They are conservative Senators out there that will make a stand.
The GOP leadership seems to be taking a stand that they are going to leave it up to the Judiciary Committee members. For those who claim it is a done deal, let's see where they stand:
Sen. Cornyn: "We'll have to see where he (Specter) stands."
Sen. Jeff Sessions: Was a judge 'borked' by Specter from the federal bench back in the Reagan era. Likely would oppose Specter given an opportunity.
Sen. Graham: "The original comments attributed to Senator Specter were very unnerving…. His statement clarifying his position is reassuring, and I hope we will work our way through this."
Sen. Kyl: Indicated in an interview he would be the one to challenge Specter, but will have to wait to see what happens. Said the calls to his office were about 1000-1 against Specter.
This doesn't sound like a done deal. Keep up the Pressure folks!
11-8 Update: We are in a critical week. A fellow Freeper has informed me that there will be LOTS of activity this week. The Committee on Committees will be formed and important committee assignments will be made. There will be one or two new spots on the Judicial Committee for the GOP. These spots must be filled by rock solid conservatives. Frisk of course will be a key player here, and so will Senator Kyl. E-mail and fax them and tell them the kind of committee members we need. They will also make initial selections on who the committee chairmen will be. I assume they will follow the seniority rules, but they probably don't have to. The actual GOP Judicial Committee members will meet and vote on their Chairman next week, November 17. If someone in the Committee wants to challenge for the Chairman's job, it will be done there. A final vote on committee Chairmen will be done later by all the GOP Senators.
*****URGENT: Things are happening now! Committee assignments, initial Chairman selections. Keep Sen. Frist and Sen. Kyl informed that we want Conservative appointments on Judiciary and no Arlen Specter.
Karl Rove's Comments: "What I do know is that he told the president that, if he, Senator Specter, were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that every one of the president's nominees would receive a prompt hearing, a vote in the committee within a reasonable period of time, and that his appellate nominees would all be brought to the floor for an up-or-down decision on the floor. And we're in — Senator Specter's a man of his word, and we'll take him at his word if he becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee."
One thing to note, Rove said 'if' not once, but twice! Something tells me Specter is not out of the woods. However, Rove and Bush seem to put too much faith in Arlen Specter's word. But which Arlen is telling the truth, the one who promised Bush or the one who promised his liberal media friends that none of Bush's extremist judges would be approved to the Bench?
My Question: Why is Specter, a man who opposes everything the GOP stands for on judicial nominations, even on the Judicial Committee???? It really makes no sense.
James Dobson: "There are many, many members of that committee that are more qualified and less of a problem than Senator Specter....He is a problem, and he must be derailed."
11-7 Update: According to an information from an interview on Concerned Women for America website, the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee meet on Wednesday, November 17 to vote on who they select for Chairman. This is an open vote so everyone on the committee will know where they stand. There needs to be someone to CHALLENGE Specter for the Chairman's role. Anyone on the committee would be far superior to Specter. Grassley has removed himself from consideration, but Kyl or Sessions seem like good candidates. We must contact their offices of ALL the GOP committee members and plant some seeds and get some feedback on this. We only have 9 days left on this.
Focus: Drafting a CHALLENGER to Specter - E-mail, fax, phone GOP Committee Members! - Only 9 days left tell they vote! Any feedback you get from any Senate office is appreciated.
Once each committee selects their Chairman, all GOP Senators vote up or down on these Chairmen in a closed vote. Details on when this happens are not known. It is important to contact your GOP Senator's office and voice your opposition to Specter. They will get to vote on it!
Keep up the Good Work: We are being heard! Numerous stories out there prove that we are making a difference.
Grassley somewhat defends Specter: Grassley came out yesterday and told us we don't need to worry about Specter. Not exactly a strong endorsement. His reason, "you know, he led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas, and he's been behind all of the President's appointments the last four years." Really? Specter hindered the nomination of Leon Holmes and expressed serious doubts about him. Specter's position meant that Holmes went up for a vote without a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee. And for Justice Thomas, Specter supported Thomas out of political necessity. Specter was taking a beating for what he did to Robert Bork and was facing a tough re-election. Specter was forced to redeem himself or would have been voted out of office. Specter is not a wild card here, even before last's week press conference where Specter warned Bush about his nominees, Specter has made in position clear during this election. Seeking Post-Gazette's endorsement, Specter went to their editorial board, and promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench. Extremist judges in Specter language are those like Scalia.
Watch out for Specter: Specter knows he is in trouble. Specter is going on the talk show circuit to make his case. Don't buy into his BS. Specter will point out that he has supported Bush's nominees. He voted for Thomas. He voted for Scalia. Of course, so did Senator Kerry and 96 other Senators. Like Senator Kerry, Specter wants to maintain the liberal balance on the court. They will only support a conservative judge if it does not threaten Roe v. Wade. Senator Specter says he doesn't have a litmus test. But just ask Specter what he would do if the court were divided 5-4 on abortion. I am 100% convinced Specter would pull out any and all stops to make sure a pro-abortion judge is appointed. The more I learn about Specter, the more I see that protecting Roe v. Wade is his number one priority. This is why Specter will do and say ANYTHING to get the Judiciary Chairman assignment. Specter is a snake, when he goes to pat you on the back watch out for the knife in his hand. Specter flat out hates social conservatives and 'strict constructionist' judges. Specter is a 'living document' guy.
Ann Coulter was Right: Back in April, Ann warned us that the election between Toomey and Specter was the second most important election of the year. In hindsight, it must be concluded that Ann was dead on. Specter was worthless in helping Bush carry Pennsylvania, but now will be a big thorn in our side on getting judicial nominees confirmed.
Allies:
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
National Right to Life Committee
Focus on the Family
Confused Conservatives:
Petitions on the Web:
We Want a Strong Leader on the Senate Judiciary Committee - GOPUSA
"New Pro-Abortion Senate Judiciary Chair?" - Voices Heard
Arlen Specter MUST NOT become Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. - nospecter
Pull chair out from under RINO Arlen Specter - Conservative Petitions
Petition to Republican Senators Opposing the Election of Senator Arlen Specter - AFA
THE FAIR JUDICIARY OATH - Coalition for Fair Judiciary
On-line Petition - gopwing.com
Latest News Stories:
NEW! An ominous Specter - Thomas Sowell 11-10 Part II
NEW! Specter Still Not in the Clear - Fox News 11-9
NEW! Spat over Specter may be subsiding - Pittsburg Post-Gazette 11-9
NEW! Conservatives target Specter - Washington Times 11-9
NEW! GOP Senators Struggle with Specter Chairmanship Focus on the Family 11-9
NEW! Under Fire, Specter Gets Only Tepid White House Support NY Times 11-9
NEW! Why the Specter flap matters - Boston Globe 11-9
The Left's View on Specter - Limbaugh 11-9
Specter Campaign Crumbling - Human Events 11-8
Senate Chairmanship in Question for Specter - NPR 11-8
Specter Opponents Pressing Senate Leaders - AP 11-8
A Specter of Trouble - OpinionEditorials 11-8
Specter: "I not only voted against Bork, I led the charge aGrassroots PAgainst him." - Grassroots.PA 11-7
Specter says he won't slow anti-abortion court nominees - CNN 11-7
Arlen Specter - "Bork" Him - Intellectual Conservative 11-6
Judges Following No Law (why Arlen Specter must go) - ****Robert Bork, 8-12-04
Keep Arlen Specter off chair of Judiciary Committee! - WND 11-6
Who's spinning? Specter or reporter? - WND 11-5
All eyes on Sen. Specter - Washington Times 11-5
Conservative wing raises fuss over Specter's views - New York Times 11-5
Specter faces battle for Judiciary chair - Washington Times 11-5
Sen. Specter Ignites Firestorm of Opposition - NewsMax 11-5
Suffering Specter - Pittsburg Tribune Review 11-5
Specter's Remarks Trigger Protest - Focus on the Family 11-5
Lawmaker wants Grassley on judiciary panel - Des Moines Register 11-5
Specter 'Borked' Himself from Senate Judiciary Committee - Concerned Women for America 11-5
Pro-Life Pray-In Planned to Stop Specter - CNSNEWS 11-5
Will Specter Chair Judiciary? - Human Events 11-5
Thank You, Arlen - National Review 11-3
GOP Sen. Specter Vows to Block Bush's Nominees - NewsMax 10-29
The Northeastern Liberal (Kerry and Specter, two peas in a pod.) - Evan-Novak 3-11-04
Background:
Actual Transcript of News Conference Wherein Specter Threatens Bush's Judicial Nominees
Specter's "Clarification" of his Threats to Pres. Bush's Judicial Nominees
Another Soros Specter Connection (The Bush-Soros Pick)
SPECTER SLAMS CONSERVATIVES IN CAMPAIGN LETTER, ATTACKS PRO-LIFERS, CHRISTIANS
Contact Information:
Bill Frist: E-mail: senator.frist@senate.gov
461 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510
PHONE: (202) 224-3344
Web Form (Email his office): http://www.frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
Contact Information for all Senators
Sen. Orrin Hatch, UT, current Committee Chair PH: 202-224-5251 FX: 202-224-6331
Sen. Jon Kyl, AZ PH: 202-224-4521 FX: 202-224-2207
Sen. John Cornyn, TX PH: 202-224-2934 FX: 202-228-2856
Sen. Charles Grassley, IA PH: 202-224-3744 FX: 319-363-7179
Sen. Mike DeWine, OH PH: 202-224-2315 FX: 202-224-6519
Sen. Jeff Sessions, AL PH: 202-224-4124 FX: 202-224-3149
Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC PH: 202-224-5972 FX: 202-224-3808
Sen. Larry Craig, ID PH: 202-224-2752 FX: 202-228-1067
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, GA PH: 202-224-3521 FX: 202-224-0103
Homepages of Judiciary Committe Members:
Orrin Hatch Chuck Grassley Jon Kyl Mike DeWine Jeff Sessions Lindsey Graham Larry Craig Saxby Chambliss John Cornyn Arlen Specter
Media Contacts:
Special@foxnews.com; rush@eibnet.com; hannity@foxnews.com; editor@weeklystandard.com; beltwayboys@foxnews.com; tblankley@washingtontimes.com; jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com; gpierce@washingtontimes.com; jseper@washingtontimes.com; Templar119@aol.com; malkin@comcast.net; letters@charleskrauthammer.com; ben@cspc.org; adams_mike@hotmail.com; ballen@t3energy.com; greg@therightbalance.org; VAlpher@aol.com; friends@atr.org; ruddy@spectator.org; editor@spectator.org; rjbacak@sbcglobal.net; online.editors@barrons.com; me@glennbeck.com; carol@carolbernhard.com; jennifer.biddison@heritage.org; kotta@foxnews.com; briankbodine@yahoo.com; jimbohannon@1050wevd.com; JeffBolton@woai.com; wackerma@bowdoin.edu; chrisb@unt.edu; erniebrown@americaatnight.com; bucc@bucknellconservatives.org; calpundit@cox.net; chairman@cyr.org; joshcampbell@mail.utexas.edu; info@capitolhillblue.com; castellanopj@earthlink.net; charles@littlegreenfootballs.com; bobcole@clearchannel.com; cn@isi.org; letters@commentarymagazine.com; lauren.conner@bba02.bus.utexas.edu; dj@flipsideshow.com; copleyd@wharton.upenn.edu; tom@anncoulter.org; info@collegegop.org; cugop@colorado.edu; crider@mail.utexas.edu;
hill2@cp.chemeketa.edu; j0annaz@yahoo.com; rcuster@yaf.org; pundit@dailypundit.com; lukerval@hotmail.com; davidson@collegegop.org; txtau@yahoo.com; holiday.dmitri@foxnews.com; sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org; larry@larryelder.com; tpelia@yahoo.com; elizabeth@cspc.org; cfennell@ucsd.edu; mfinch@cspc.org; sarahfloerke@mail.com; rforest@ev1.net; rachelzfriedman@yahoo.com; mike@mikeonline.com; cdganske@yahoo.com; bubbgarcia@yahoo.com; ggermany@austin.rr.com; presACG@aol.com; lynn.gibson@heritage.org; giselarm@san.rr.com; jglazov@rogers.com; fgonzalez@isi.org; opeds@gopusa.com; redshift_7@yahoo.com; MJGriffing@hotmail.com; frn@freeper.org; bac@compuserve.com; michaelh@ductape.net; Hannity@aol.com; khart@crnc.org; johnhawkins@rightwingnews.com; roger@rogerhedgecock.com; jchenry_628@mail.utexas.edu; hhewitt@hughhewitt.com; holco004@mailhost1.csusm.edu; suggestions@lauraingraham.com; pundit@instapundit.com; feedback@intellectualconservative.com; Rollye@rollye.net; calidawl217@yahoo.com; niucrchair@yahoo.com; amw@judgemendozawaterhouse.com; rdj@mail.utexas.edu; gk3385@yahoo.com; kfir@protestwarrior.com; kinghorn1836@yahoo.com; becky@becky4congress.com; pklinkne@hamilton.edu; dks@wava.com; comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com; JCL159522@yahoo.com; lars@larslarson.com; mark@marklarson.com; jleo@usnews.com; binghamtonreview@yahoo.com
Previous Threads:
Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Thread 1)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judciary (Day 2)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Day 3)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 4)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 5)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 6)
Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 7)
Specter = Kerry (from 'The Northeast Liberal' - Evans-Novak)
Bork's approach to reading the Constitution was too "narrow," and Bork didn't appreciate it as "a living, growing document" in Specter's words. Don't forget this is the man in line to chair the Judiciary Committee next year.
Yes, Democrats were sending tax dollars to abortion clinics, and Republicans wanted to add a condition to that money. If an abortionist wanted to abort a minor's unborn child without the parents' knowledge, he could reject the federal funding.
One more detail: the notification rule was waived in the case of "medical emergencies," a broad term which went largely undefined. Still, Kerry and Specter agreed that this was too restrictive. Taxpayer funding for abortionists ought to come with no strings attached, the two concurred.
Neither Senator could point to deficit reduction as their rationale-the bill simply shifted the money to domestic federal programs.
Then, on the fifth roll-call vote of the year, Kerry and Specter helped defeat a pilot program for school choice for poor families only. The provision came with authorization of new funds, and so it could not be accused of draining the public schools.
On that same day, the two voted hand-in-hand a number of times against the GOP leadership to protect the lawyers.
Specter, of course, changed his tune on tax cuts last year (during a time of budget deficts), when Pat Toomey announced his primary challenge.
George W. Bush thinks he can win Pennsylvania. He seems to think having Arlen Specter on the ticket below him will help. Trying to convince voters to vote for Bush and Specter will be a tough row to hoe, especially when it comes to explaining his positions on taxes, cloning, school choice, the life of the unborn, and the direction of the federal courts. Kerry and Specter would be the more natural pair for voters to choose.
Pennsylvania Republicans have a chance this April 27 to help the Bush campaign in the Keystone State have a clear coherent message on life, the strength of the military, and federal budget.
Otherwise, Bush will need to explain why Kerry's positions the wrong ones for a president to take, but just dandy for a senator.
Specter Ping - Please bump the thread. If possible report any activity or feedback you have heard.
BEGIN YOUR DAY BY EMAILING THIS ARTICLE TO ALL REPUBLICANS ON THE SENATE JUDICARY COMMITEE!
Did Specter Cost Bush Pennsylvania?
NewsMax.com's Fr. Michael Reilly contends that President Bush could have won Pennsylvania if he had backed Sen. Arlen Specter's conservative challenger in the state's primary. Exit polls reveal that President Bush may have miscalculated earlier this year by endorsing pro-abortion Senator Arlen Specter in his primary battle against conservative challenger Pat Toomey.
Immediately following his narrow primary win, Specter was quick to declare his independence from the president and reassert his pro-abortion credentials.
After his Nov. 2 win, Specter added insult to injury, asserting that if he were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, pro-life judges need not apply.
Originally believing that a strong GOP Senate candidate in Pennsylvania could put the state's 21 electoral votes in the Bush column, the president campaigned with Specter and helped him squeak out a win against Toomey. Conventional wisdom had suggested that Toomey would be a weaker candidate in the general election.
But saving Specter didn't impress Pennsylvania Republicans.
In fact, Bush's endorsement of Specter angered pro-life Republicans across the state, and now exit polls suggest that many of them did not show up to vote on Election Day.
While national polls indicate that moral values was the No. 1 priority for 22 percent of all voters, only 18 percent of Pennsylvania voters listed moral values as their top priority.
Since 80 percent of these "moral values" voters nationwide supported the President, their lower turnout in Pennsylvania probably gave Kerry his narrow margin of victory in the Keystone State.
Catholics voted for Bush nationwide 52 percent to 47 percent. The margin was wider in Ohio, 55 percent to 44 percent, and wider still in Florida, 57 percent to 42 percent. In Pennsylvania, however, Catholics were almost evenly split, going for Bush 51 percent to 49 percent.
If Bush allows Sen. Specter to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, his support among "values voters" nationwide could suffer a similar decline
Republicans need to start practicing what they preach. Republicans tout competition, and the best man winning. But when it comes to assigning committee chairmanships, they take the touchy-feely approach of awarding it to whoever has the most seniority. This sounds a lot like affirmative action to me. It is intellectually lazy and anti-competition. Why should a senator worry about being loyal to his party and his party's ideals, showing up for meetings, voting, or studying the issues if none of this has any impact whatsoever on his chances to chair a committee?
I say reward hard work and dedication instead. It's the Republican way!
John Kyl for Judiciary chairman.
If you want to have a healthy garden you gotta pull out the weeds...
Sen Specter is a particularly nasty clump
imo
They only started doing that since 1994. It is not like there is some long-standing tradition. They changed the rules then, they can change the rules now. I am sure Democrasts try to put their best fighter in the best position to help their cause. Seniority is a spineless way to select Chairmen.
I don't understand this. While the desire to have everyone be politically correct is obviously strong among some so-called conservatives who want only those who agree with them entirely to have a voice, the self-destructive impulse is harder to understand. Knock Specter off as Chair and you open up a scenario in which moderate Republican Senators walk across the aisle and the Republican majority thins mightily or disappaears. Recall that there are at least 3 other moderate Republicans in addition to Specter who will have no difficulty getting reelected as democrats or Independents. You may thinks this unlikely (I don't) but it is certainly not impossible. Pro-Choice Republican Senators will bridle at the notion that they will be punished for their views by people from states other than their own. So these PC rants make no sense to me unless you want to damage Republican control of the senate.
Whats the difference.Hes either going to screw us as a Dem or a so called republican.If he does switch thats one more idiot we got out of our party.
BTTT!!!!!!
Bump!
right there with ya buddy...bttt
Hi Switzer. I see you signed up today just to tell me this.
I believe that the reason you have signed up today is because Specter is the last hope you and your friends have at some of the Bush agenda being blocked. The party you support has obstructed the president for 4 years, but no longer has the power to do so. Now your last hope is in a "moderate" Republican doing your dirty work. Anyone who calls Specter (or Chaffey or Snowe for that matter) a "moderate" around here just blew their cover.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is a "moderate". John McCain is a "moderate". Rudy Giuliani is a "moderate". Arlen Specter is a flaming liberal.
Don't forget Scottish law in the impeachment proceedings!!!
Absolutely. There is room in the party for real moderates. Arlen is a liberal to the core.
Thanks. I think we are on the verge of winning. We have demonstrated we are resolved and that is making a strong impression. Staffers are on our side. Most of the Senaotrs on the Committee are not saying anything, which says a lot to me.
We've definitely gotten noticed LOL! Even with the Ashcroft/Evans resignations, and the many deaths of Yassar the Cockroach, this story is still quite visible and active.
Hot Flash
By Tara Ross
Ingratitude
Imagine that you are an incumbent Senator facing a strong challenge during your party's primary. The chances of defeat are real. Perhaps your opponent's views fall more in line with the party platform than your own do. Moreover, you have never been very good at supporting Presidents of your party. You undermine their judicial candidates. You take public stances against their legislative agendas. You like to look upon yourself as a bit of a maverick.
In the face of all these disincentives, and despite the fact that your opponent would make a better ally for them in Congress, your President and other Senators in your party decide to go to bat for you, endorsing you during the party primary. With their help, you defeat the challenger, a much-liked and well-respected Congressman--but only by a hair. You go on to win the November general election. All in all, it was a close call.
Out of gratitude, you realize that you must work harder to support your party--right? Wrong. If you are Arlen Specter, the liberal Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, you are more likely to return to your renegade ways.
Specter, you see, talks a good game when he is up for re-election. He recognizes his inability to win an election without the support of conservative Republicans, so he tends to run toward the middle during senatorial election years. Once re-election is safely behind him, he spends the next four to five years acting precisely as he wants, without regard to what the voters or others in his party may or may not want from him.
Such an attitude caused him, for example, to undermine the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court during Ronald Reagan's years in office. He later supported Justice Clarence Thomas because--you guessed it--an election year was approaching.
Specter has done much damage during his tenure in the Senate, but this year, the consequences of his actions may be even more disastrous than usual. When the 109th Congress convenes in January, Senator Orrin Hatch will be term limited from resuming the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Specter is next in line for this position unless Chuck Grassley of Iowa relinquishes his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, thus freeing himself to lead the Judiciary Committee instead.
Specter's record of undermining Republican judicial candidates in the Senate should provide ample evidence of what type of Judiciary Chairman he would make. But in case anyone should remain in doubt, he reminded everyone late last week. In his post-election news conference, Specter sent a warning shot to the President, implying that pro-life judges will not make it past a Judiciary Committee under his control.
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter stated. "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
Specter is wrong to impose a pro-choice litmus test on judges. To the contrary, the only appropriate litmus test for a judge is that stated by the President repeatedly throughout the campaign: Judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Political preferences--whether on abortion or another issue--should not be taken into consideration when evaluating judicial nominees.
Bush gets this. Arlen Specter does not. Let's hope the rest of the Republican delegation gets it for him. With at least one and as many as four Supreme Court nominations approaching during the next four years, the stakes could not be higher.
Senator Bill Frist, as Majority Leader, can and should encourage procedural maneuvers to prevent Specter from assuming chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Rumor has it that Frist wants to run for President in 2008. He should show the conservative base in his party that a fair and impartial judiciary is important to him.
Moreover, Chuck Grassley can and should voluntarily forgo his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, instead assuming control of the Judiciary Committee. Such an act would admittedly be a step backwards for Grassley career wise, as the Finance Committee chairmanship is generally considered to be more powerful than the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. Forgive me for such an idyllic and naive sentiment, but isn't the first and foremost duty of elected officials to serve their country, rather than their own personal ambitions? Grassley should make this sacrifice for his country.
A fair and impartial judiciary is of critical importance. Republican Senators should act now to ensure that Arlen Specter is not the gatekeeper of the Judiciary Committee, determining which judges do or don't make it to the bench.
Specter has proven--repeatedly--that he is not up to the task.
Tara Ross is a writer and an attorney residing in Dallas, Texas, a regular contributor to TAEmag.com, and author of the recently published Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
bttt
Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.
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.