Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUGGESTED GUESTS FOR HEWETT AND HANNITY:THE PA EDITORS TO WHOM SPECTER SAID, NO 'EXTREMIST' JUDGES
Post-Gazette via perryonpolitics. ^ | Nov 11 04 | churchillbuff

Posted on 11/11/2004 10:19:29 AM PST by churchillbuff

If I were the guest booker for Hewett or Hannity, I'd book the editorial board members of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette and Philadelphia Inquirer, and other Pennsylvania papers that endorsed Spector on the grounds that he told them he'd stop "extremists" from getting on the courts.

How exactly did he define "extremists"? Is what he's saying now - that he'll support all of Bush's nominees - at odds with what he told his home-state newspaper editorial boards? If so, do the editors feel they were lied to -- and will they condemn him in print for reneging on a pledge? Or are we, the American people being lied to by Sen. Specter now?

WHY IS NOONE INTERVIEWING THE EDITORS WHO WROTE THE EDITORIALS SAYING THAT SPECTER PROMISED TO STOP CONSERVATIVE JUDGES? I WANT TO HEAR, FROM THEM, WHAT SPECTER PROMISED -- AND I WANT THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS TO HEAR, TOO.

Here's what the Post-Dispatch wrote:

"The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that capacity, he would be in a position to block some of the ideologically extreme federal judges likely to be nominated by President Bush in a second term, some of them for the Supreme Court. Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: hannity; hewett; hewitt; specter

1 posted on 11/11/2004 10:19:29 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

They also ought to have Sowell on. And Bork. (Is it true that Specter voted against Scalia?)


2 posted on 11/11/2004 10:22:09 AM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

That is not an argument, it is the default system in place because the GOP senate leadership did not want to take the responsibility of actually making a decision.

3 posted on 11/11/2004 10:22:58 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
(Is it true that Specter voted against Scalia?)

Scalia passed 96-0, so everyone voted for Scalia.

4 posted on 11/11/2004 10:24:12 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Contact Senator Frist
202-224-3135

Contact Senator Santorum
202-224-6324

Tell them in no uncertain terms that Specter cannot be made Senate Judiciary Chairman

Do NOT take "no" for an answer!



Bush has no Mandate?

Just say "NO" To Specter's Games!

Senate Judiciary Committee GOP Members

Contact Senator Orrin Hatch
202-224-5251

Contact Senator Charles Grassley
202-224-3744

Contact Senator Jon Kyl
202-224-4521

Contact Senator Mike DeWine
202-224-2315

Contact Senator Jeff Sessions
202-224-4124

Contact Senator Lindsey Graham
202-224-5972

Contact Senator Larry Craig
202-224-2752

Contact Senator Saxby Chambliss
202-224-3521

Contact Senator John Cornyn
202-224-2934


5 posted on 11/11/2004 10:38:40 AM PST by Taggart_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson