SPECTER: ON JUDGE PRYOR, FILIBUSTER & STAFF

NROTC ^ | 11/12/04 | KJ Lopez and N/A

[lilylangtree]

Bork the Specter!

[Dems_R_Losers]

I have no doubt that Specter would vote against Pryor.

[OverTaxedFatherofFour]

GWB and Rove are smart guys. They decided to support Specter. I'm quite sure the president's men covered all the angles on this one. They decided that a happy Spector was better than a pi$$ed off Specter. (Specter, by the way is f'ing brilliant) A senator, particularly a newly re-elected senator, answers to nobody. The same logic that led Rove to support Specter over Toomey applies now in the chairmanship debate. Make nice with this guy because he is smarter than most people ever dream of being. If he votes his conscience on any nominee, I have no problem with that. He would be duty bound to get the president's nominees an up or down vote and I think he would live up to that.

[sgtbono2002]

Can we trust Specter? Why take the chance?

[OverTaxedFatherofFour]

Possibly intersting trivia...Specter lost his first GOP senate primary to none other than John Heinz.

[swilhelm73]

A question that has yet to be answered by any of Specter's supporters...well, except for the legion of Leftwingers taking up his banner.

[glock rocks]

"I not only voted against Bork, I led the charge against him."

- Arlen Specter

[swilhelm73]

You make two assumptions;

That Bush didn't just support Specter to maintain control of the Senate, whatever the other costs of his re-election might be.

That Bush and Rove made the right choice in trusting Specter with *nothing* to bind him save his word. Which he also gave to the other side...

[Cedar]

Do we REALLY believe that a Democrat President would try to get a PRO-LIFE nominee for the Supreme Court or even the lower Federal courts?

Of course we don't believe it! And neither should President Bush, who is pro-life, have to bow and scrape to the Democrats and send an abortion-lover as a nominee.

Get real, Arlen!

And it is obvious to us that you, Arlen, were backed FINANCIALLY by Soros for a reason.

Sorry, this Chairmanship is too important a position.

Senator Kyl should be selected as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

[OverTaxedFatherofFour]

We are a big tent party, right? We would not want to apply a litmus test to anyone for a committee chairmanship,right?
Let's not anger Arlen. If we can't trust the judgement of Rick Santorum on this, who can we trust.

[Cedar]

No, we cannot trust Rick Santorum, unfortunately.

I was shocked to find out that, during the campaign for Arlen, Rick called Toomey an extremist and a too-far right winger.

[swilhelm73]

We are a big tent party, right? We would not want to apply a litmus test to anyone for a committee chairmanship,right?

Quite the opposite. No judge who does not feel bound by the Constitution, as written, should be allowed to serve on a court. As such, those that would oppose judges because they would in fact be bound by the Constitution, as Specter has claimed*, should be on the Senate Judicial Committee.

The party does not, or at least should not, include those who rejected the basic notion of representative government. And what do we gain by putting such a person on the SJC? Let alone as its chair???

The best case scenario here is that Bush and co are taking a gamble on Specter. I do feel obliged to give Bush the benefit of the doubt...but there is to much at stake to gamble that Specter, as he in facthas every reason to do, will not use his position to save the imperial judiciary.

If Specter wins, I will be forced to hope that Bush does have some control over him and the gamble pans out. But Bush had better make sure it does pay off.

*I am well aware Specter now claims he will not stop strict constructionist justices. I am also well aware he has also promised a number of people on the Left he would. He is lying to someone. I don't see how we can feel confident he is lying to his friends and allies and not us.

[Bonaparte]

"...They decided that a happy Spector was better than a pi$$ed off Specter."

So what will the "pi$$ed off" Specter do to them? They now have a 10-seat majority over the democrats, not counting Cheney's vote. Lott had just as much seniority and Senate clout as Specter does and Republicans took him down when he got too big for his britches.

Specter's history proves he's unreliable and his "word" is no good. To hand him the SJC is to say goodbye to all Bush's important federal bench appointments.

[itsahoot]

GWB and Rove are smart guys. They decided to support Specter.

What a relief to know this, I been worrying all this time for nothing then, thanks.</sarcasm>

[mrsmith]

" they should at least block his ascension unless and until he commits not just to voting against a filibuster, but to SUPPORTING ANY RULES CHANGE that would end filibusters of judicial nominees. "

Yep, that's where the rubber meets the road for pro-life nominees.
This is a golden opportunity to get another vote for the rules change from one of the 'moderates' who wouldn't tend to support it.

Our 'moderate' Republicans need to be protected from having to vote on judicial filibusters too.

[sport]

GWB and Rove are smart guys...

I don't doubt that.

In fact, they are probably going to smart their way into being the minority party after the results of the '06 mid term election are in because they insist on demonestrating to their base that once they vote for them, they can go fly a kite. There opinion does not matter.

They did all they could to tick off their base after the '00 elections. This resulted in a higher turnout in '04 than in '00. So I guess they said, "In '00 we tried to tick off our base by lavishly funding the National Endowment of the Arts so "artists" could show pictures of Christ under elephant shit and all that did was increase the turnout in '04. Let us really show the contempt we hold them in now and in '06 our candidates will win in a landslide."

Well all good things must come to an end. If thy persist [and I believe that they are going to]their will be a landslise, only it will be in the Democrats favor. Their base will stay home while the Democrat base will go vote.

It is their choice.

[rock58seg]

Actually, had the Democrats nominated a decent middle of the road candidate, instead of a traitorous liberal flip-flop, their policies would have bitten them in the a$$ big time.

[Catholic and Conservative]

Specter claims he will not stop strict constructionist justices? Odd, considering his explanation for stopping Bork is that Bork is a strict constructionist. He certainly is lying to someone.

[Pinetop]

I have spent a lot of time thinking, reading and talking with highly informed people, such as yourself. At first, I was concerned about the effect on Santorum and the objective of a deal on filibuster. Now, I agree with you. Specter cannot be trusted. If he flips to the other side, that's okay. He already votes that way. I think he poses a real threat to the Judiciary Committee and the real political objectives of this presidency.