SAY NO TO SPECTER AS CHAIRMAN

Fiedor Report On the News #325 ^ | 11-14-04 | Doug Fiedor

[forest]

Well isn't that interesting: John Edwards is on his way out, so that makes Arlen Specter the trial lawyers' darling in the Senate. The liberal Specter is also in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If that happens, we're betting that President Bush's plans for tort reform will be dead on arrival.

The real problem, though, will be the Senate approval for Supreme Court Justices. Bush may get to pick three this term, as well as elevate Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice. As Justice Committee chairman, will Specter play ball and support Bush's picks?

Many groups around the country doubt that Specter will dutifully support Bush's nominations for the Court. Specter, of course, always one to babble on with silly garbage that often means little or nothing to our way of government, spouted off yet again and caused an uproar with conservative and religious groups.

Now, I must admit that I have never been a fan of Arlen Specter. Let's face it, the guy is a liberal with an "R" after his name. In short, he is just not a dependable friend of Liberty or our Constitution. But, even though some others are not being fair about this situation, we will here.

It has been said often this past week that conservatives are angry because Arlen Specter "Borked" Robert Bork when he was nominated for the position of Supreme Court Justice. That's true. Specter had a lot to do with rejecting Bork. But, maybe we should do a full stop here and look into why that happened:

Judge Bork first made national news during his senate hearings for Justice of the Supreme Court. Therein, he clearly stated that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are "as meaningless as an ink blot."

I heard him say that. What can I say? Bork Borked himself!

What other amendments, or sections of the Constitution, would he also choose to disregard as Justice? Don't we already have quite enough problems because of judges and Justices "finding things" in the Constitution and/or disregarding parts of the Constitution they may feel inconvenient for the direction they want government to go?

Which means, were I a senator, there is no way Bork would have gotten my vote. Robert Bork, of course, was not approved for the high court. Nor should he have been.

Later, Bork was proven quite wrong, in that Justice Thomas, and others, have found real meaning to the words making up the Tenth Amendment.

In 1996, I read parts of a book Bork published. Therein, Bork recommended that Congress be provided the power to override Supreme Court decisions (it already has, somewhat). He also proposed strict censorship as a tool for providing a more moral society.

Now, some readers might agree with Bork, but this scribbler will never subscribe to any method of limiting liberty. Therefore, in this instance, I believe Specter was correct in rejecting Bork for a seat on the Supreme Court.

What we want, what we need, in Supreme Court Justices are people who will honor the original intent of the Founding Fathers and keep the federal government out of all matters not specifically tasked to it by the Constitution. President Bush will (probably) appoint Justices who tend towards the original intent doctrine. If so, we may yet get to leave a little freedom and liberty to our great-grandchildren.

Senator Specter will share the Judiciary Committee with other liberals like Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Schumer. Unless Specter maintains strict control, anything could happen there.

Personally, I do not want to see any of them on any type of "legal" committee having jurisdiction over anything more important than school crossing guards. But, I don't get a vote on that.

All the commotion concerning Arlen Specter as committee chairman is both healthy and productive. For many reasons, Specter deserves the scrutiny.

But, we must also keep in mind that Specter helped seat Clarence Thomas on the Court during a very contentious hearing and Thomas turned out to be very supportive of liberty. And, the fact is, Specter also helped save us from a potential Justice who had no intention whatsoever of honoring our Constitution as written.

Nonetheless, I for one cringe every time I think of Senator Arlen Specter as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That could be a very worrisome situation.

 

 END

[forest]

Bush's plans for tort reform will be dead on arrival with Specter.

Bush may get to pick three Justices for Scotus.

Specter is a liberal with an "R" after his name.

Bork Borked himself!

We need Supreme Court Justices who will honor the original intent of the Founding Fathers and limit the federal government to Constitutional mandates only.

Specter as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee could be worrisome.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Specter should be demoted to dishwasher in the Congress cafeteria/restaurant.

[26lemoncharlie]

Keep up the pressure, regardless of what you hear, e-meil to all members of the judicary committee and the Republicans in the senate.

We also need to get our borders under control, too. This Immigration policy is wrong for our country, just a payoff by providing cheap labor. Why would any President not control and protect our borders during wartime??

[ExSoldier]

Bork Borked himself!

Indeed he did. You ever read his opinion on the 2nd Amendment? Makes chuckie schumer look like Wayne LaPierre! The NRA was correct to oppose him and so down in flames he went.

[mrsmith]

"he clearly stated that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are "as meaningless as an ink blot." "

NO, this lie is repeated over and over.

"I do not think you can use the Ninth Amendment unless you know something of what it means. For example, if you had an amendment that says "Congress shall make no" and then there is an ink blot and you cannot read the rest of it and that is the only copy you have, I do not think the court can make up what might be under the ink blot if you cannot read it."

"the court can make up ": this is why the living constitutionalists had to destroy Robert Bork.
The court must be free to "make up" whatever they want.

[Doug Fiedor]

Perhaps you might want to read a little before you say things like that. The Supreme Court seems to differ greatly with your opinion.

Here's a good place to start: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt9.html

More on this next week. . . . :-)

Also, I notice you did not even mention the Tenth Amendment that was designed to protect State's Rights.

[mrsmith]

LOL!

The Supreme Court has never ruled counter to Judge Bork's interpretation of the Ninth.

I know you living constitutionalists hate it, but fantasizing or misquoting judge Bork won't change it.

[mrsmith]

"More on this next week. . . . :-) "

Ping me, nothing cracks me up more than libertarian living constitutionalists.
They're like pro-abortion fetuses.

Say, you might ponder why the Supremes didn't finally grab their chance to use the Ninth that way in that Texas sodomy case- instead choosing to redefine 'liberty' (equally bizarre).

Any one could see that it would be idiotic to claim the Ninth gives them the power to enumerate rights, but any one can also see they were given no power to redefine words in the Constitution either. It's a puzzler.

[Theodore R.]

We say "No" to Specter, but the senators will surely say "YES." I'm afraid they have the final say.

[Cedar]

No, the voters in 2006 will have the final say-- when they vote against Repub. Senators (if they betray conservatives and let Specter in).

[winker]

Arlen Specter needs to be permanently retired from public office. This is the most usless politician next to Teddy Bare Kennedy. This person is an avowed sisruptor who has already telegraphed his intention to usurp power that he will use against every taxpayer. This dangerous Rino has benefitted handsomely over the years as a career politician! Now it is time to deny him the power he craves and put him out to pasture!

[gcruse]

Later, Bork was proven quite wrong, in that Justice Thomas, and others, have found real meaning to the words making up the Tenth Amendment.

Bullshit.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas in a concurring opinion in U.S. v. Lopez (1995):

We have said that Congress may regulate not only 'Commerce…among the several states,'…but also anything that has a 'substantial effect' on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a 'police power' over all aspects of American life.

Under our jurisprudence, if Congress passed an omnibus 'substantially affects interstate commerce' statute, purporting to regulate every aspect of human existence, the Act apparently would be constitutional.

[Lauren BaRecall]

Judge Bork first made national news during his senate hearings for Justice of the Supreme Court. Therein, he clearly stated that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution are "as meaningless as an ink blot."

I heard him say that. What can I say? Bork Borked himself!

This made no sense to me, so I made a few searches on Google. I could not find a transcript of the hearings, but I did see your alleged quote phrased in different ways.

Since you fail to provide a context for this alleged quote, you haven't built any case to support your conclusion that "Bork Borked himself." I don't take your article seriously at all.

On the other hand, mrsmith provided a context in which Judge Bork said something very different than what you say he said. Mrsmith's comments are far more plausible, because they are congruent with the Judge's legal philosophy of "original intent."

Furthermore, I don't think that Judge Bork first made national news during his Senate hearings, since he was Solicitor General in the Nixon administration:

In 1973, as Solicitor General -- the lawyer charged with representing the United States in cases that came before the Supreme Court -- he was called upon by President Richard Nixon to fire Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox. Both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and the deputy attorney general, William Ruckelshaus, had previously refused to carry out Nixon's orders, but Bork did the deed.

Source: http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id320.htm

Additionally:

Nixon Forces Firing of Cox; Richardson, Ruckelshaus Quit President Abolishes Prosecutor's Office; FBI Seals Records

By Carroll Kilpatrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 21, 1973; Page A01

In the most traumatic government upheaval of the Watergate crisis, President Nixon yesterday discharged Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox and accepted the resignations of Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus.

The President also abolished the office of the special prosecutor and turned over to the Justice Department the entire responsibility for further investigation and prosecution of suspects and defendants in Watergate and related cases.

Shortly after the White House announcement, FBI agents sealed off the offices of Richardson and Ruckelshaus in the Justice Department and at Cox's headquarters in an office building on K Street NW.

An FBI spokesman said the agents moved in "at the request of the White House."

Agents told staff members in Cox's office they would be allowed to take out only personal papers. A Justice Department official said the FBI agents and building guards at Richardson's and Ruckelshaus' offices were there "to be sure that nothing was taken out." Richardson resigned when Mr. Nixon instructed him to fire Cox and Richardson refused. When the President then asked Ruckelshaus to dismiss Cox, he refused, White House spokesman Ronald L. Ziegler said, and he was fired. Ruckelshaus said he resigned.

Finally, the President turned to Solicitor General Robert H. Bork, who by law becomes acting Attorney General when the Attorney General and deputy attorney general are absent, and he carried out the President's order to fire Cox. The letter from the President to Bork also said Ruckelshaus resigned. [emphasis mine]

*snip*

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/102173-2.htm

I daresay that the chances are good to excellent that if Bork was in the Washington Post, he was in the MSM all over the country. My point being that if you are inaccurate in this instance, how do I know to trust you for the rest? (Which I don't.)

[narses]

Title: GOP Sen. Specter Vows to Block Bush's Nominees
Source: newsmax
URL Source:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/29/165559.shtml
Published: Oct 29, 2004
Author: newsmax
Post Date: 2004-10-29 20:42:24 by TLBSHOW
3 Comments

Recall that alleged Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, upon winning the primary, immediately backstabbed President Bush, who had campaigned for him instead of actual Republican Pat Toomey. Turns out Specter was just getting started.

We now see that the usually pro-Democrat Pittsburgh Post-Gazette endorsed the sharp-horned RINO in Tuesday's general election for this reason: "Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."

What the pro-abortion Specter and pro-abortion Post-Gazette mean by "extremist" is anyone who isn't pro-abortion or who otherwise follows the U.S. Constitution instead of making up legislation from the bench.

"Even if he votes nine out of 10 times for the administration, we trust his word that the 10 percent of difference will be a brake on the worst excesses of a second Bush term, if it comes to that," the pee-yoo P-G snarled.

And there are these facts:

Arlen Specter:

Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (Oct 1997)

Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (Jul 1995)

Success is near because of all the hard work we have done, but it is not yet over. The Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Times, and United Press International all covered how the offices have been flooded with calls, but we need to keep it up as the fight does not end here! Make the calls all over again on Monday.

Also note the changes to the site, all the recent press mentions will be on the Why? page, but this blog should keep you fairly up to date on the goings ons.

Mark Harris .:. 11/6/2004 Keep Up The Work

Things are going fantastic over here, as we have gotten press through the Laura Ingram Show, several state pro-life alerts, and countless conservative e-mail lists, but the fight has just begun.

The rumor on the Hill is that things are about ready to break. We just need to keep up pressure on them to make sure it happens. So keep your eyes and ears open. NotSpecter.com also has some great resources that have gone up so make sure to check it out.

Also GrassrootsPA.com has a letter written by Specter to raise money that slams the conservative wing of the party, which puts to rest any argument over how he would run the Judiciary Committee.

http://stopspecter.savethegop.com/

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.