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

Skip to comments.

Blocking Specter
Opinion - Townhall.com, ^ | November 13, 2004 | Robert Novak

Posted on 11/13/2004 2:56:30 PM PST by El Oviedo

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Republican leadership is considering a two-year waiver to delay Sen. Orrin Hatch's removal as Judiciary Committee chairman because of term limits, thereby forestalling Sen. Arlen Specter's succession to the post.

Specter has almost entirely backed down from his exuberant post-election comments warning President Bush that no foe of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision would be confirmed for the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, pro-life activists and other conservatives still suspect what course Specter would take as chairman and want to keep him out of that position.

An argument for giving Hatch a waiver is the fact that while facing re-election in Utah in 2006, he would have no committee chairmanship or even a subcommittee chairmanship despite advanced seniority in the Senate. Although Hatch and Specter have had their differences in the past, Hatch has publicly supported Specter as his replacement.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; napalminthemorning; specter; specterjudiciary
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
I think this would be an honorable compromise. What do you guys think?
1 posted on 11/13/2004 2:56:30 PM PST by El Oviedo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

It would make me one happy hombre. Anybody but Scottish law.


2 posted on 11/13/2004 2:58:51 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey Arlen, I've got your "arithmetic mandate" right here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Hatch needs to be term-limited by a good candidate in the primary.


3 posted on 11/13/2004 2:59:52 PM PST by Paladin2 (SeeBS News - We Decide, We Create, We Report - In that order! - ABC - Already Been Caught)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

NFW!!! Hatch is only marginally better than Specter. Hatch essentially gave over the committee to the RATs. Remember when the hard evidence of RAT collusion was discovered and all the pubs could do was bemoan the leak??? NO NO NO Term limits are there for a reason. Scrap the seniority system. If PA wants to reelect Specter; if MA wants to reelect Kennedy; if WV still flips us the Byrd that's their business. But that doesn't make their senator one bit better than my newly elected guy or yours.


4 posted on 11/13/2004 3:00:19 PM PST by NonValueAdded ("We are in the process of allowing them to self-actualise" LtC. Rainey, Fallujah, 11/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
The Senate Republican leadership is considering a two-year waiver to delay Sen. Orrin Hatch's removal as Judiciary Committee chairman because of term limits

As I said on an earlier thread where this Novak column was posted, the GOP used to support term limits when they were out of power. Since assuming the majority, it appears there is no longer support for this previously advocated bedrock principle.

5 posted on 11/13/2004 3:00:46 PM PST by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
Hatch needs to be term-limited by a good candidate in the primary.

Hatch may retire. It's unkown if he will run again in 2006. Personallly, I wish him a happy retirement after keeping the gavel out of Specter's hands for 2 more years.

6 posted on 11/13/2004 3:02:48 PM PST by NeoCaveman (Hey Arlen, I've got your "arithmetic mandate" right here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded

Yes Hatch is one of those guys the of whom the Washington Post might say "He has matured in the job" and "He has surprised friend and foe alike"
translation: he has sold out conservatives


7 posted on 11/13/2004 3:03:22 PM PST by Piers-the-Ploughman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide
Since assuming the majority, it appears there is no longer support for this previously advocated bedrock principle.

Right. That requires principle...kinda like that old balanced budget amendment.

8 posted on 11/13/2004 3:03:23 PM PST by TomDoniphon68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
What do you guys think?

Make him vacuum the carpet in the senate chamber every morning for two years.

If he does a good job then we'll talk about a committee chairmanship.
9 posted on 11/13/2004 3:07:32 PM PST by mental
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Off the Judiciary Committee is the only acceptable option.


10 posted on 11/13/2004 3:09:25 PM PST by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Dittos!!! We need either (a)
an implanted chip in the back of Specter's neck to jolt him
when he goes off the reservation to ensure he cant jerk consrvatives around,
or (b) an honorable compromise that keeps Specter out of the chair.

Hatch for 2 more years is a reasonable compromise.
Now, there is the danger that Specter will screw up *later* ... but, here's the good part of the deal: By leaving a carrot for Specter later and putting him on notice, I doubt he'll doe anything foolish in the next 2 years at least.

This is best of all worlds, unless Specter becomes a total angry loose cannon over it.


11 posted on 11/13/2004 3:09:43 PM PST by WOSG (Liberate Iraq - http://freedomstruth.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
Term limits are there for a reason.

My understanding was they are brand new and never before used in committee chairmanships.

12 posted on 11/13/2004 3:10:29 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo

Before I would agree to this compromise I would want one simple question answered.

What happens in two years? Does Specter get the job then?

We need a full four years just to make a start at taking back our judiciary. Time will undoubtedly be wasted arguing about fillibusters and the usual Democrat obstructionism.

I wouldn't agree to this if it means promising Specter the job in two years. Give him some other post.


13 posted on 11/13/2004 3:10:58 PM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

What happens if, as a compromise, we let Specter have the chairmanship, but also have a rule put into place that every single judicial nomination must get a full vote on the floor of the Senate with no filibusters allowed regardless of what the judiciary committee does? You know, in the name of compromise.


14 posted on 11/13/2004 3:17:31 PM PST by mhx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
Thank you for posting an unnecessarily excerpted article.
15 posted on 11/13/2004 3:22:43 PM PST by upchuck (Pajamas? I don' need no steenking pajamas!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Amen! Orrin Hatch, in my view, has been far too concerned about not offending anyone on the SJC and compromising anything and everything in order to keep things hospitable.

In a perfect world I would prefer to see Senator John Kyl of Arizona take over Judiciary, but I think that if the President, as the titular head of the Republican Party were to call in Senator Specter and say something like:

"Now Senator, we don't always see eye to eye on many issues, but you ought to understand that the American people expect an end to this damn practice of blocking good judges because the Democrats are applying an abortion litmus test. I'm not going to stand for that anymore, and if you are sitting as chairman, I expect you to get my nominees through committee and down to the Senate floor for an up or down vote, just as you've promised, and I take you at your word. In case you forget, I spent some of my political capital BEFORE the election by campaigning for your ass against a good conservative Congressman, Pat Toomey.
Bottom line Arlen? You owe me. And if you pull any crap as chairman, I will direct Ed Gillespie to expel you from the Republican Party, you will lose any and all perks you have accumulated over the years, you will be bounced from the Senate Judiciary Committee and the whole damn world will know the reason why. You can either operate as an independent or go right on over to those losers on the other side of the aisle, they'd be happy to have you. But you won't get any phone calls returned from THIS office, you'll be lucky if YOUR office isn't in the Senate men's room, so at this point you have to ask yourself if losing everything you've spent your life acquiring is worth defending people who see no moral or ethical problem with sucking the brains out of a nearly born baby, or murdering that child while it is defenseless in the womb. Now Senator, I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy such unpleasantries, so we'll shake hands and smile for the cameras, and I'm going to tell those fine White House presstitutes that you and I are in complete agreement about everything, and that I have every confidence in you as the new Committee Chairman. And you're going to tell everybody and God that you are behind me 100 percent, and if you so much as step one inch outta line, I'm going to personally show you how they turn a bull into a steer down in Texas. Got it Arlen? I just knew you would."


16 posted on 11/13/2004 3:22:57 PM PST by Mad Mammoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: El Oviedo
Hatch lost my vote when he had "Buzzy" Ginsberg on the ropes over her insistence on racial quotas, then he pulled his punch.

Don't want Hatch in there any more, either.

17 posted on 11/13/2004 3:37:14 PM PST by nightdriver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nightdriver

18 posted on 11/13/2004 3:42:29 PM PST by GeneralHavoc (Stop Specter From Blocking Bush's Judges! Visit StopSpecterNow.com!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

Wow! Glad you're on our side.


19 posted on 11/13/2004 3:43:59 PM PST by Optimom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mad Mammoth

>Bottom line Arlen? You owe me.....<

LOL. MM, I think I love you.


20 posted on 11/13/2004 3:49:02 PM PST by Paperdoll (.........on the cutting edge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

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