The senator said that Roe was "inviolate" in his view; that it was settled law, like Brown v. Board; that any nominee who disagreed would face a filibuster; and that he "would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned." Now it is true that Specter did not actually say the exact words, "I warn the president not to nominate anyone who might be against Roe," but his comments were not opaque.
Nobody is saying that Specter should be removed because he supports legal abortion and cloning.
Some of Hewitt's allies in this matter have speculated that dumping Specter as judiciary chairman could cause six Republicans — including the fairly conservative Judd Gregg — to leave the party and give the Senate to the Democrats. That is a risk. I would place its probability at about one times ten to the negative seventeenth power. Would even one of them switch, and give up his committee chairmanships? I doubt it. That includes Specter, who would after all still be chairman of something.
Removing the Specter of Specter
Specter's record reveals him to be a "RINO" whose views and values were repudiated by voters in the elections.
Specter voted for every one of President Clinton's judicial nominees except one. On the other hand, Specter led the opposition to Judge Robert Bork, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Reagan, and the confirmation hearings were so vicious that "Bork" has become a verb: harassing a judicial nominee is called "Borking" him.
Republican National Coalition for Life
The Chicago Sun Times (11/11/04) says Senator Arlen Specter wants a private meeting with Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee next week in order to "hash things out," according to Texas Senator John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court judge, who appears to be emerging as a key player in the fight over whether Specter will be awarded the chairmanship of the powerful Judiciary Committee. It is unclear what Senator Cornyn’s role actually is. He says he wants to find out what Specter intends to do regarding Bush nominees to the federal courts. That sounds a bit like he might vote for him, provided Specter says the right things. Let Senator Cornyn, the other GOP members of the Judiciary Committee, and every Republican Senator (all are members of the Senate Republican Caucus and all will likely have a say in this matter) that Senator Arlen Specter is totally unacceptable for the position of chairman for the following reasons:
Senator Specter "is an avid supporter of the International Criminal Court (ICC) which would subject our military personnel to prosecution for war crimes before hostile international judges, and deny them the protections of our Constitution." In 2002, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly passed and President Bush signed, the American Servicemembers Protection Act that exempted our military from the threat of the ICC. However, Senator Specter was among the few in the Senate and the only Republican, who voted against this amendment." (Concerned Women for America Press Release, 11/11/04) President Bush opposes the ICC, as do most Americans.
WorldNetDaily: The Pennsylvania Treason
The fact that Specter's eventual margin of victory was so razor-thin made one thing absolutely undeniable. Without the influence and treachery of Bush and Santorum, we would have seen a raging pro-abort who has always been viciously hostile toward anything that the pro-life movement does replaced with a pro-lifer. It is laughable to suggest that the combined efforts of a Republican president and a Republican senator can't influence even 2 percent of the votes in a Republican primary. Given that, it is simply a fact that Bush and Santorum cost the pro-life movement this election.
Bush and Santorum defenders will claim that if Toomey had won he might turn around and lose in the general election and, thereby, turn control of the Senate over to the Democrats.
That's garbage. First, upon what do these people base the assumption that Toomey could somehow beat the senior incumbent United States senator in his state, but then not be able to beat a non-incumbent Democrat? If their claim is that Toomey's advocacy for the right-to-life makes him unelectable in a Pennsylvania general election, how do they explain Santorum's election?
Oh no conservative judges, I forgot.
Geez, this is not looking good.
I fear our President will not muscle Specter from the chairmanship. After all, did he not throw his considerable weight behind Specter over Toomey? It indeed does not look promising. Arlen Specter is no better to lead the Judiciary Committee than placing Tom Harkin on the chair or Ted'the swimmer'Kennedy. hell, Shumer might even be more conservative!
Hey Santorum, wake up
Specter tried to get teresa to run against you!
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/miller200411050930.asp
Don't forget to include Trent Lott and Orrin Hatch in their support of Arlen "The Dud" Specter in his quest to remain demoncRAT wearing a pubby title. Bork Specter!
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Exactly. Other goals are more important, unfortunately, to Santorum and Bush, than pro-life, other conservative social issues, the Constitution and it's protection and judicial activism.
Sowell's article is right on. I couldn't agree more strongly.