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

Skip to comments.

AP: Specter Rewriting Pledge, Senate Leaders Find First Draft Unacceptable
GrassrootsPA ^ | 11/18/04 | GrassrootsPA

Posted on 11/18/2004 10:38:30 AM PST by GeneralHavoc

The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy. Notice that Senate leaders rejected his first draft.

Associated Press:

Specter, who supports abortion rights, also is pledging a strong predisposition to support the president's nominees for the bench, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pennsylvania senator's draft statement affirms that he will not impose a litmus test on nominees based on the issue of abortion, but does not include a blanket pledge to vote for them.

Specter's written statement, apparently undergoing changes, largely covers positions he has staked out in public statements in recent days. Even so, several GOP sources said one early version was deemed unacceptable by Senate leaders in a meeting on Wednesday, particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: scottishlaw; specter; sphincter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 next last
To: Digger

if all 'moderates' split & go w specter, we won't have enough votes left. gotta find SOME common ground w them all. isolate kerry, clinton, schumer et al. that's the name of the game


101 posted on 11/18/2004 1:36:28 PM PST by guitarist (commonsense)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dubyaismypresident
There was no fight against Ruth Bader Gisberg and she had as much legal opinion baggage as anyone ever to face Supreme Court nomination.

Not only that but she was suggested to Clinton, by Orin Hatch, who told him she was an example of a nominee that would face no opposition in the committee. Hatch has always excused this abomination, by saying that a President has a right to his nominees. I don't think he extends that opinion to the current President, else he would not be kissing Specter's, Sphincter.

102 posted on 11/18/2004 1:44:23 PM PST by itsahoot (Sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes it makes a difference, but not often.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
I would rather have him leave the party than to block the judicial nominees.

Now that he's a wounded lion he's more dangerous. Spector should have been pushed aside. He can't be trusted and even less now.

103 posted on 11/18/2004 1:47:20 PM PST by dennisw (G_D - against Amelek for all generations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
We got the majority in the election, and the majority rules. What don't you understand about that?

That's not the way it works in the Senate though, where a 41 member minority can put a complete stop to almost anything they want to.

104 posted on 11/18/2004 2:01:37 PM PST by jpl (The tribe has spoken, now for goodness sake, get a life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
About McCain, or Larry Craig?

It would take too long to go into all the examples of McCain being untrustworthy.

One example: Saying the Swiftvets were dishonorable.Isn't that enough?

My assessment on where Craig stands comes from his office.
105 posted on 11/18/2004 2:12:35 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: jpl
where a 41 member minority can put a complete stop to almost anything they want to.

Except a rule change. Furthermore, The leadership could force a real filibuster instead of these girley man gentleman's agreements.

106 posted on 11/18/2004 2:24:41 PM PST by itsahoot (Sometimes the truth hurts, sometimes it makes a difference, but not often.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

I was asking about Specter.


107 posted on 11/18/2004 2:41:53 PM PST by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
I was asking about Specter.

Whether he is trustworthy, or a snake?

He is a snake.
108 posted on 11/18/2004 2:44:33 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Why are they putting themselves (and us) through this garbage? JUST SAY NO! NO Spectre! Even if he does what he promises, it will be donw with lackluster weak moves. President Bush DESERVES some loyal people for once!


109 posted on 11/18/2004 2:49:20 PM PST by Libertina (We praise You Lord, You have granted America a Christian leader!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

Remember - we don't care how the media plays anything. There is no pleasing them. If they can't use one issue they will find another.

They have proven in this election they are propagandists so now their statements do not carry the weight of truth.

Never let the media control your actions because how they will play it. That is a losing battle and a cave-in.


110 posted on 11/18/2004 3:01:04 PM PST by ClancyJ (Middle America is what makes America - not the Liberal "elitists" and the Media)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: jpl
....particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.

That's where the rubber meets the road. We eliminate the filibuster, and we can get good judges confirmed.

111 posted on 11/18/2004 3:02:48 PM PST by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc
The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy.

How? Once he is chair there is no leverage. Plus, he is free to work behind the scenes.

112 posted on 11/18/2004 3:14:11 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

*sigh* I was asking by what evidence do you base your assertion that Specter would not stand by his pledge upon.


113 posted on 11/18/2004 3:33:17 PM PST by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Ever since all this issue started, I am saying that it looks to me like he is like Kerry: he says what you want to hear. That is not a good sign to me. He would do anything to get the position and once his greed is satisfied he will do whatever he wants.


114 posted on 11/18/2004 3:35:35 PM PST by angelanddevil2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler
"I don't think the Supreme Court would allow the Republicans to make up the rules as they...

The Supreme court has no say in how the House or the Senate conducts their respective business.

115 posted on 11/18/2004 4:07:51 PM PST by StormEye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Tempest
I was asking by what evidence do you base your assertion that Specter would not stand by his pledge upon

My evidence is that he is a liberal, and liberals cannot be trusted.

Specter just happens to be meaner than many liberals.

I personally believe it is a huge mistake for our senators to trust him.
116 posted on 11/18/2004 4:28:02 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: ClancyJ
Never let the media control your actions because how they will play it. That is a losing battle and a cave-in.

Agreed, my objective controls my action. What purpose does it serve to make ones job more difficult? I know some would like to punish Specter for his past but I'm more concerned about how can we best win what's to come.

117 posted on 11/18/2004 4:36:33 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium
"I personally believe it is a huge mistake for our senators to trust him."

Perhaps you'll be right, but I hope you end up being wrong.

118 posted on 11/18/2004 4:40:38 PM PST by Tempest (Click on my name for a long list of press contacts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck; All

No $#!#! Why is abortion the only litmus test that we have to watch out for? Bork was shot down because he was a Constitutionalist! I don't want a judge who will just say Roe v. Wade was wrong--I want a judge who can cogently say WHY and apply that logic to the rest of the Court's caseload!

The Senators are AGAIN knuckling under. Nobody cares if he 'writes a second draft.' This is just lip service--they want him to seem penitent and then he's getting the chair.

This sucks.


119 posted on 11/18/2004 4:40:39 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (NO BLOOD FOR CHOCOLATE! Get the UN-ignoring, unilateralist Frogs out of Ivory Coast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ogie Oglethorpe
The Senate can put into existence any rules it wants to, but not if it causes a fundamental change in the actual number needed for confirmation, which the judicial filibuster clearly has.

Then I go back to my original question. If the nuke option is really an option why wait until 2004 to use it?

120 posted on 11/18/2004 4:43:38 PM PST by Once-Ler (God Blessed America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-146 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