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.
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.
Nuke em all,.....right!!!!
"Specter, for all his warts, has still supported all of Bush 43's nominees. I don't think all the rants about him are necessarily justified."
Right on, General. Let's keep this in perspective. No sense winning this battle and losing the war.
I don't look at it as a nuke option. I think that neither party should have the right to use a filibuster to stop judicial nominees. Period.
1. The Senate is now 55-45 in favor of the Republicans. Before, it was 51-48-1. For that difference the Judiciary Committee was 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats. The count should now be a minimum of 11 Republicans to 8 Democrats. That makes Specter's vote insignificant.
In that the DIFFERENCE in Senate seats (55-45) has gone from 3 seats up to 10 seats (300% increase), I could make a very strong case for 12 Republicans to 7 Democrats...which it should be. That is hardball politics. In such a case, the vote of Specter becomes inconsequential.
2. The other issue is the rules changes requiring only a majority vote only to approve a judicial nominee. Specter becomes insignificant in that regard as well. Once he supports that measure, then his impact is minimalized because of #1 above.
Once-Ler sez: The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.
OO sez: The constitution enumerates that a majority of Senators are needed to confirm judicial nominees. That is what should apply - Republican or Democrat. If the 'Rats can regain power and convince 51 Senators to support a nominee, God bless them, that nominee will be (and should be) confirmed.
What you will not find in the Constitution is any reference to a de facto 60-vote supermajority needed for confirmation of judges, which is why the bogus filibuster rule must go, consequences be damned.
Personally, I don't believe any "pledge" Arlen Specter makes would be worth the paper it's written on. I think he'll say just about anything to get the appointment and then just go ahead and do what he wants anyway.
The scenario being discussed had Specter leaving the GOP.
One thing's for sure, his loyalty to the GOP is "not proven."
I think what is being considered is a rules change only for appointments to the federal judiciary and the executive branch, in accordance with the advice-and-consent function of the Senate (which is abrogated by filibustering appointments). Filibustering of legislation (i.e., bills pending before the Senate) would still be allowable.
I applaud Specter for it if for little else. His appeal to Scottish Law generated less damage than a caving to Anita Hill and the NOW gang might have.
With Specter's impact rendered insignificant in the new Senate by virtue of the new number of seats gained by the Republicans, then the chairman's seat is unimportant. It was a good strategy, though, to highlight the real issue.
We must fight for the rules change in emails to Frist & our senators.
We must also fight for the most friendly division of seats on ALL COMMITTEES, not just the Judiciary. If the difference before was one seat, then the difference now should be Plus 3X that amount. 51-48 = 3 Seat Difference. 55-45 = 10 Seat Difference. That is a HUGE 333% Difference. A Former 1 Seat difference should now be a 4 seat difference. We get the former seat by virtue of the fraction that belongs to the victor; i.e., 1+3.
Media backlash is going to happen anyway so we might as well get used to it. Real backlash will be from the voters, and here the Republicans need to know that in this last election conservatives turned out in greater numbers than ever before to put them in power. They weren't elected with any 'Rat votes, and probably relatively few moderate votes. Republicans first and foremost should know that they have to dance with who brung 'em, and that means keeping their base before worrying about bringing in fringe supporters.
Amen. I don't buy into the idea that there are all these moderate voters. That's media spin. Most people who may be moderate won't vote anyway because they don't care about anything, and thus that is why they are called moderates (they have no political views).
So all of Kerry's votes were Hard Core Leftists????
I watched a Focus group on C-SPAN over the weekend,,,,an average Freeper would have totally dominated the group....questions were about how they voted and why....frightend the Hell out of me....and they all voted!!!!
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.