Posted on 11/04/2004 5:54:36 AM PST by Always Right
In Day One we established the need to remove Specter from the Judiciary. To sum it up:
1. Specter is in line to become Chairman of the Judiciary.
2. Specter yesterday showed he expects to obstruct Bush in nominating conservative judges.
3. Specter’s vision of a ‘balance court’ is the exact same rhetoric of Senator Kerry.
4. Specter will do whatever it takes to see the courts do not become conservative. Read his books.
5. Specter is a huge proponent of Rov v. Wade.
6. Specter was not elected President, but has threatened the President should he nominate conservative judges.
7. As Chairman, Specter has the power to kill Bush’s judicial nominations.
Now in Day 2, we must take action. Today’s goal is to create some BUZZ. We need to contact the conservative media, like Rush and Hannity and other radio talk shows. Contact FoxNews, Brit Hume, Tony Snow. Here’s an example:
Senator Specter’s remarks yesterday concerning Bush’s judicial appointments were disturbing. If nothing is done, Senator Specter is in line to be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need a Chairman who supports our President and his judicial nominations in that position, not someone who is on record as wanting to obstruct the President’s judical appointments. This is a very critical position, and allowing Specter to become chairman would be no different than appointing Senator Kennedy. Specter’s vision of the court is 180 degrees off of President Bush’s. President Bush will have a difficult time enough getting appointments through, but it would be an insult if the biggest obstruction is getting past one liberal GOP Senator, especially one who Bush helped.
Also, provide them with links to yesterdays’s story, Specter warns Bush on high court nominations or the same story posted here on FreeRepublic, Specter warns Bush on high court nominations
We must not allow this back-stabbing liberal to veto President Bush’s victory.
Rush is reporting that Spectre says the press has mis-reported his words. His office is transcribing a tape of the meeting to release.
Threats of a recall election?
Rush just brought it up now!
According to Rush, Specter is transcribing his audio tape of the actual interview. It seems that the AP put words in his mouth that he didn't say. Imagine that, the AP may have lied.
Is there a good link to PA election results? I'd like to see how many Bush supporters turned their backs on Specter.
Here.
The stakes on this are too high. We can't let Arlen parse his way out of this. These comments today are consistant with what Arlen has said in the past. Specter will do what it takes to protect Roe v. Wade, including trying to lie his way out of this.
Sen. Specter needs a visit from the men in the grey suits. He will resign/retire shortly thereafter. I'll bet they have plenty on him if they want to use it.
Yikes! Why do you say that? I know he's leaned left a few times, I thought it was over stem cell research, but what makes you think he'd be a Souter? On abortion? Homosexual marriage? Gun control? I don't see him on the wrong side of those issues.
Specter's past is enough to do him in. The stuff that came out today is just icing on the cake. Specter has got to go. Besides, I have a gut feeling the AP story is spun closer to the real truth then what Specter is gonna try to spin.
We brought in oodles of the popular vote. We have Fast Eddie for governor from the corrupt city of Philadelphia.
Here's a draft of my letter to Frist on Specter
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - February 12, 2003)
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment about the current procedures with respect to the selection of judges, and what is happening in the Senate today is a constitutional revolution.
The Constitution provides that the Senate will give advice and consent to the President. And the tradition of this country for 215 years has been that the President makes selections as he chooses, and advice can come from the Senate. Consent has been given without challenging the President to a partnership arrangement where the Senate has to consent to the nominee before the President can submit the nominee to the Senate with any chance for confirmation.
What the Democrats are doing here today is really seeking a constitutional revolution. What they want as the minority party in the Senate is a full partnership with the President on selecting Federal judges.
What we are doing with Miguel Estrada, and other nominees who are coming up for an executive session tomorrow, is really a prelude to the nomination of the next Justice for the Supreme Court. The effort is being made by the Democrats to have their acceptable ideology without the traditional deference which has been paid to the President.
The Senate has been maneuvered into a position here, an institution with lines being drawn in the sand, and Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other being backed into a corner--sort of a macho-macho game where no one wants to play the chicken game. What we are really seeing is gridlocking this institution on a permanent basis, if no one yields.
The Judiciary Committee has three nominees on the Executive Calendar tomorrow, and the Democrats have served notice that they are going filibuster. If at least one Democrat does not vote to end the filibuster, nothing will happen there.
So we have a long litany of judges--some of whom have been held up for 2 years--and nothing is going to happen.
What we may be seeing here is the foundation laid for a grand political argument in the Presidential election of 2004. We are laying it right on the line. If the American people want judges confirmed, there are going to have to be 60 votes in the President's party.
Both sides have been at fault in the past, in my opinion. When President Clinton was in the White House and the Republicans controlled the Senate, we wouldn't confirm people. There were some breakthroughs but relatively few. When President Bush submitted nominees for 2 years, or a year and 7 months, the Democrats stopped the nomination process.
It is high time we had a protocol which both sides respected wherein so many days after a nomination, there is a hearing, so many days later, a vote in committee, and so many days later, a vote on the full floor.
But we are really heading for extraordinary deadly deadlock in this body. I think we ought to recognize it for what it is. There is a constitutional revolution underway here to change the fundamental way judges are selected.
If the Democrats insist on a full partnership with the President, if any party insists on a full partnership with the President of the opposite party, then it is going to take 60 votes. And we may be setting the stage for 60 votes in the 2004 election.
But it is my hope that cooler heads can prevail and we can sit down and work this out so that when the shoe is on the other foot, we don't have this kind of gridlock and this effort to really upset longstanding constitutional principles.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
ping
Time for action.
Who's statements are these?
This brings up another vital issue. We need to find a way around the obstructionist practices of the Democrats in the Senate who use false-fillibusters to keep nominees from a full Senate vote. Either we need to get rid of the 60-vote rule or enact some time limits on debate as suggested by whoever made those comments on the Senate floor.
Over 159,000,000 Americans disagree with Specter; does that guy read the papers?
P.S. Are we sure of the spelling - maybe it should be "Spector."
That's all Specter...
Rick Santorum and George W. Bush told us that the GOP needed Arlen Specter. We needed Arlen Specter to deliver Pennsylvania for Bush. We needed Arlen Specter to boost the party in the Keystone State. We needed Arlen Specter to keep the Senate majority.
Santorum and Bush were wrong. They were wrong morally, and they were wrong politically. These men saved the man who saved Roe v. Wade, and now the costs to the pro-life cause, the conservative movement, and the Republican party — for so little benefit — could be deep and long-lasting.
Read more here: Timothy Carney: Who needs Arlen Specter? 11/03 10:05 a.m.
Interesting comments coming from Specter, especially if these latest comments attributed to him are confirmed. He talks of advise and consent on the Senate floor but now it looks like he wants to impose his own litmus test on the nominees. Someone needs to come back at him with his own statements.
I don't believe that.
I think Bush thought Specter had the best chance of winning, and Specter, true to form, stabbed Bush in the back - or at least is trying to.
I think Specter should be sent on a "fact-finding" mission somewhere - like Iran or Yemen.
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.