Posted on 11/04/2004 11:14:25 AM PST by franky
IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED
BACKGROUND:
It was reported in an AP story (11/3/04) that Senator Arlen Specter, who is in line to be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "bluntly warned President Bush .. against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation."
President Bush was re-elected with the largest vote for a president in history. Exit polls showed a large percentage of the people considered moral values important. Yet, Specter said: "When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely."
In the same article, a University of Chicago law professor said, "What he may be trying to do is say, 'Don't just think that I'm going to process what you send through. I have standards. I'm going to take an independent look,you have to deal with me."
ACTION:
CALL: SENATE MAJORITY LEADER BILL FRIST AT HIS LEADERSHIP OFFICE --- 202-224-3135
SAY: "SENATOR ARLEN SPECTER JUST WARNED PRESIDENT BUSH NOT TO APPOINT SUPREME COURT JUSTICES THAT WOULD BE STRICT CONSTRUCTIONISTS. I URGE YOU NOT TO APPOINT SENATOR SPECTER AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, SINCE HE EVIDENTLY HAS A LITMUS TEST FOR JUDGES."
I saw AP article early this morning and wrote e-mail myself. Suggested to Frist that Specter be given another appointment (plum) that he cannot refuse. Frist has to move delicately so as to avoid the "stuck pig" from squealing to his liberal friends. Glad other Freepers were as upset as I was.
I consider them both "useful idiots". Voinovich is definitely no better than moderate. DeWine did vote for all the tax cuts. They are both anti-abortion which makes them worth writing to on this issue.
I just called and asked him to oppose the appointment of Spectre and to only support those who would defend the right to life at all ages.
Pro-life PING
I just called. Frist does not appoint the head of the committee. It is voted upon by the other members of the committee. Specter does owe Bush big-time, the SKUNK.
A media generated hoax it turns out.
I think it's possible that you've forgotten that spector is a player in the gop.
that's alot more important now than our opinions.........
keep sending those checks!
Arlen, is on his last leg, and he can now be removed from his postion on the Judiciary panel. Time for a clean up of the courts.
Ops4 God BLess America!
Right...so, how do I e-mail Senator Mel Martinez?
Nor did I.
My email:
Because you are Chairman of the Judiciary I am contacting you and requesting that you do not appoint Arlen Specter to that committee.
Mr. Specter has taken a stand on a type of Supreme Court Justice he will NOT accept. So far our President has not disappointed me with his core values and belief in the rule of law. I do believe he is moving our country in the right direction.
The Office of The President and The White House has been relieved of the indecent stench left by the prior administration. President Bush and his staff have accomplished this.
I would like to see some agreement with members on The Judiciary Committee that can further the cause to which I voted and one that reflects our President's and a hugeamount of the country's view.
Please do not appoint Arlen Specter to this committee.
Thank you.
PS: I am not religious so I am not one of the Evangelican's that the media has already named this movement in an effort to deminish its power. Decent working people have values also.
Thanks for the head's up!! I'll call Frist tomorrow. I'll try to be gracious and calm.
<><
How so? As a Republican leader his task is to forward and implement Republican ideals not be concerned that Democrats won't like it.
The first thing every new Senate does is to vote on the rules. Specter should be leading the movement to change the Senate rules to forbid filibusters on judicial appointments. This can be done with a simple majority vote which the Republicans should be easily able to round up with 55 of 100 seats.
That's leadership! Worrying that Ted Kennedy won't like President Bush's appointments is not leadership. If Specter can't put forth the effort he needs to step aside.
Specter, as presumptive chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, suggested that he would block any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court who opposed abortion rights. Reiterating his position that a woman's right to choose is "inviolate," he said overturning Roe v. Wade today would be akin to trying to reverse Brown v. Board of Education, the court's 1954 landmark desegregation decision.
Barring unforeseen GOP objections, Specter, 74, should assume the committee chairmanship in January. He also sent an unsubtle message to the White House that he expects nominees for the federal bench to be of the highest caliber, and took a critical swipe at the stature of the current court. [emphasis added]
NOT true. Here's the transcript:
>
> November 3, 2004
> Transcript
>
>
> JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary
> Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January.
> With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with
> Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months
> and what part do you intend to play on it?
>
> SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to
> the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by
> term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to
> be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some
> of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions,
> so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate
> procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the
> Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had
> appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on
> Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on
> Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not
> known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the
> President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent,
> the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to,
> I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the
> Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off
> with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and
> expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
> range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of
> Presidential Discretion but there is a range.
>
> ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with
> the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there,
> you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The
> party is going one way and you are saying this.
>
> SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the
> right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is
> unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the
> campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my
> statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision,
> which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992
> decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and
> Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or
> pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be
> confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on
> integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a
> nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a
> doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I
> think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.
>
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> to send somebody up there like that.
>
> SPECTER: Can't hear you
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly
> anti-abortion.
>
> SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is
> going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a
> number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the
> President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced
> that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the
> President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the
> considerations that I mentioned.
>
> JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent
> up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially,
> you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have
> supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is
> this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the
> Republican party to be big tent and moderate.
>
> SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and
> what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had
> reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to
> whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him
> out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I
> satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of
> California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the
> doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had
> a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was
> aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and
> every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but
> there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in
> Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas,
> had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both
> Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women,
> Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas
> editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had
> made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context
> that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a
> religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential
> for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would
> be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old
> statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him
> and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge
> whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been
> raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court
> judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any
> whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some
> dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year
> record.
>
> HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you
> said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the
> party, bring it to the center.
>
> SPECTER: Correct
>
> [BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]
>
> [BREAK-Stem Cell Question]
>
> MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are
> looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your
> way in the next year or two?
>
> SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the
> mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect
> to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced
> any words about that during the confirmation process.
>
> MACINTOSH: Meaning?
>
> SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely.
> I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on
> trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of
> them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here
> this morning.
>
> ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously
> renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that
> what you're driving at?
>
> SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon?
> I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell
> Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm
> saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from
> the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some
> other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am
> repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.
>
> ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment?
> You're the only person I can think of?
>
> SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.
>
> JORDAN: Like who?
>
> SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight
> possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.
>
> JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?
>
> SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?
>
> JORDAN: Yes.
>
> SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my
> comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara,
> I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if
> you become President, I'll have it for you.
>
> [BREAK-Election 2010 question]
>
> [BREAK-Iraq questions]
>
> Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of
> President Bush's judicial nominees?
>
> AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That
> obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful
> that I can support them.
>
> [BREAK-Election question]
>
> [End Press Conference]
May I suggest not only calling/emailing Frist, but also all the Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee? They have the say in who is chairman.....
Called Frist this morning, but couldn't get through. Mailbox full! hehehe! Go FReepers!
<><
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.