Posted on 11/05/2004 7:41:13 PM PST by guitarist
After a late-night flight from the west coast, and a day spent interviewing would-be law professors, I have had a chance to catch up on the news, and I see that there is a blog swarm forming around the expected assumption of the chairmanship of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary by Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. The opposition to Specter seems headquartered at The Corner. Many friends post at The Corner, so I paused, considered their arguments, and thought it through. On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. I hope my colleagues on the center-right that embrace pro-life politics will reconsider.
I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch. Institutions that are destabilized for expediency's sake do not regain stability after a convenient alteration. That was the lesson of the Roman Revolution, where a series of departures from settled precedent in the name of urgent expediency eventually brought down the entire structure. For the past four years Republicans have complained bitterly of Democratic obstructionism that upended the traditions of the Senate. Should the GOP begin its new period of dominance with a convenient abandonment of the very rules they have charged Dems with violating repeatedly?
In 1986 the Democrats won control of the Senate from the Republicans with a margin of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. The Republicans now enjoy an even greater edge of 55 to 44 (Jeffords is an Independent). The Judiciary Committee of 1986 had 14 members. I cannot find the exact breakdown, but the allocation of seats was at least 8 to 6 for the Democrats, and may have been 9 to 5. Regardless of the exact split, the GOP in 2005, with a Judiciary Committee of 19 members ought to enjoy at least an 11 to 8 majority, and possibly a 12 to 7 split. The Chairmanship will have great power, of course, but what matters far more than the name of the Chair is resolve in insisting that the GOP majority be reflected in the Committee make-up, and that Senator Frist appoint serious pro-life members to the new vacancies.
What also matters is a transparent debate and vote on the rules governing the nominations by the president to the courts. A great deal of extra-constitutional nonsense has grown up in the traditions of the Senate. The GOP majority ought to insist on a rule that assures that every nominee that gains a majority vote of the Judiciary Committee be brought to the floor. This is a long overdue reform of reactionary practices such as "blue slip" holds and filibusters of judicial nominees. Conservatives are not demanding the right reforms when they aim at Senator Specter. They should be insisting on a rebalancing of the processes employed by the Senate according to constitutional norms.
Senator Specter has supported every judicial nominee sent forward by President Bush. More important than that, he won first the primary and then the general election in Pennsylvania, and is a man of the party and the party needs to welcome its members who hold minority views, not punish them. The prospect that Senator Specter might oppose a Bush nominee is not a happy one, but neither is it inevitable nor, given the appropriate committee make-up, fatal to the nominee's prospects. Conservatives ought to be focused on demanding the right allocation of seats and the right names for the new members, not on their fears about Senator Specter's reliability. Recall that Specter did a fine job defending Justice Thomas. Given Senator Specter's reputation for moderation, his support of future Bush nominees could prove hugely valuable.
So, fellow pro-life conservatives, we should keep our focus on the key issues: The split of the seats, the names of the new members, and reform of the rules governing judicial nominees.
“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.” – Remarks by Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004. President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” – Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004. Senator Arlen Specter's shocking comments the day after President Bush's decisive re-election raise troubling concersn |
|||
Specter's record over the last 20 years demonstrated a pattern of very troubling conduct on Judiciary Committee issues
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee must be someone devoted to the Constitution as written and the rule of law
|
|||
Specter
Posted by guitarist
On News/Activism 11/05/2004 7:41:13 PM PST · 80 replies · 1,183+ views
HughHewitt.com ^ | 11/5/04 | Hugh HewittHugh Hewitt's Take on Arlen Specter
Posted by MplsSteve
On News/Activism 11/05/2004 10:22:33 PM PST · 54 replies · 904+ views
Hugh Hewitt ^
The GOP majority ought to insist on a rule that assures that every nominee that gains a majority vote of the Judiciary Committee be brought to the floor. This is a long overdue reform of reactionary practices such as "blue slip" holds and filibusters of judicial nominees. They should be insisting on a rebalancing of the processes employed by the Senate according to constitutional norms.
| PROFILE Arlen Specter emerged victorious in a fractious and closely watched Republican primary in 2004, prevailing over a more conservative rival who had bucked the party and threatened its moderate wing. One of the last moderate Republicans in a politically polarized Senate, Spector eeked out a narrow 51-49 percent victory over Rep. Pat Toomey, though Specter outspent his opponent 3-1 and had the very public backing of President Bush and conservative Sen. Rick Santorum. Toomey had labled Specter a "RINO" ? or "Republican in Name Only" ? for the senator's stubbornly moderate voting record of supporting abortion rights, union causes and tax cut trims, and for bloating the federal budget by personally earmarking hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars for Pennsylvania projects each year. Throughout the primary, Specter proclaimed himself the better Republican for winning party leaders' endorsements, but the day after the election, he held a press conference outlining various positions on which he differs from the White House ? a bald attempt to retain Democratic and moderate voters who have supported him over the years. Specter faces Rep. Joe Hoeffel, a three-term Democrat from the Philadelphia suburbs, in the fall 2004 election. Hoeffel will unlikely match Specter's name recognition or fund-raising prowess, but most believe the senator was brusied coming out of the primary ? an advantage for Hoeffel. If Specter wins re-election in 2004, he would be Pennsylvania's first five-term senator. Specter's moderate roots led him to help launch the Republican Majority Coalition in 1992, a moderate group pushing for lower taxes, deficit reduction and civil rights but taking no position on abortion or homosexuality. Specter also carried the same themes in his unsuccessful bid for the 1996 Republican presidential nomination. In his run for the White House, he called for a flat income tax, a balanced budget by the year 2002, tougher inspections of North Korea's nuclear facilities, speedy imposition of the death penalty and health care reform focused on those without insurance. Specter's campaign never really gained momentum and he dropped out, citing lackluster fund-raising. During the presidential race, the abortion-rights supporter antagonized his party's conservative wing, denouncing it as the "far-right fringe." After dropping out, he put his coalition-building skills to work and began embracing such programs as abstinence-based sex education. Although his moderate views don't always place him in the mainstream of his increasingly conservative party, Specter tends to stick with the Republicans on high-profile issues. He was seen as being tough on Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court conformation hearings. Specter chaired the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism that held hearings in September 1995 on the 1992 shootout at Ruby Ridge. In late October 1995, Specter said that such serious questions were raised by the confrontations at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Texas, that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be abolished. As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1995-96, Specter applauded efforts by the CIA to send regular reports on its activities, including mistakes, to the House and Senate Intelligence committees. Commenting on his experience questioning law professor Hill during the 1991 confirmation hearing for Thomas, Specter said it was a "learning experience" for him and America. "I frankly had no idea how much sexual harassment there was until those hearings were over," he said. Specter prides himself on staying in touch with people across Pennsylvania and regularly visits nearly every county. When it looked as though the Pittsburgh Pirates baseball team would be sold and moved elsewhere, Specter warned baseball team owners that they could lose their exemption from antitrust laws if the Pittsburgh franchise was not saved. Specter chairs the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and the lucrative Labor, Health, Education and Pensions subcommitee on Senate Appropriations. He also serves on the Judiciary and Governmental Affairs committees. If he wins election in 2004, and Republicans keep control of the Senate, he will chair the Judiciary Committee in 2005. The American Conservative Union gave Specter's 2003 voting record 65 points out of 100. The liberal Americans for Democratic Action gave him 25 points. CAMPAIGNS Arlen Specter won two terms as Philadelphia district attorney in the 1960s, the first Republican to hold a city office in 13 years. He had been a Democrat, but switched parties to challenge his former boss, James Crumlish. Specter lost a race for Philadelphia mayor in 1967; lost a bid for a third term as district attorney in 1973; lost the Republican primary for U.S. Senate to John Heinz in 1976; and lost the Republican primary for governor in 1978 to Dick Thornburgh. He won the 1980 Senate election over Democrat Pete Flaherty, a former Pittsburgh mayor, with 50 percent of the vote. Specter won his second term over U.S. Rep. Bob Edgar in 1986 with 56 percent and bucked an anti-incumbent mood in 1992 to defeat Democrat Lynn Yeakel with 49 percent for his third term. He ran unsuccessfully for president in 1995, dropping out before the primaries. Specter won a fourth Senate term in 1998, defeating Democrat William Lloyd with 61 percent of the vote. He defeated GOP Rep. Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary with 51 percent of the vote. FROM a George Soros Anti-Bush website called "Blog for America", you can find comments on what the Socialists think of Spector:
|
I respect your point of view, but I also know politics as it is played in that town. This will just give the RATS the excuse they need to put up a wall of obstruction for the next two years -- not that they need much excuse, of course, but it can't hurt for the Republicans to extend an olive branch. Specter is sounding so chastened -- I was misunderstood, I have voted for all of the president's nominees -- he wouldn't dare go against the White House on anything. But I understand those who feel differently, and there is no need to use uncivil language or for us to start tearing into each other. We won, remember. Let the rats each other alive.
I will NOT be put in the position of defending Specter. I live in Pennsylvania. I've worked against Specter, I've donated against Specter, and in every election he's run in since 1972, I've voted against Specter.
But he isn't as far to the left as your Senators in New England are. Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and all the RINOS you have in New England are to the left of Specter, and that was my only point. When you compare him to YOUR New England RINOs, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
You don't even know how to spell his name for crying out loud.
Please elaborate on the "divorce cohabitation industry" and how that pertains to this particular discussion. I don't always follow every line of argument in these forums.
My general view on this subject is people are wasting a lot of energy that could used more productively elsewhere. Specter will get in line.
It is not an unstabilizing request. Abortion has done more to destailbize this country than any one time change in a Senatorial procedure ever could.
Specter will cause more damage to future gnerations of this nation, if he isn't stopped and stopped NOW!!
Excellent response. I wholeheartedly agree. But then it's my line of thought since college.
Well done.
It was okay for them to force abortion on us through strong armed tactics, though wasn't it Hugh? And that reality has lasted for 32 years.
I fail to see how removing Specter from the head of the judiciary is a "strong arm tactic." It doesn't even begin to approach equivalency with the tactic (Roe vs. Wade) Liberals used to force abortion upon us.
Dear Senator Frist,
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-4205
I am overjoyed about the recent general election results. I worked very hard--going door-to-door and passing out literature for several days--to get George W. Bush re-elected. I am also extremely pleased that Americans choose to give Senate Republicans a majority.
However, I am very concerned about the possibility that Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania may become head of the Senate Judiciary committee. He was very much part of defeating the VERY good judge Robert Bork. My concern lies in the fact that he has stated his opposition to any pro-life nominees. To me, this amounts to the same type of obstruction tactics that Americans rejected when they voted to unseat Tom Daschle.
We have already had 4 years of out of control filibustering by democrats who wish to hold back the judicial process and the president's right to appoint judicial nominees. I appeal to you as a voting and concerned citizen to not allow a Republican to become an obstacle to the President's mandate from the people.
Please Senator Frist, use your authority as Senate Majority Leader to stop Arlen Specter from being a road block to the President! Please keep him off the Senate Judiciary Committee!
Also, use your Senate majority to stop the filibuster! The American people despise these tactics, and are counting on you to fight for them now that their choices have been made.
Sincerely,
On your side, really.
Arlan Specter, the famed former Philadelphia prosecuter takes center stage once again. One of the reputed villains in the Oliver Stone classic film JFK, author of the infamous 'single bullet theory' and accuser of Anita Hill now appears to be the radical lefts lone remaining hope of stopping the momentum of George W. Bush and the Republican machine. Specter, a pro choice Republican, is set to head the Senate Judiaciary Committee which oversees President Bush's Judicial and Supreme Court nominations. The Democrats suffered a major setback in the November 2nd elections when Mr. Bush became the first American President in 16 years to recieve an actual majority of popular votes. The Democrats no only sufferred losses in both houses of Congress, the Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, highest ranking Democrat in Washington, also was voted out of office by his home constituants. After such a massive defeat and repudiation of the Democratic Party and its leadership by the American voters, the Party is now looking to one of its longtime demons as its only hope to slow the momentum for change fostered by the recent Republican victories.
An ironic twist of fate borne on the November 2nd elections. Likewise Senator John McCain of Arizona, accaimed warhero with establish conservative credentials, became in the year 2000 Elections the darling of the media solely based on George W. Bush's frontrunner status during Republican Primary elections. Senator McCain seemed top be the only challenger to George Bush and thus won eternal praise and affection of liberals and the elite media. John Kerry spoke of Senator McCain as a possible Vice President or Defense Secretary in a Kerry Administration. As of November 3rd, Senator McCain is now the Republican frontrunner for 2008 when Mr. Bush's term expires. Senator McCain actively worked for President Bush's reelection and thus no the republicna establishment owes him a debt based on loyalty. In the coming months as these facts become more apparrent, Senator McCain will loose his reputation among liberals, Democrats and journalists as 'a broadminded individual', 'right thinking Republican', 'moderate' and even 'liberal Republican' to the more fitting 'reincarnation of Hitler' all to familiar to all Republican frontrunning Presidential candidates.
Whoooooaa.... Thx 4 the bump
Some choice quotes:
-"I will not give up our Party to radical extremists without a fight."
-Calls Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Pat Buchanan "extremists".
-"I resent people like Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, and Pat Buchanan trying to give litmus tests to determine who can be a Republican candidate."
-"I want to strip the strident anti-choice language" from the GOP party plank.
-"Will you stand up to the far-right fringe that demands that legal abortion be banned?"
-"We must demonstrate that the Republican Party is made up of more that Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Reed."
-Accuses the Christian Coalition of keeping people off the Republican ticket and blackmailing the Republican Party, slams Paul Weyrich of Free Congress Foundation
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.