Posted on 11/12/2004 2:27:51 PM PST by swilhelm73
A conservative member of the Senate Judiciary Committee said he could support Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) as chairman of the committee if Specter issued a public statement saying he would not try to block a Supreme Court nominee who opposes abortion rights.
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) said Specter assured him in a conversation Tuesday he would push for swift up-or-down votes on nominees without regard to their positions on abortion. Cornyn indicated he was satisfied by Specter's comments but wanted them expressed in an official statement.
Asked if he thought Specter would get the chairmanship, Cornyn said, "Today, yes, I do."
Cornyn also said Specter is seeking a meeting with Republicans on the judiciary panel next week to resolve doubts prompted by his comments last week suggesting that the Senate was unlikely to confirm nominees who would overturn the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. Conservatives have flooded the Senate with protests, urging Republicans to reject Specter as chairman.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
How much is a "vow from Spector" worth?
A "vow from Spector", now that is an oxymoron.
No, no, no, no! These vows, promises or whatever aren't good enough. Bork the Specter!
Does Scottish law allow this sort of vow???
Stop Specter Ping
Specter has broken his word repeatedly. I assume he told Rove that if Bush helped him in Pennsylvania, he would help Bush. Ha.
Specter is going to be meeting in the back room with the Democrats on the committee. Does anyone think Specter can be prevented from making whatever deals he likes? Does anyone think he will keep a promise if the situation changes and Bush is weakened by media attacks? Will he keep the promise after Bush leaves office?
We have a window of four years to straighten out our judiciary. We can't afford to let the whole thing ride on a corrupt liar.
The Republicans are really willing to gamble their electoral majority in order to preserve the rules of seniority in the Senate.
Wow.
Two simple predictions:
(1) Given Specter's character, he is likely to block pro-life nominees, if not directly, by subterfuge, and if he does,
(2) The Democrats will pick up a lot of seats in 2006, because the pro-life voters will stay home. And the Democratic nominee will win the Presidency in 2008 too.
The Republicans are gambling everything on the feckless Arlen Specter.
They are doing it because they really don't connect the dots, or they really don't believe that pro-life voters will abandon them if they don't use their full power to advance the pro-life agenda.
It's a calculated gamble.
So, Republicans, your fate will rest in the integrity of Arlen Specter. Because your leaders have chosen to make it this way when they didn't have to. Hold your breath and cross your fingers that everything will turn out ok, because there's not much else to do.
Depressing, really.
Vlad Harkonen: "NEVER trust a traitor, even if he is yours."
Pa voted Kerry Specter is form Pa. he needs Pa. to keep his job , He will be more worried about his job than any promise he makes to Bush. Why take a chance dump him.
I have called and e-mailed Cornyn a bunch because he is my Senator. Just from his remarks, I think he feels this is the best they would get. Specter has been in Senate a long time and I have a feeling he knows where the bodies are buried (so to speak).
If there was a clause in a statement (signed) that said that he would agree to step down, if he broke his promise, it might work. I just don't think we will get him out of chairmanship.
I truly think Cornyn would be one that would vote against having Specter as chairman.
with this, specter is in... sad.
Well, I don't think that's right. On the one hand, if he means that MacSpectre would be OBLIGED to VOTE FOR **any** pro-life candidate... well, how could he do that? Suppose a Klansman or Nazi who happened to be pro-life was nominated? I know it wouldn't happen with W, but I just mean it doesn't seem a fair commitment to demand.
If it means that MacSpectre would vow not to vote against a nominee JUST for being pro-life... how is that useful? I mean, of course he'd say it was for something else. How would we know whether he meant it? It's like the "health of the mother" exception to abortion; could mean anything.
Besides, is this what we really want -- a commitment on how he'd finally vote? Or do we want a chair who'd have fair and prompt hearings, and then send the nominee to the full Senate? I mean, yeah, I'd rather at least every GOP senator support anyone W would be likely to nominate... but is that a fair *demand*?
Dan
"not proven"
If he is made chairman we will live to regret it. Bringing candidates for an up-down vote is one thing, fighting for President Bush's appointments is another.
In an interview with Sean Hannity he called Justice Thomas "satisfactory" when asked whether he would support him for Chief Justice. I don't consider that a ringing endorsement of Justice Thomas.
He (Specter) is going to be touble.
"integrity, integrity, integrity"
Specter is about as carefree with the truth as is John F Kerry
its no wonder they are so attracted to each other..
|
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.