Recess appointment won't work: it's not for life, so the Dems can always regain the White House and run the table.
I agree completely that the judges have to be eminently qualified jurists in all senses. We can't have one-issue hacks, even if their issue is pro-life, because this is the Supreme Court of the United States we're talking about.
It's unfortunate, I think, that we Republicans even have to have had this discussion today. And I hope that the Republicans who are not focused on abortion who do read at least what I wrote come away realizing that this Specter business, and the filibusters, are really more serious than just tactical issues.
Every faction of any party has really core issues.
For example, suppose the Republicans started to press for high taxes in order to pay for the war and balance the budget. There were millions of Republicans who voted for Perot because they read George H.W. Bush's lips about "No new taxes", and then felt betrayed by him. Since then, the Republicans have not even played around on tax issues. They understand that they cannot win any elections if they play around on that issues. This focuses their minds, and instead of figuring out ways to maneuver, they make that a hard spot and maneuver elsewhere.
Abortion has been such an issue for so long that Republicans in general have probably gotten complacent about the pro-life vote. The difference this time is the opportunity to get new judges on the courts and actually change things.
That's way pro-lifers are taking this Specter thing as seriously as fiscal conservatives took Bush 41's breach on the tax issues.
I think that all of the caterwauling about not DARING to "threaten" our "betters" and all of that is so much garbage. If George H.W. Bush had been clearly warned by taxpayer's groups in 1990 that if he raised taxes, they would not vote for him, would he have raised taxes anyway?
Well, actually they DID warn him, and he DID raise taxes anyway...and so we got Bill Clinton, because lots of fiscal conservatives did just what they said they would do. Bush and his team back then were arrogant. They did not like being threatened by the rank and file.
Nobody likes being threatened.
But first, telling someone how their actions will affect my vote is not threatening them, it's informing them of reality so that they can perhaps adjust their behavior accordingly.
And second, so damn what if people don't LIKE to be threatened. Politics in Washington is not conducted based on the Marquess of Queensbury rules. Presidents threaten vetoes. Senators threaten filibusters. Donors threaten to withhold donations. Nobody likes to be threatened, but some threats are serious and can do serious damage, and only an idiot takes a defiant stance and gets beaned when he could avoid the problem.
The complaint I've read above is that "We'll get Hillary Clinton." Look, if the Republicans are not really pro-life, if one's core issue is abortion it doesn't make any difference if it's Hillary Clinton or a Republican who won't lift a finger to stop abortion.
But we are not there.
Where we are now, I think, is that the Senators know they have a problem with Spector, and they and the President think they can work it out. The danger is that their political calculations within Washington will fail to appreciate the real damage, demoralization and demotivation that will hit the newly mobilized pro-lifer ranks if Specter is allowed to prevail. It's our job, I think, to make the danger clear to them, so that they will "get it".
I did not consider my initial missive to be a THREAT, but a WARNING, sort of like a hurricane warning. The Senators will, I hope, comprehend the danger and chart a course that avoids it.