Posted on 11/03/2004 3:10:39 PM PST by CrosscutSaw
The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
No kidding! Specter needs a trip to the woodshed behind the White House with Bush & Frist.
I figured Specter would try to make a power play.
How can somebody else become chairman?
Even if he tries to pull some crap, Dubya would be the real Senate Judiciary Comm chairman and would pretty much overpower him.
With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?
According to "The Peter Principle", it might be possible to move him sideways to another committee where he could do less damage.
Frist makes committee assignments... I suggest writing to Frist and suggesting that Spector be assigned to the Underwater Basketweaving Committee, and nothing else.
Too late....he's lost his mind.....
Trent Lott just on John Gibson, saying that they are going to have to bring up a test of this "cloture" crap early next session before we get a real battle over a SCOTUS judge. Trent seemed determine not to let this stuff continue.
If its not one thing its another.
Under Scottish law, can't we throw his worthless rear end of the the judiciary committee room?
Spectre (Like Bond) did nothting to help Bush. I would tell him to pound the sands of allah!
Yes, but should we also include a suggestion as to who we would like to see?
I am inspired by Bush's mandate.
FREEPERS:
Stop SPECTER!!!
I will raise hell. I for one WILL NOT be cowed into a liberal agenda after such a big win. We need to tap into the Delay's of the Republican party to call on the president and all conservatives to give them hell up there on the hill. UNBELIEVABLE!!
Uhhh...take him to Disneyland and get him stuck in some of the lines on the day the position is to be filled?
O.K. Here's an analysis that I'd like to see. During President Bush's first term, a small proportion of his judicial nominees were turned back because they were portrayed as having extreme viewpoints. Much was made of this for a while.
Of those Senators that opposed the President in this matter that were up for re-election, how many of them won or lost? And for how many of them was this an election issue?
Regardless of Senator Spector's motives on this, what kind of political traction does this issue provide? If President Bush pushes a nominee that becomes portrayed (fairly or not) as having extreme views, and the issue comes down to a cloture vote, is it likely to hurt or help him? Is it likely to hurt or help the Senators involved (since some of them will be facing election 2 years from now)? Can we draw any conclusions on these questions based on the Senatorial elections that have just occurred?
Is this not the same man who almost lost his seat last night? Thought so.
Can honestly say we would have been better off taking our chances with a democrat on that one. Now he is safe for another 4 years. Makes me want to puke.
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court." "With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one," he said.GAG!
LOL re: coathanger.
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.