Specter warns Bush on high court nominations

Houston Chronicle ^ | 11/3/2004 | LARA JAKES JORDAN

[gieriscm]

While you're contacting your Senators, tell them to keep other RINO's like Chafee, Snow, etc. off the Judiciary Committee as well.

[Penny]

arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov 202-224-4254; fax: 202-228-1229

Bill Frist's office (friendly staff work for him, by the way): 202-224-3344; fax: 202-228-1264

Please start flooding Specter's office with e-mails denouncing his arrogance (last time I checked he didn't win a presidential election!!!), and please telephone these men's offices at every opportunity.

Regards . . . Penny

[macsmind76]

This article is "dust in the wind", libs are gonna feel the heat and they can't do a dang thing about it.

With 55 Senators, and popular vote for a mandate, they can cry and scream all they want, they have NO power.

[grobdriver]

bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush today against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

Just shut up, Senator, and pass them through to the voting process.

[GodBlessUSA]

Excellent point. He is the reason PA was lost. I didn't even think of that because I never viewed him as an asset.

[Scales]

Much better idea. Thanks!

[JimSEA]

I am in possession of a secret note from Sen. Arlen Specter to President Bush. It reads as follows:

Dear George,

Thanks for all the help in the Primary. Unfortunatly, no good turn goes unpunished. I look forward to working against you in the disloyal opposition for the next four years.

Up Yours, Arlen.

[Pharlap]

I find it interesting that Specter would make such an obviously antagonistic statement so soon. It does nothing but rally those opposed to the filibustering of judicial nominations, as well as put the conservative senate Republicans on notice. Possible scenarios: (1) move to make a strong, conservative Republican senator chairman of the Judiciary Committee (with all due respect, Hatch never was able to stand up to liberal Democrats on the Committee). (2) When the new Congress comes into session in January, 2005, both the House and Senate must adopt/renew the rules under which they will function. The rules of the previous Senate do not control the new Senate. Remember how, in 1992, the first thing Gingrich did was make procedural changes in how the House would conduct its business. In 2005, the new Republican majority of 55 (this is important because there are five "republican" senators -- 2 from Maine, one each from Rhode Island, Pa. and Arizona -- who could vote against rule changes) less 5 gives any rules change vote a possible 50-50 tie, plus to tiebreaker vote of the Vice President (51-50). Adoption of new rules by a new Senate cannot be filibustered because that procedure is not a constitutional requirement, rather it is only a rule of a prior Senate and, therefore, is not binding (unless and until readopted by the new Senate). A simple 51 majority, therefore, can change any rule, including filibuster and cloture rule in the new Senate. The change in the filibuster/cloture rule need not be broad and sweeping. It could be limited to judicial nominations for various reasons, some constitutionally based, that are too long to go into now.

[chainsaw]

Specter would do well to consult Daschle about obstructing justice.

[Kozak]

No, I wasn't clear. I wonder if Frist has seen the sign.

[crz]

Just remember ARLEEN! There is something called a recall election.

[zeebee]

What would happen if Bush nominated Specter for SC?

[Endeavor]

It is the peoples mandate that allows the president to make these kinds of appointments when the dems are requiring 60 votes to move things from committee to a vote.

In other words, WE can influence this even now. I'd like to see us here at FR mount a campaign against Specter, or for Bush's first nominee to the Court.

That kind of action would have an effect. We could target those senators who were dragging their feet with freeps and mail and PR.

Are you up for it?

[hgro]

Specter is a sphincter. He is only a cipher in the Republican senatorial majority.

[wita]

"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.

While Specter is a loyal Republican -- Bush endorsed him in a tight Pennsylvania GOP primary -- he routinely crosses party lines to pass legislation and counts a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, as one of his closest friends.

These two sentences alone tell me just what a jerk this guy loves to be. Not to mention calling himself a moderate republican, a mythical entity if ever there was one. You are either a Republican and are loyal to party principles, or you are a deceiving dem in republican clothes a situation that has gone on long enough.

Oh yea I'm an independent voice yada yada yada, that is the same line used by our democrat representative to the House, Stephanie Herseth, and is indicative of everything she stands for. To add to this, the fact that Roe of Roe v Wade
has for years recanted her lying testimony before said supreme court shows just what he knows about the case.

Haven't seen anyone in the congress suggest to the supreme court that it might be time to overturn such an illegal decision as Roe v Wade, since said decision was based purely on testimony given by one who will just as willingly testify was a manufactured lie.

No, this gentleman, and senator, unworthy of either title by virtue of his own condemning statements, and his historical position in the senate, by that I mean his presence during the sham impeachment trial of WJC, ought to go down in history as the first of his ilk to be drummed out of the party. After all, when you can't count on his vote when the chips are down, what good is number 55.

Mr Specter and mr Biden both are worthy of far more attention than I am going to give them on this forum, the word bum is too good a word to describe their well proven status.

[joesbucks]

I wonder if it was more about re-election positioning rather than positions on the issues. I faulted Bush for his non-descript answers to the tough questions. Ergo the "is being gay a choice" question in the debates. Freepers and evangelicals argued he was vague to not upset moderates. I claimed he simply was not being truthful. He knows and wouldn't say. And I don't think the answer is what most freepers and evangelicals wanted. He wasn't playing it safe against the middle, he was playing it safe against his base and the lapped it up.

[Endeavor]

I wish specter had lost, too. Why can't the majority leader appoint the heads of the committees ?

[beckysueb]

This was one of the few times I was pulling for a Democrat win.

[Redleg Duke]

"The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year..."

There is the key phrase. After the President put his shoulder to the wheel to help Sphincter, he got absolutely no help in return in the main election. Somehow, I think Sen Sphincter may not even get onto the Senate Judiciary Committee this time!

[Always Right]

I hope you are right, and I plan to help make that happen.