NRO Editor -- "ARLEN SPECTER MUST BE STOPPED: STOP HIM NOW" (from Kathryn J. Lopez)

National Review Online ^ | Nov 4 04 | Kathryn Jean Lopez

[Glenn]

nd e-mail Bill Frist

I am sure this point has been made on this thread, but I will just add to it:

Email is generally handled in the fashion of a "trend". Ms. Hart, who is the District 4 Congresswoman here in PA, will never respond to an email. Nor will any important aide. If you want to get your point across, write a letter, print it out, stick it in an envelope, put a stamp on it, and mail it. It has worked for me.

[MoonMullins]

Re: Specter lamenting the lack of legal "giants", whatever happened to Robert Bork?

I rest my case.

[GoMonster]

I am no big Harlem Specter fan, but I believe it is good to have someone like him. If he says someone is good then it passes the national creditbility test. Don't forget he supported Clarence Thomas very strong.... Good to have a perceived idiot on your team. Media likes those.

[retromaven]

Already emailed Bill Frist earlier today. Was planning on following up with a phone call tomorrow. I agree it's up to all of us to continue to keep the pressure on so this RHINO doesn't hinder the mandate the American people have given the Republicans - especially in this arena.

[ConservativeGadfly]

Here's the actual transcript of what specter said:


> November 3, 2004
> Transcript
>
>
> JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary
> Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January.
> With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with
> Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months
> and what part do you intend to play on it?
>
> SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to
> the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by
> term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to
> be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some
> of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions,
> so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate
> procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the
> Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had
> appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on
> Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on
> Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not
> known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the
> President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent,
> the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to,
> I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the
> Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. We start off
> with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and
> expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad
> range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of
> Presidential Discretion but there is a range.
>
> ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with
> the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there,
> you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The
> party is going one way and you are saying this.
>
> SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the
> right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is
> unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the
> campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my
> statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision,
> which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992
> decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and
> Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or
> pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be
> confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on
> integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a
> nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a
> doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I
> think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.
>
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> to send somebody up there like that.
>
> SPECTER: Can't hear you
>
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly
> anti-abortion.
>
> SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is
> going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a
> number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the
> President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced
> that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the
> President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the
> considerations that I mentioned.
>
> JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent
> up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially,
> you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have
> supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is
> this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the
> Republican party to be big tent and moderate.
>
> SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and
> what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had
> reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to
> whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him
> out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I
> satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of
> California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the
> doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had
> a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was
> aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and
> every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but
> there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in
> Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas,
> had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both
> Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women,
> Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas
> editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had
> made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context
> that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a
> religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential
> for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would
> be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old
> statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him
> and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge
> whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been
> raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court
> judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any
> whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some
> dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year
> record.
>
> HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you
> said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the
> party, bring it to the center.
>
> SPECTER: Correct
>
> [BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]
>
> [BREAK-Stem Cell Question]
>
> MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are
> looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your
> way in the next year or two?
>
> SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the
> mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect
> to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced
> any words about that during the confirmation process.
>
> MACINTOSH: Meaning?
>
> SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely.
> I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on
> trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of
> them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here
> this morning.
>
> ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously
> renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that
> what you're driving at?
>
> SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon?
> I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell
> Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm
> saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from
> the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some
> other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am
> repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.
>
> ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment?
> You're the only person I can think of?
>
> SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.
>
> JORDAN: Like who?
>
> SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight
> possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.
>
> JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?
>
> SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?
>
> JORDAN: Yes.
>
> SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my
> comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara,
> I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if
> you become President, I'll have it for you.
>
> [BREAK-Election 2010 question]
>
> [BREAK-Iraq questions]
>
> Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of
> President Bush's judicial nominees?
>
> AS: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That
> obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful
> that I can support them.
>
> [BREAK-Election question]
>
> [End Press Conference]

[mabelkitty]

Britt Hume reported that Frist handled this publicly on a conference call with a contingent of Senators, and word from Britt is that Spector is not guaranteed the job. Removing him would not be unusual or illegal.
Britt also said that if he was going for the Chair votes, he should know that 6 of the 10 needed are very very Conservative.

[TAdams8591]

I'm sure his statements weren't much different than reported.

Firstly, it's conservatives and their comments the press likes to mischaracterize. Secondly, it sounds exactly like comments Specter has made in the past. Thirldy, now realizing he spoke to soon, and may be jeopardizng the Judiciary promised him, Specter is backpeddling.

[BillF]

I like Huber's idea.

I've been told that letters are more important than phone calls or emails, but all forms of communication are good.

HERE ARE CONTACT INFO FOR SOME OF THE MORE IMPORTANT SENATORS:

Senator Bill Frist
Senate Majority Leader tele: (202) 224-3344
461 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Fax: (202) 228-1264

SENATOR CHUCK GRASSLEY I asked him to take over Judiciary.
135 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 tele: 202) 224-3744

Senator Mitch McConnell tele: (202) 224-2541
361-A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 Fax: (202) 224-2499

MY TWO SENATORS.

Senator George Allen tele: (202) 224-4024
204 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5432 fax

Senator John Warner Telephone: (202) 224-2023
225 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON DC 20510 FAX (202) 224-6295

web forms for sending email to your senators can be found here: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

My letter to my two Senators. Similar letters sent to Frist, McConnell, and Grassley:

---

I am greatly distressed over the possibility of Senator Specter becoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Please don’t let Specter become chairman. My understanding is that Senator Chuck Grassley could be chairman. Please encourage him to become chairman.

I should say that, as a long-time contributor to the GOP, I did NOT contribute to the GOP Senate Campaign Fund this year because some of my funds might have gone to Specter. Instead, I contributed to eight GOP Senate candidates directly.

The GOP base wants strict constructionists on the bench and does NOT want Specter chairing Judiciary, blocking good nominees.

Please don’t let us down.

[TAdams8591]

I'd say you distributed your money wisely!

[churchillbuff]

Specter: "We start off > with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad range of acceptability."

So he's saying that judges who've been filibustered aren't "within the broad range of acceptability". So Estrada isn't "acceptable"? Why is the GOP putting in as chairman somebody who is letting the Democrats define the "range of acceptability" for judicial nominees?

[BillF]

I realize now that I contributed to 9 candidates. I was thinking that all won except Coors.

However, I remembered that I also contributed to Nethercutt in Washington. I was just hoping that he could beat Osama Momma Murray, but I knew it was a longshot.

Still, winners that I contributed to included Burr(NC), DeMint(SC), Isakkson (GA), Martinez(FL), Vitter(LA), Coburn(OK) and Thune (SD).

Anyway, I'll take 7 out of 9 and go home as happy as Dan Rather's "frog with side pockets to carry a handgun."

[SauronOfMordor]

The Dems can have Snow, Chafee, and Specter. At least we would stop the charade game we are playing now.

Chafee may jump to Dems

[shibsgw]

I found another petition to take down Arlen! It's from an unusual ally: economic conservatives. I guess judicial overreach is what allows liberals to grow government. Sign this petition: www.notarlen.com

[Dr. Scarpetta]

Maybe Specter just wanted to keep the liberals who supported his reelection bid off his case, so he issued his warning to the president on the day of his victory. Fact is, we only know what he says. And I, for one, will take him on his word.

I continue to be annoyed at my fellow Pennsylvania Freepers who voted for Specter. I DID NOT vote for Specter, and I've made phone calls to Frist and Santorum complaining about him being head of the Judiciary Committee. The problem is that Specter may end up as chairman, in spite of us.

[churchillbuff]

"I for one will take him at his word."

Well then why don't you believe what he told the PA newspapers - that he'd obstruct conservative judges? That's his "word" - but for some reason you assume he gave his word to those papers without meaning to keep it. In other words, you don't believe he's a man of his word - yet you say "I for one will take him at his word." I'm confused - because you're confused.