Posted on 11/04/2004 3:57:05 PM PST by doug from upland
I spoke with Sen. Rick Santorum's officer earlier today, and the press sec. just sent me this email ---
Comments from Senator Santorum on Senator Specter's comments on the judicial nomination process:
"Recent news articles have reported comments made by Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) about the judicial confirmation process. Earlier today, I asked Senator Specter to clarify his comments, which he did in a statement. In that statement, he clarified that he does not support a litmus test for nominees with regard to their stance on abortion.
"Senate Republicans are committed to approving all of the President's judicial nominations, despite the Democrats' rhetoric that they are committed to block judges who fail their litmus tests. This week's election increased the number of Republican Senators to 55. I am hopeful that with this increase we can overcome the Democrat's filibustering tactics.
"In the new Congress, I look forward to working with Senator Specter to guarantee that every judicial nominee put forth by President Bush has an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate."
That would be nice, but I don't think Frist has it in him. He certainly didn't show me much with his "support" of the judicial nominees Bush has put up so far.
I don't trust Specter.
According to Kathryn Jean Lopez of NRO, the Republican Senators will be selecting committee chairmen next week. I've heard conflicting accounts - does the whole Republican caucus vote or is it just the committee members?
The Republican committee members are as follows:
Orrin G. Hatch
Charles E. Grassley
Arlen Specter
Jon Kyl
Mike DeWine
Jeff Sessions
Lindsey Graham
Larry Craig
Saxby Chambliss
John Cornyn
I will be contacting each of these senators, and I prefer to do it with a FAX. At least it's a hard copy that someone has to put in their hands, better than an e-mail that can be immediately deleted.
Time to put our pajamas on and go to work.
Now.
Whenever I watched the Senate and the votes on ending the filibuster of voting for a judge - the Repubs. were getting 55 - and they needed 60. Now the Repubs. have 55 members - hope there are at least 5 Democrats who will also vote with them -
I second that - he will bend whichever way the wind blows.
We should be able to trust him going in and by his public statements (and then saying that he was taken out of context) we can't.
I have heard him do this before - he says something stupid and then when called on it calls Rush to issue a reversal statement.
Not that those are Santorum's words, not Specter's.
Here is what Specter basically said. He will put them through committe though he may not vote for them himself. That's really good enough. We can't toss him out of the Senate so as long as he puts them through committee and doesn't join the filibuster then I have no problem with him heading the judiciary committee. He says we should look at his record on that. I think he record shows we can trust him. If I'm wrong someone tell me.
No, he said from the start that he would put them through committee though he will not necessarily vote for them himself.
The Judiciary Committee Chairmanship is WAY too critical to the President's plan for constitutionalist judges' appointments. Frist better be on top of this.
We are not talking about throwing him out of the Senate, although that is tempting. We are talking about him being chairman of the judiciary committee. We need someone there totally in sync with the president. That is certainly not Magic Bullet Specter.
Unbelievable. Apart from everything else bad about this guy, he is as straight-faced a liar as the Isuzu salesman. Check out the statement on his Senate website:
http://specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=661&Month=11&Year=2004
To better serve the citizens of Pennsylvania, I have updated my website to better inform you of my activities in the Senate. The website will provide insight on the activities we're undertaking on major issue areas in the Senate and my position on these matters, a travel itinerary of my upcoming visits around the State of Pennsylvania, and contact information with regard to constituent concerns that need to be addressed. For information, please visit the website at HYPERLINK "http://www.http://specter.senate.gov"www.http://specter.senate.gov.
The first link gives me a deadend - Cannot find server. Second one is the site I used to get his email address.
You know, I seem to remember Specter being pretty good at the Clarence Thomas hearings. As liberal Republicans go, he is certainly better than others. PA keeps giving him to us so we might as well work with it. If he puts them through committee and doesn't join the filibuster then so what if he votes no some of the time on the confirmation vote. That vote we cannot take away from him even if we toss him from the judiciary committee.
Britt Hume reported that there was a conference call with (I don't remember the contingent) and Frist apparently did bitch slap him badly, but I didn't get the exact Senatorial nuance Britt used. It was good.
But Specter had also supported him in a previous election...Santorum has class and wouldn't stab him in the back. He returned the favor. Don't fault him for that.
He's being diplomatic - it isn't his job.
Frist took him out, so to speak, today.
Anything else from Santorum would have been out of line.
I know. (The time to toss him from the senate is past.) What I am saying is, since we cannot toss him -- he gets a confirmation vote and has a right to vote his conscience -- then we might as well keep him as agreeable as possible. He has said he will put them through committee and I think he is saying he is against the filibusters. I think that is enough. He does have a decent record on the matter. He was pretty good at those ridiculous Anita Hill hearings and Thomas is a great conservative.
Lott already said there would be.
He made this statement on November 3 on FNC.
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.
Just his use of the phrase "right of a woman to choose" in this context tells me he believes it.
Yeah, Specter is "concerned about filibusters." To remedy his concern, I think he proposes to send to the Senate floor, only those nominees that the Democrats support.
Lying, not lying, or not proven...?
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.