Posted on 11/08/2004 8:20:09 AM PST by SmithPatterson
Thunder On The Right Nov. 8, 2004
Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is struggling to survive a storm of criticism ignited by his remark that judicial nominees who oppose abortion rights would face difficulty in getting confirmed by the Senate.
Specter was expected to become chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee in the new Congress, but conservative anger over the GOP moderate's comment has taken Specter's elevation out of the "sure thing" category.
At a news conference following the election last week, Specter, who supports abortion rights, said Democratic filibusters would make it hard to secure the confirmation of anti-abortion court nominees.
"I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning," Specter said.
His remarks were widely interpreted as a warning to President Bush to refrain from selecting Supreme Court nominees who opposed abortion rights.
Conservatives denounced Specter's comments and the Pennsylvania senator has been practicing damage control ever since.
"The fact is that I have supported all of President Bush's nominees in committee and on the floor. I have never applied a litmus test," Specter said Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation."
Specter said he was only pointing out a political fact: Republicans alone lack the votes to quash a Democratic filibuster of a Bush nominee. He also said his support for abortion rights would not get in the way of a judge who didn't back those rights.
"Although I am pro-choice, I have supported many pro-life nominees," he said.
The explanation hasn't mollifed conservative critics.
"Senator Specter is a big-time problem for us, and we're very concerned about him," said James Dobson, founder of the conservative Christian lobbying group Focus on the Family.
"There are many, many members of that committee that are more qualified and less of a problem than Senator Specter," Dobson said.
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist ailing from thyroid cancer, much speculation has arisen about whether the president soon may have to make a Supreme Court nomination. And as head of the Judiciary panel, Specter would have wide latitude to schedule committee hearings and votes.
Specter received valuable help from the White House and Mr. Bush in beating back a strong challenge from a conservative Pennsylvania congressman in the state's GOP Senate primary.
The White House so far seems to be taking a hands-off approach to the Specter controversy.
On "Fox News Sunday," White House political adviser Karl Rove said Mr. Bush would nominate only judges who would "strictly apply the law, strictly interpret the Constitution" from the bench.
"He views judges as the impartial umpires," Rove said. "They shouldn't be activist legislators who just happen to wear robes and never face election, ... (who) feel free to pursue their own personal or political agenda."
Rove said Specter has assured the president that he would make certain that all appellate nominees receive a prompt hearing and reach the Senate floor.
"Senator Specter's a man of his word, and we'll take him at his word," Rove said.
Stop Specter Ping
What does this say about Senator Specter?
More Leftist water-carrying for the Liberal RINO Specter.
If that jackass is a "moderate," then I'm King of Jamaica.
To me, the most outrageous act of Specter's career was to cite Scottish law to justify his vote against the impeachment of Clinton. Since this is America and not Scotland, he might as well have cited Laotian, Estonian, or Uzbekistani law.
Specter is totally unqualified to head the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Interpreted? INTERPRETED? Sorry, CBS, it wasn't an "interpretation" that's sinking Specter; it's his own idiot words. Stop with the Leftist spin, morons. Ain't nobody buying it.
"I have never applied a litmus test," Specter said Sunday ...
And you never will get the chance, Specter. You're history. Get off the damn bus.
We must consider that a justice with the above qualifications, even if he is personally pro-life, may still come down on the pro-chosed side of the issue in his rullings. A non-activist judge who would 'strictly apply the law' also means not actively promoting a pro-life agenda, either. The issue still comes back to the fundamental biological/legal classification of the unborn. One might successfully argue that the unborn are not 'persons' in the legal sense and under the Constitution. Short of an Amendment, I think the most that can be done is to allow abortion to be regulated at the state level.
Momentum tends to be greatest immediately after an election. People start becoming more disenchanted with the people they elected as time passes. As Bush said, he has political capital and he intends to spend it. He needs to spend it quickly, though, or it will be lost.
bump
<---Click the pic for the full story
Let him know we haven't forgotten Holly and how he helped this animal evade justice for 20 years.
ff
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.