Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Specter Makes a Deal (He promised PA newspapers he'd block conservatives from courts)
perryonpolitics ^ | 2004 | Specter, via Pittsburgh P-G

Posted on 11/09/2004 10:24:04 PM PST by churchillbuff

From Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

"The best argument for his staying on is his seniority, which puts him in line to be the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. In that capacity, he would be in a position to block some of the ideologically extreme federal judges likely to be nominated by President Bush in a second term, some of them for the Supreme Court. Before the Post-Gazette editorial board, he promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Front Page News; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: arlensphincter; hypocrite; rino; scottishlaw; specter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last
Who is/was Specter lying to? Did he lie to Pennsylvania newspaper editorial boards when he promised to keep "extremists" (read: conservatives) off of federal courts? Or is he lying now, when he says he WON't block conservatives? Or is he telling the truth both times - - i.e., will he try to keep Bush from nominating conservatives in the first place, so he won't be in the position of having to block them once they're nominated?> Whatever the answer, we can't afford to have him in such a key position of influence over the shaping of the federal judiciary. He's devious, untrustworthy - and a devoted liberal. The GOP didn't gain power in order to subordinate its mandate to this left-wing coot - - or did they?
1 posted on 11/09/2004 10:24:04 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

The harder we campaign against Specter the better chance we have of keeping him out of the chairmans seat.


2 posted on 11/09/2004 10:26:03 PM PST by Montresor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right; cpforlife.org; Mr. Silverback

* Motivational Ping *


3 posted on 11/09/2004 10:34:04 PM PST by Lexinom (ANYBODY BUT ARLEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

extremist = Liberalspeak for a judge that doesn't "create" law by judicial fiat.


4 posted on 11/09/2004 10:34:26 PM PST by dandi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Montresor

My husband bought a Newsweek with a picture of George thinking it would be a present for me.

I tried to read it, but *gag* it just made me sick.

And now this news about Spectre.

I need a shower.


5 posted on 11/09/2004 10:34:42 PM PST by patriciaruth (They are all Mike Spanns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: churchillbuff

What does it tell you when Rush says that the Specter flap is "much ado about nothing" and not to worry about it because Specter can do no harm in that position...

It tells me Rush is now a...RINO.


7 posted on 11/09/2004 10:36:31 PM PST by Indie (Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Kind of curious why you keep reposting this old story?


8 posted on 11/09/2004 10:37:14 PM PST by MNJohnnie (We got the mandate, now let's GOVERN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

He led the charge against Bork. What does that tell you?


9 posted on 11/09/2004 10:38:13 PM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ben_billiams

No big bucks there though!


10 posted on 11/09/2004 10:39:19 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach (A Proud member of Free Republic ~~The New Face of the Fourth Estate since 1996.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Indie

You should live by your own tag line

Ignorance of the truth is no excuse for stupidity.)


before posting this sort of inane comment

"It tells me Rush is now a...RINO."


11 posted on 11/09/2004 10:39:30 PM PST by MNJohnnie (We got the mandate, now let's GOVERN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Indie
It tells me Rush is now a...RINO."""

No he's not a "republican in name only" -- he's a "republican right or wrong"; whatever the party bigwigs do or decide, he's on the radio the next day flaking for them, even if it means defending a senator who trashed Reagan's finest nominee for the Supreme Court (Bork). I don't listen to Rush. If I want the press releases from Republican headquarters, I can get them online and read them quickly and be about my business. Spending three hours listening to him give his own, elongated version of those press releases, is a waste of my time.

12 posted on 11/09/2004 10:39:33 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Indie

I quit listening to Rush about a year before he lost his hearing.


13 posted on 11/09/2004 10:39:54 PM PST by farmfriend ( In Essentials, Unity...In Non-Essentials, Liberty...In All Things, Charity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
Kind of curious why you keep reposting this old story?"

What do you mean, "keep reposting"? It's the first time I've posted it. And if you can see why it's relevant to the debate over specter's fitness to be a republican chairman of the judiciary committee, I can't do anything for you.

14 posted on 11/09/2004 10:41:44 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Indie

Rush is the eternal optimist. He speaks to a crowd with a breadth of ideology covering the full spectrum. I am confident he will be happy with the result of our efforts, whatever they are. That's the kind of person Rush is.


15 posted on 11/09/2004 10:42:34 PM PST by Lexinom (ANYBODY BUT ARLEN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff
Specter probably does not even know which lie he said to who.
Add in the anti Second Amendment, and
the anti tort reform, and
this guy should not be Chairman.
His main opposition is the same as the main support for newly elected and
re-elected Senators, and these folks are based on principles, quite unlike the mindless voting blocs of the Dems.
A lot of Senate seats on the line on this issue.
16 posted on 11/09/2004 10:44:17 PM PST by TWhiteBear (Don't get mad, get right. (just getting even is not sufficient anymore))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Indie
>o?It tells me Rush is now a...RINO

Oh please .. get real

17 posted on 11/09/2004 10:48:11 PM PST by Mo1 (one country, one Constitution, and one future that binds us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Dear Senator Frist,
Since you are Senate Majority leader, I am sending this request to you as well as to my Senators.

Please follow the Constitution and introduce a new rule which would require a floor vote for all presidential nominations within a reasonable period for debate. A filibuster on a nomination is contrary to the Constitution. The duty of the Senate is to advise and consent(or non-consent) to presidential nominations. If a filibuster is a non-consent it is certainly against the Constitution since only treaties require a super-majority in the advice and consent role of the Senate. If it is not a non-consent, it is either a lack of performance of the Senate of its duties or by logic is a consent by default. Filibusters on other matters of the Senate would seem to be perfectly acceptable, since that action would not appear to negate provisions of the Constitution.

Since it is not sufficient for a qualified presidential nominee to receive the consent of the Senate to that nominee's final appointment, I can hardly see the justification for any Senator to expect assignment to critical positions in Senate committees routinely. Please consider the voters expectations in the choice of the chairman of the Judiciary committee.

Thank you,
Andrew C


18 posted on 11/09/2004 10:53:33 PM PST by AndrewC (New Senate rule -- Must vote on all Presidential appointments period certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

All the Rush-trashers on FR seem to forget that Rush was quite critical of Bush when he passed the Medicare crap and all that...


19 posted on 11/09/2004 10:56:08 PM PST by RockinRight (I think, therefore I am a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: churchillbuff

Kind of curious why you keep reposting this old story?"
What do you mean, "keep reposting"? It's the first time I've posted it. And if you can see why it's relevant to the debate over specter's fitness to be a republican chairman of the judiciary committee, I can't do anything for you



Actually this is the second or third time you posted connecting via different websites back to this week old original article. Rather the posting and reposting the same old crap why don't you join some of the NEW threads where people are ACTUALLY doing something about Specter?


20 posted on 11/09/2004 11:02:30 PM PST by MNJohnnie (We got the mandate, now let's GOVERN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson