Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Days 10-12)

Whereas, liberal Senator Arlen Specter is in line to be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has a stated litmus test against pro-life judges.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter has stated he will fight against conservative judges

Whereas, in the past liberal Arlen Specter has helped defeat great judges like Robert Bork,

Whereas, the Democrats have loaded the Judiciary Committee with extreme liberals such as Kennedy, Feinstein, Leahy, and Schumer.

Whereas, liberal Arlen Specter is in a position to turn our huge and historic election victory into a defeat by killing the nomination of all decent judges,

Be it resolved, that we will do whatever it takes to get liberal Arlen Specter off the Judiciary Committee!

11-12 thru 11-14 Update: I will be out of town this weekend and unable to update until Sunday evening. The significant development is that insiders are saying Craig is considering challenger Specter for the Chairmanship. This is great news, we need to encourage Senator Craig. I think if Craig starts to indicate he is going to challenge, Kyl will step up and challenge. Senator Kyl is next in line after Specter for the job, and doesn't want someone to leapfrog over him. So encourage both of these men to challenge. I think one of them will. Keep this thread bumped and have a great weekend!

11-11 Update: Happy Veterans Day! New reports indicate that Chairmen will not be confirmed until after the New Senate is sworn in on January 4th. This contradicts earlier information I provided off of Concerned Women for America's website. But NEXT WEEK will be the pivot point in this whole situation. Specter is going to meet with the other GOP committee members and make his plea in person. If the other committee members do not offer public support after that meeting, that will be a real bad sign for Specter. Keep up the heat, these committee members need to know that Specter is UNACCEPTABLE. Senator Cornyn may be slipping to the dark side, so he may need a few extra calls.

Tort Reform Dead? According to today's Washington Times, with Sen. John Edwards on his way out, Arlen Specter is the favorite senator of the trial lawyers. Tort reform is near the top of the president's priority list, but one staff attorney on the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over tort law, told this writer, "tort reform is dead if Specter is chairman."

Specter Delirious? Yesterdays's Philadelphia Inquirer, "It's been difficult for pro-choice Republicans in the Senate because there are so few of us," Specter continued. Though more than half of Republicans say they support abortion rights, with some limitations, "that branch of the party has never been vocal," he added. Abortion-rights groups identify five GOP senators, of 55 in the new Congress, who have records supporting abortion rights. - (I guess fewer than 10% is close to more than half. Sometimes Specter does not seem to know when to shut up...note according to this, there are 50 pro-life GOP Senators!)

Sen. Cornyn leaning towards Supporting Specter? "I have a responsibility to them to tell them this is why I voted to support Senator Specter's chairmanship," Mr. Cornyn said. If those things happen, "I think he is likely to be confirmed," the Texan said. (Not a good sign coming from Cornyn).

11-10 Update: The media is trying to tell us that the outrage over Specter's arrogant threat is dying down. However, inside reports are telling us Senate staffers are still busy full time answering anti-Specter callers. Phone lines are busy and angry voters are having a difficult time getting through. Ignoring the media spin, the outrage isn't about to die. It is important to note that NOT ONE member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has come out in support of Specter. Senator Cornyn, Kyl, and Graham have expressed serious concern, and are waiting to see how it plays out. Believe me, these Senators share our same concerns and the Phone Calls are having an impact! If one Senator is going to come to Specter's defense, it will likely be Senator Hatch. Outside of Hatch, I don't anticipate Specter getting too much support. Specter is not out of hot water yet and we are not about to turn down the heat.

Thomas Sowell: "It would be a tragedy for him to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, where he could mangle nominees, and in the process mangle the Constitution of the United States."

6 More Years?: Specter defenders are saying Specter will be a good soldier and if he does screw up we will oust him. But how? Once Specter is in, he is in. Senate leadership isn't going to pull some unprecedented and undefined action to remove Specter. Specter will be Chairman for the next 6 years assuming the GOP controls the Senate. Bank on it. Now Specter may play good soldier for a year, maybe two. But what about years 3, 4, 5, and 6? Specter is going to go back to his old self, there can be no doubt. Is the smooth sailing in the short term really worth it? I think the balance of the Supreme Court will be decided in those later years when we will see the real Arlen. Is the short-term fix worth the long term risk?

Specter Still Not in the Clear: Fox News story and video! Fox did a story on the hundreds of web based efforts to stop Specter. If you watch the video, the second site that is flashed up is FreeRepublic! According to the video, the White House is not going to help Specter, but leave it all up to Specter. The effort to stop Specter is still going strong!

11-9 Update: The response to this effort has been extraordinary. Senators have reported they have been getting more calls about Specter than anything this year with the exception of gay marriage. Don't be discouraged by speculation from talking heads or people are fearful of backlash. There is a process for selecting the chairman and the process is just getting started. I fully expect the initial selection to follow protocol and select Specter. The GOP leadership will leave it up to the members of the Judiciary to make a switch. On November 17th, the GOP judiciary members get to decide if one of them is going to challenge Specter. Even if none of them decide to challenge in an open vote in committee, it still has to be confirmed by the whole GOP caucus. If 11 Senators decide they want a closed vote on the Chairmen selection, they will have a closed vote and Specter can be thrown out at that time. Any talk that someone knows how this process will play out is total BS. Keep up the pressure! They are conservative Senators out there that will make a stand.

The GOP leadership seems to be taking a stand that they are going to leave it up to the Judiciary Committee members. For those who claim it is a done deal, let's see where they stand:

Sen. Jeff Sessions: Was a judge 'borked' by Specter from the federal bench back in the Reagan era. Likely would oppose Specter given an opportunity.

Sen. Graham: "The original comments attributed to Senator Specter were very unnerving…. His statement clarifying his position is reassuring, and I hope we will work our way through this."

Sen. Kyl: Indicated in an interview he would be the one to challenge Specter, but will have to wait to see what happens. Said the calls to his office were about 1000-1 against Specter.

11-8 Update: We are in a critical week. A fellow Freeper has informed me that there will be LOTS of activity this week. The Committee on Committees will be formed and important committee assignments will be made. There will be one or two new spots on the Judicial Committee for the GOP. These spots must be filled by rock solid conservatives. Frisk of course will be a key player here, and so will Senator Kyl. E-mail and fax them and tell them the kind of committee members we need. They will also make initial selections on who the committee chairmen will be. I assume they will follow the seniority rules, but they probably don't have to.

*****URGENT: Things are happening now! Committee assignments, initial Chairman selections. Keep Sen. Frist and Sen. Kyl informed that we want Conservative appointments on Judiciary and no Arlen Specter.

Karl Rove's Comments: "What I do know is that he told the president that, if he, Senator Specter, were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that every one of the president's nominees would receive a prompt hearing, a vote in the committee within a reasonable period of time, and that his appellate nominees would all be brought to the floor for an up-or-down decision on the floor. And we're in — Senator Specter's a man of his word, and we'll take him at his word if he becomes chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee."

One thing to note, Rove said 'if' not once, but twice! Something tells me Specter is not out of the woods. However, Rove and Bush seem to put too much faith in Arlen Specter's word. But which Arlen is telling the truth, the one who promised Bush or the one who promised his liberal media friends that none of Bush's extremist judges would be approved to the Bench?

My Question: Why is Specter, a man who opposes everything the GOP stands for on judicial nominations, even on the Judicial Committee???? It really makes no sense.

James Dobson: "There are many, many members of that committee that are more qualified and less of a problem than Senator Specter....He is a problem, and he must be derailed."

Once each committee selects their Chairman, all GOP Senators vote up or down on these Chairmen in a closed vote. Details on when this happens are not known. It is important to contact your GOP Senator's office and voice your opposition to Specter. They will get to vote on it!

Keep up the Good Work: We are being heard! Numerous stories out there prove that we are making a difference.

Grassley somewhat defends Specter: Grassley came out yesterday and told us we don't need to worry about Specter. Not exactly a strong endorsement. His reason, "you know, he led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas, and he's been behind all of the President's appointments the last four years." Really? Specter hindered the nomination of Leon Holmes and expressed serious doubts about him. Specter's position meant that Holmes went up for a vote without a recommendation from the Judiciary Committee. And for Justice Thomas, Specter supported Thomas out of political necessity. Specter was taking a beating for what he did to Robert Bork and was facing a tough re-election. Specter was forced to redeem himself or would have been voted out of office. Specter is not a wild card here, even before last's week press conference where Specter warned Bush about his nominees, Specter has made in position clear during this election. Seeking Post-Gazette's endorsement, Specter went to their editorial board, and promised that no extremists would be approved for the bench. Extremist judges in Specter language are those like Scalia.

Watch out for Specter: Specter knows he is in trouble. Specter is going on the talk show circuit to make his case. Don't buy into his BS. Specter will point out that he has supported Bush's nominees. He voted for Thomas. He voted for Scalia. Of course, so did Senator Kerry and 96 other Senators. Like Senator Kerry, Specter wants to maintain the liberal balance on the court. They will only support a conservative judge if it does not threaten Roe v. Wade. Senator Specter says he doesn't have a litmus test. But just ask Specter what he would do if the court were divided 5-4 on abortion. I am 100% convinced Specter would pull out any and all stops to make sure a pro-abortion judge is appointed. The more I learn about Specter, the more I see that protecting Roe v. Wade is his number one priority. This is why Specter will do and say ANYTHING to get the Judiciary Chairman assignment. Specter is a snake, when he goes to pat you on the back watch out for the knife in his hand. Specter flat out hates social conservatives and 'strict constructionist' judges. Specter is a 'living document' guy.

Ann Coulter was Right: Back in April, Ann warned us that the election between Toomey and Specter was the second most important election of the year. In hindsight, it must be concluded that Ann was dead on. Specter was worthless in helping Bush carry Pennsylvania, but now will be a big thorn in our side on getting judicial nominees confirmed.

Specter blunders on Roe vs. Wade - Chicago Tribune (Novak) 11-8

Sen. Orrin Hatch, UT, current Committee Chair PH: 202-224-5251 FX: 202-224-6331

VS. BORK

Bork's approach to reading the Constitution was too "narrow," and Bork didn't appreciate it as "a living, growing document" in Specter's words. Don't forget this is the man in line to chair the Judiciary Committee next year.

VS. PARENTAL NOTIFICATION

Yes, Democrats were sending tax dollars to abortion clinics, and Republicans wanted to add a condition to that money. If an abortionist wanted to abort a minor's unborn child without the parents' knowledge, he could reject the federal funding.

One more detail: the notification rule was waived in the case of "medical emergencies," a broad term which went largely undefined. Still, Kerry and Specter agreed that this was too restrictive. Taxpayer funding for abortionists ought to come with no strings attached, the two concurred.

VS. DEFENSE SPENDING

Neither Senator could point to deficit reduction as their rationale-the bill simply shifted the money to domestic federal programs.

VS. SCHOOL CHOICE

Then, on the fifth roll-call vote of the year, Kerry and Specter helped defeat a pilot program for school choice for poor families only. The provision came with authorization of new funds, and so it could not be accused of draining the public schools.

VS. TORT REFORM

On that same day, the two voted hand-in-hand a number of times against the GOP leadership to protect the lawyers.

VS. RESPONSIBLY BUDGETTING

VS. CLONING BAN

VS. TAX REDUCTION

Specter, of course, changed his tune on tax cuts last year (during a time of budget deficts), when Pat Toomey announced his primary challenge.

VS. EXPANDING HATE-CRIME PROTECTIONS

VS. SHRINKING TAX CUT

George W. Bush thinks he can win Pennsylvania. He seems to think having Arlen Specter on the ticket below him will help. Trying to convince voters to vote for Bush and Specter will be a tough row to hoe, especially when it comes to explaining his positions on taxes, cloning, school choice, the life of the unborn, and the direction of the federal courts. Kerry and Specter would be the more natural pair for voters to choose.

Pennsylvania Republicans have a chance this April 27 to help the Bush campaign in the Keystone State have a clear coherent message on life, the strength of the military, and federal budget.

Otherwise, Bush will need to explain why Kerry's positions the wrong ones for a president to take, but just dandy for a senator.

Email needs to be sent ASAP to ALL NON-FREEPERS. PLEASE get your friends and family involved. Let them be part of history! We are winning. No conservative Republican Committee Member will openly back Specter. SAMPLE EMAIL

Dear Senator: Thank you for serving. I am sure you have many more requests with which to deal. In summary, Bork Specter, NOW!

Please do not permit Sen. Specter to Chair the Judicial Comm. His view, that the US Constitution is a living changing document is in total conflict with our system of government. The Constitution must be strictly construed; not interpreted in accordance with Specter's erroneous opinion.

The basis of our laws, the Constitution, may not be changed by Judges, but by an Amendment, as stated in the Constitution. Specter's refusal to appoint BORK a Federal Judge speaks right to the point.

Thank you. I know you will do the right thing.

EMAIL ADDRESSES -

President@whitehouse.gov

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER:
FRIST, Bill - (R - TN) Class I 461 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3344 Web Form:
frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm

JUDICIAL COMMITTEE (current):
Sen. Orrin HATCH, UT, current Committee Chair PH: 202-224-5251 FX: 202-224-6331 104 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 Web Form:
hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact

Sen. Jon Kyl, AZ PH: 202-224-4521 FX: 202-224-2207
kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Sen. John Cornyn, TX PH: 202-224-2934 FX: 202-228-2856
cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Sen. Charles Grassley, IA PH: 202-224-3744 FX: 319-363-7179
grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm

Sen. Mike DeWine, OH PH: 202-224-2315 FX: 202-224-6519
www.dewine.senate.gov

Sen. Jeff Sessions, AL PH: 202-224-4124 FX: 202-224-3149
sessions.senate.gov/contact.htm#form

Sen. Lindsey Graham, SC PH: 202-224-5972 FX: 202-224-3808
grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm

Sen. Larry Craig, ID PH: 202-224-2752 FX: 202-228-1067
craig.senate.gov/webform.html

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, GA PH: 202-224-3521 FX: 202-224-0103
chambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1

The "Newbie" Senators
Well, there will be votes in January, 2005. Should you need to contact the newly elected Senators, here is how to contact them. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD OR CORRECT.

FL -- Mel Martinez, 305-443-3611 fax: 407-897-8595

GA -- Johnny Isakson, 202-225-4501, 404-252-5239 email: ga06@mail.house.gov

LA -- David Vitter, 504-833-1163; fax: 202-225-0739

NC -- Richard Burr, 336-777-1170; email: richard.burrnc05@mail.house.gov

OK -- Tom Coburn, 918-684-4308, 405-721-4281, 580-353-2858; fax: 918-294-8380 or 580-353-1978 * There may be a problem with some of the numbers as they are from 2 sources. Better than -0- numbers

SC -- Jim DeMint, 866-546-2004; fax: 202-226-1177

SD -- John Thune, 605-221-1010, 605-718-7000; email: info@johnthune.com

Or email the Pro Abortion Devil Himself:
Subject:"Payback for BORK".
arlen_specter@specter.senate.gov

Specter does not want to hear the will of the people. His mind is closed and so are his ears. Lookup your Senator at www.senate.gov. If he / she is a Republican, let them know you participated in the BUSH Revolution for Regime Change from Leftist, Democratic obstructed Congresses.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

I didn't see this article posted - gives good answers to Hewitt's position.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ponnuru/ponnuru200411111526.asp

November 11, 2004
The Specter Campaign - A rejoinder to Hugh Hewitt.

I'm enjoying debating Hugh Hewitt about the wisdom of preventing Arlen Specter from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is not just for all the reasons Hewitt is always worth reading. It's because you never know what he's going to throw at you next. If you're on the anti-Specter side, at one moment you will be accused of plotting a coup. Next you will be told you are missing the lessons of the Roman republic. There may be a moral to be drawn from the battle of Lepanto, too; who knows?

Hewitt's latest thoughts on the Specter controversy can be found in posts on his website and in an article on The Weekly Standard's website. He insists that he has not shifted ground. If he appears to keep coming up with new arguments rather than defending his old ones against attempted refutations, it is only because there are just so many, many reasons for keeping Specter as chairman.

Let's go through some of our most important disagreements one by one.

What did Specter say last week? Specter, with the apparent support of Hewitt, claims that AP reporter Lara Jakes Jordan distorted his words. Specter didn't "warn" the president not to nominate judges who might vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. He merely predicted that such nominees would face filibusters.

This explanation will not wash. The senator said that Roe was "inviolate" in his view; that it was settled law, like Brown v. Board; that any nominee who disagreed would face a filibuster; and that he "would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations that I mentioned." Now it is true that Specter did not actually say the exact words, "I warn the president not to nominate anyone who might be against Roe," but his comments were not opaque. When senators want to warn presidents of their party not to do something, talking about what they "expect" or think will happen is the way they generally do it. In predicting a filibuster, Specter gave no indication that would resist it. The clear thrust of his comments was to advocate a preemptive surrender to it. That's what the man said, not spin from Lara Jakes Jordan. Specter's follow-up statement wasn't a clarification of his position; it was a way of backtracking. The press-conference remarks were spontaneous, the statement calculated. Conservatives shouldn't care about Specter's sincerity except insofar as it suggests his future course of action. I don't think that his follow-up statement is something conservatives can take to the bank.

Would passing over Specter amount to a "purge" of pro-choice Republicans? We should avoid overstatement here. Nobody is saying that Specter should be sent to Siberia, censured by the Senate, kicked out of the Republican party, or even removed from the Judiciary Committee. The anti-Specter forces are happy to see Specter get another committee chairmanship. They have said only that it would be unwise to put him in charge of one particular committee.

If keeping Specter from the judiciary chairmanship would be a purge, it wouldn't be a purge of pro-choicers. Nobody is saying that Specter should be removed because he supports legal abortion and cloning. Nobody is even saying that he should be removed because he doesn't want to let states that disagree with him on abortion ban it. Specter, however, has suggested that he might not even countenance the possibility that judges who recognize the unconstitutionality of Roe could get on the bench. Pro-lifers think that maybe someone with those views should not be running the Judiciary Committee. Other conservatives worry about placing someone with Specter's views on originalism, tort reform, and racial preferences in that position.

Maybe it would be helpful to separate a few issues here. If Specter weren't in line to be chairman of the Judiciary Committee, would a pro-lifer such as Hewitt be commending him for the job? That seems pretty doubtful. There are reasonable grounds for conservatives to think Specter unsuitable for the job. That leaves, I think, two further questions.

Do conservatives have a stake in a rigid application of the congressional custom of seniority? I don't think anybody has suggested that they do until Hewitt came up with this idea in the Specter debates. (In 1995, Newt Gingrich passed over several members on the House appropriations committee to get someone he thought would be tough on spending in the chair. No conservative complained.) In the not so distant past, Republicans modified the seniority rules by imposing term limits. Now they see that the new rules are capable, on rare occasions, of making committee chairmen out of members who are not just out of step with but intolerant of their own party's positions on the relevant issues. Why not modify the rules again? Actually, even that's an overstatement: The rules allow for Republicans to choose someone other than Specter. Why not exercise that discretion? If there's an argument in principle for conservatives to stick with seniority plus term limits in all cases, I haven't seen it.

Would passing over Specter have baleful political consequences? Two such consequences have been raised. One is that Specter, and possibly other moderate Republicans, would revolt by voting against conservative judicial nominees (or not helping them to get confirmed), or even leave the party. Hewitt's Standard piece ends with this reminder: "Jeffords. Jeffords. Jeffords." The second is that the Republicans will look intolerant.

I don't agree with Hewitt that Jeffords's defection was a "disaster." I think it worked out pretty nicely for the Republicans. I'm also not sure what the Jeffords parallel is supposed to mean. Was Bush supposed to give Jeffords the disability-funding entitlement he wanted to keep him in his camp? Wasn't the education bill government-heavy enough? But we can leave that for another day. I will agree that losing Senator Snowe et al is worth avoiding.

So let's consider the odds. Some of Hewitt's allies in this matter have speculated that dumping Specter as judiciary chairman could cause six Republicans — including the fairly conservative Judd Gregg — to leave the party and give the Senate to the Democrats. That is a risk. I would place its probability at about one times ten to the negative seventeenth power. Would even one of them switch, and give up his committee chairmanships? I doubt it. That includes Specter, who would after all still be chairman of something.

I also don't think that the moderate senators often vote out of pique at the conservatives, or do so almost ever as a bloc. Note, by the way, the psychological assumptions being made here. We are supposed to take Specter as a man of his (most recent) word, while also thinking that he is so petulant that he would reject a Supreme Court nominee on the basis of a personal slight; that Specter will hold his failure to get the chairmanship against President Bush but not give him credit for saving his Senate seat. Whether the moderate Republicans will vote against a conservative nominee is, I think, almost entirely a function of the way that nominee is portrayed in the press and the way the voters of their state regard him.

Hewitt is quite right to point out that passing over Specter would be portrayed in the press as an act of intolerance. He is also quite right to say that conservatives should not act in ways that gratuitously hand liberals their talking points. But whether this act is gratuitous is of course what is at issue. And I'm sure that Hewitt knows that liberals will have Republican intolerance among their talking points regardless. (For the press, conservatives can only "overreach" on social issues; they never just "reach," or underreach.) As the Specter debate plays out in the press, it may marginally increase the plausibility of that talking point. Conservatives may reasonably conclude that it is still worth trying to get a better chairman — and resolve to fight any misleading spin that results. That effort would be helped if Hewitt weren't loosely talking about "purges."

Like most political campaigns, the one against Specter's judiciary chairmanship has its upside and its downside potential. The downside is the risk that moderate Republicans will take retaliatory action and that Republicans will take a hit in the press. If the campaign is unsuccessful, it may yet force Specter to make concessions. It may also impress upon his colleagues that the party's base will not allow the issue of confirming conservative judges merely to be used against Democrats at elections: It also expects the senators to deliver between elections. is not just to be used against Democrats at elections but something that the base expects them to deliver. If, as now appears unlikely, the campaign is successful, we'll end up with a better chairman of the committee. (And really, any of the other Republicans on the committee would do.)

I'd say the balance of possibilities argues in favor of continued conservative opposition to Specter.

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.