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

Skip to comments.

AP: Specter Rewriting Pledge, Senate Leaders Find First Draft Unacceptable
GrassrootsPA ^ | 11/18/04 | GrassrootsPA

Posted on 11/18/2004 10:38:30 AM PST by GeneralHavoc

The good news is that GOP Leadership is not letting him off the hook easy. Notice that Senate leaders rejected his first draft.

Associated Press:

Specter, who supports abortion rights, also is pledging a strong predisposition to support the president's nominees for the bench, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The Pennsylvania senator's draft statement affirms that he will not impose a litmus test on nominees based on the issue of abortion, but does not include a blanket pledge to vote for them.

Specter's written statement, apparently undergoing changes, largely covers positions he has staked out in public statements in recent days. Even so, several GOP sources said one early version was deemed unacceptable by Senate leaders in a meeting on Wednesday, particularly on the contentious issue of changing Senate procedures to eliminate the possibility of a filibuster by opponents of a nomination.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: scottishlaw; specter; sphincter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 next last

1 posted on 11/18/2004 10:38:31 AM PST by GeneralHavoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

This just might turn out OK after all. Wait and see.


2 posted on 11/18/2004 10:39:15 AM PST by RockinRight (The Left's train of thought has derailed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

Sounds like they have a good plan going....he could do real damage if he gets pissed off and does a Jeffers....


3 posted on 11/18/2004 10:41:12 AM 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 2 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

They need to pin him down on more than just abortion. What about 2nd Amendment? What about 10th Amendment? What about tort reform? What about creeping dependence on citations of foreign law as precedent?


4 posted on 11/18/2004 10:42:39 AM PST by Paine in the Neck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Let's keep the e-mails, letters, calls and faxes going folks. This is way too important to leave it up to the country club set in the senate.


5 posted on 11/18/2004 10:42:39 AM PST by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Pledge to whom? His word is no good.


6 posted on 11/18/2004 10:43:05 AM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
he could do real damage if he gets pissed off and does a Jeffers....

How? Then he's removed as the Chairman, and the Senate count is 54-46. There's no real damage there.

7 posted on 11/18/2004 10:45:38 AM PST by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I would rather have him leave the party than to block the judicial nominees. The Republicans may have a very small window of opportunity to get Bush's nominees through. If we don't take advantage of the window of opportunity, then we may not get that opportunity again for a very long time.

The Republicans need to change the Senate filibuster rule for judicial nominations, or the democrats will use that to stop Bush, regardless of any threat in the next election for senators in the red states up for reelection. Neither party should have the power to filibuster judicial nominees, so we have nothing to lose by changing that rule.
8 posted on 11/18/2004 10:47:15 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Delphinium

I agree his word is no good.

Thank goodness they are making him put something in writing ;)


9 posted on 11/18/2004 10:47:47 AM PST by GeneralHavoc (Stop Specter From Blocking Bush's Judges! Visit StopSpecterNow.com!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Coop
He would take some of his moderate friends with him, McCain, Collins, Snowe,....
10 posted on 11/18/2004 10:48:48 AM 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 7 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc
Why do we have to go thru this crapola. He a menace to the conservative agenda. GET RID OF HIM.This guy can pick the staff, etc. He can cause much more damage than a word on a piece of paper. He & the other 99 do not adhere to the words in the Constitution so why this silly piece of paper. Oust him now & move on with the agenda that the people sent on election night. End of story!!
11 posted on 11/18/2004 10:49:04 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Coop
There's no real damage there.

AMEN!!! It was a disgrace to support him for re-election when he had a CONSERVATIVE
running against him in the primary.
I would have rather seen a democrat whip that RINO's ass.

12 posted on 11/18/2004 10:49:26 AM PST by trickyricky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck
AND , having American Soldiers subject to an international Court, that is a BIGGIE in my book, sovereignty issue.
13 posted on 11/18/2004 10:50:59 AM 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 4 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

"Even under Scottish law, Spector must GO".

14 posted on 11/18/2004 10:51:38 AM PST by Diogenesis ("Then I say unto you, send men to summon ... worms. And let us go to Fallujah to collect heads.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
He would take some of his moderate friends with him, McCain, Collins, Snowe,....

Then we will see just who the obstructionists to our agenda are. I doubt that they would go but let's see who with us or against us.

15 posted on 11/18/2004 10:51:55 AM PST by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Paine in the Neck

They are not pinning him down on abortion. They are pinning him down on judicial nominees.


16 posted on 11/18/2004 10:54:44 AM PST by Once-Ler (God Blessed America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
He would take some of his moderate friends with him, McCain, Collins, Snowe,....

Like Jeffords did? :-)

17 posted on 11/18/2004 10:54:56 AM PST by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Coop; Digger; trickyricky
This is about strategy....we as conservatives are moving the country ever so slowly to the right,,,,and it is slow and very painful after 70 years of the country having lurched far to the left....but we must chose the battles carefully....

In my opinion that is what is going on here....

18 posted on 11/18/2004 10:55:37 AM 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 7 | View Replies]

To: Digger
I would rather call their bluff and see if they go that to not implement Bush's agenda because we are afraid that something bad might happen or that we have to get tuff with the democrats instead of playing nice, like Republicans often do (which causes them to lose in the Senate).

Bush and the Senate need to be bold and do whatever it takes to implement the conservative agenda, even if it makes the other side mad.
19 posted on 11/18/2004 10:56:07 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"This is about strategy....we as conservatives are moving the country ever so slowly to the right,,,,and it is slow and very painful after 70 years of the country having lurched far to the left....but we must chose the battles carefully...."

That's true to a point, but Republicans often are too timid in choosing the battles. There are lots of issues that are ripe for choosing (they won't get any more ripe), so it's time to get to work to make it happen.


20 posted on 11/18/2004 10:58:13 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Coop
Then he's removed as the Chairman, and the Senate count is 54-46. There's no real damage there.

And we want him to be the Republican in exile every time a contentious judicial issue comes up? I don't. Public relations is part of this entire process, ignoring that does the agenda no good. Specter did us a favor by opening his mouth and bringing so much attention to himself and his Chairmanship.

21 posted on 11/18/2004 10:58:30 AM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
The Republicans may have a very small window of opportunity to get Bush's nominees through.

A lot of people said that in 2000 and 2002. Go for everything right now so moderate voters are shocked into voting for rats and we lose everything and more ground in the backlash. Not one of these people could predict what they would eat tommorow much less what the future had in store.

22 posted on 11/18/2004 10:58:38 AM PST by Once-Ler (God Blessed America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight
This just might turn out OK after all. Wait and see.

Something postive will come out of this, I am certain of that. I find it very positive that Senators are seriously considering changing the Senate rules on filibusters. If we can get that done, Specter can have the chairmanship.

23 posted on 11/18/2004 11:01:52 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

"A lot of people said that in 2000 and 2002. Go for everything right now so moderate voters are shocked into voting for rats and we lose everything and more ground in the backlash"

I disagree. I think we are where we are because of what Bush has done (his conservative agenda), and I don't think the so called moderates are going to fault Bush or the Republicans for doing whatever it takes to get Bush's judges through. I would be willing to bet anything on that.

That is the Republican's problem; they are too worried about backlash. There won't be any backlash, except from the media.


24 posted on 11/18/2004 11:02:31 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Sounds like the Republican leadership might be a little smarter this time around. I'm more confident that the grassroot fury will make a difference now.


25 posted on 11/18/2004 11:02:50 AM PST by conservativepoet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Oh, yeah and when we need to get that last nominee past, the one who will tip the Supreme Court scale to the side of a Roe vs. Wade reversal, Specter's words in writing will keep Specter in line, particularly if (God forbid) Hillary is president. /sarcasm/


26 posted on 11/18/2004 11:03:41 AM PST by TAdams8591 (BORK SPECTER!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Arlen Specter

Magic Bullet Theory
Pro Homosexual Marriage
Pro Abortion
Anti 2nd Ammendment- AWB
Anti 1st Ammendment- McCain Feingold
Pro UN (wants U.S. troops under UN International Criminal Courts
Likes Activist judges..proposes liberal slant litmus test for SCOTUS justices
Friend of SOROS


27 posted on 11/18/2004 11:05:05 AM PST by joesnuffy ("The merit of our Constitution was, not that it promotes democracy, but checks it." Horatio Seymour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc
Specter, for all his warts, has still supported all of Bush 43's nominees. I don't think all the rants about him are necessarily justified.
28 posted on 11/18/2004 11:05:22 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat (I'm so glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F16Fighter; ClancyJ

The GOP are playing hardball with McSpecter!


29 posted on 11/18/2004 11:05:22 AM PST by MamaLucci (Libs, want answers on 911? Ask Clinton why he met with Monica more than with his CIA director.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
I would rather have him leave the party than to block the judicial nominees.

Forcing him out of the party would probably result in his being more likely to block any judges.

30 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:05 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Sorry, but I have no confidence in this guy. Dump him and get it over with. There is much to do and little time to do it. Remove the potential road blocks and lets get this train back on the tracks. We won. Let's start acting like winners for a change.


31 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:13 AM PST by Eastbound ("Neither a Scrooge nor a Patsy be")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

McCain wouldn't DARE. He's on thin-enough ice as it is--notice his last comments (re Specter) were decidedly pro-Bush. Snow & Collins--no loss whatsoever.


32 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:29 AM PST by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: trickyricky; Coop

The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.


33 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:41 AM PST by Once-Ler (God Blessed America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

He's not leaving the majority to go into the minority...


34 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:41 AM PST by ken5050
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy

"Specter did us a favor by opening his mouth and bringing so much attention to himself and his Chairmanship."

Right on the money, Dolphy. Specter is very useful to us in his weakened, chastened state.


35 posted on 11/18/2004 11:06:57 AM PST by W1_hooyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

either the pubs show some balls, or they'll be history.

they control both houses of the congress + the presidency. if they can't run things, then that's it.

this is the best it's been in my life--republican control. it won't get any better than this.

the dems do more with less.


36 posted on 11/18/2004 11:08:04 AM PST by ken21 (against the democrat plantation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trickyricky; Coop

Whoops. I should have directed that post to Hendrix in post 8


37 posted on 11/18/2004 11:08:53 AM PST by Once-Ler (God Blessed America Again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
"Forcing him out of the party would probably result in his being more likely to block any judges."

I highly doubt that. He cannot block judges as a mere senator, even if he switched sides. If he joined up with all the liberal republicans, he still could not block a judge on an up or down vote (do the math). I am not advocating forcing him out of the party, but if he leaves because he is not made the head of the judicial committee, so be it.
38 posted on 11/18/2004 11:10:46 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
>>>>>"Even under Scottish law, Spector must GO".<<<<

You are absolutely correct.

39 posted on 11/18/2004 11:13:33 AM PST by Thorin ("I won't be reconstructed, and I do not give a damn.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

"The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules."

I am willing to take that chance. Again, that is the problem with Republicans: they are too worried about what might happen. The democrats are always going to not play fair, so no matter what we do to show that we are playing fair (not revoking that rule) will be of no use if they want to do it when and if they get back in power (they will revoke it in a heart beat to stop a minority of republicans). QUIT WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN!


40 posted on 11/18/2004 11:15:26 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix

Nuke em all,.....right!!!!


41 posted on 11/18/2004 11:18:14 AM 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 40 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

"Specter, for all his warts, has still supported all of Bush 43's nominees. I don't think all the rants about him are necessarily justified."

Right on, General. Let's keep this in perspective. No sense winning this battle and losing the war.


42 posted on 11/18/2004 11:19:32 AM PST by W1_hooyah (I actually did vote for John Kerry, right before I voted against him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I don't look at it as a nuke option. I think that neither party should have the right to use a filibuster to stop judicial nominees. Period.


43 posted on 11/18/2004 11:20:19 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc; upchuck; aristeides; Howlin; P-Marlowe
There are 2 important issues if Specter gets the chair of the judiciary committee.

1. The Senate is now 55-45 in favor of the Republicans. Before, it was 51-48-1. For that difference the Judiciary Committee was 10 Republicans to 9 Democrats. The count should now be a minimum of 11 Republicans to 8 Democrats. That makes Specter's vote insignificant.

In that the DIFFERENCE in Senate seats (55-45) has gone from 3 seats up to 10 seats (300% increase), I could make a very strong case for 12 Republicans to 7 Democrats...which it should be. That is hardball politics. In such a case, the vote of Specter becomes inconsequential.

2. The other issue is the rules changes requiring only a majority vote only to approve a judicial nominee. Specter becomes insignificant in that regard as well. Once he supports that measure, then his impact is minimalized because of #1 above.

44 posted on 11/18/2004 11:21:02 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If I had to choose between Spector and changing the filibuster rule for nominees, I would rather get the filibuster rule changed. That rule is the main way democrats can stop Bush. They will use it even under the threat that they may get thrown out in the next election (lose even more seats in the red states).
45 posted on 11/18/2004 11:23:37 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Once-Ler

Once-Ler sez: The danger in changing the Senate rules on filibuster is it may set a precedent on all filibusters and should the Republican Party fall out of favor with the voters this tool would not be available to stop a one seat rat majority from complete control. Then we might as well do away with the US House which currently operates under those rules.

OO sez: The constitution enumerates that a majority of Senators are needed to confirm judicial nominees. That is what should apply - Republican or Democrat. If the 'Rats can regain power and convince 51 Senators to support a nominee, God bless them, that nominee will be (and should be) confirmed.

What you will not find in the Constitution is any reference to a de facto 60-vote supermajority needed for confirmation of judges, which is why the bogus filibuster rule must go, consequences be damned.


46 posted on 11/18/2004 11:24:13 AM PST by Ogie Oglethorpe (The people have spoken...the b*stards!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ogie Oglethorpe
"What you will not find in the Constitution is any reference to a de facto 60-vote supermajority needed for confirmation of judges, which is why the bogus filibuster rule must go, consequences be damned."

Amen. That is the most important issue we face for getting judges through in my opinion. I am worried that the Republicans will be too afraid to change the rule because of what might happen if they get tough. MEMO TO REPUBLICANS: STOP WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN! HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED FROM HISTORY (every time we play nice with the democrats, they stab us in the back).
47 posted on 11/18/2004 11:27:35 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ogie Oglethorpe
"What you will not find in the Constitution is any reference to a de facto 60-vote supermajority needed for confirmation of judges, which is why the bogus filibuster rule must go, consequences be damned."

Amen. That is the most important issue we face for getting judges through in my opinion. I am worried that the Republicans will be too afraid to change the rule because of what might happen if they get tough. MEMO TO REPUBLICANS: STOP WORRING ABOUT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN! HAVE YOU NOT LEARNED FROM HISTORY (every time we play nice with the democrats, they stab us in the back).
48 posted on 11/18/2004 11:27:36 AM PST by Hendrix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: GeneralHavoc

Personally, I don't believe any "pledge" Arlen Specter makes would be worth the paper it's written on. I think he'll say just about anything to get the appointment and then just go ahead and do what he wants anyway.


49 posted on 11/18/2004 11:29:47 AM PST by jpl (The tribe has spoken, now for goodness sake, get a life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dolphy
And we want him to be the Republican in exile every time a contentious judicial issue comes up?

The scenario being discussed had Specter leaving the GOP.

50 posted on 11/18/2004 11:29:57 AM PST by Coop (In memory of a true hero - Pat Tillman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-146 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