Skip to comments.AP: Specter Rewriting Pledge, Senate Leaders Find First Draft Unacceptable
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.
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.
This just might turn out OK after all. Wait and see.
Sounds like they have a good plan going....he could do real damage if he gets pissed off and does a Jeffers....
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?
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.
Pledge to whom? His word is no good.
How? Then he's removed as the Chairman, and the Senate count is 54-46. There's no real damage there.
I agree his word is no good.
Thank goodness they are making him put something in writing ;)
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.
"Even under Scottish law, Spector must GO".
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.
They are not pinning him down on abortion. They are pinning him down on judicial nominees.
Like Jeffords did? :-)
In my opinion that is what is going on here....
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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/
Magic Bullet Theory
Pro Homosexual Marriage
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
The GOP are playing hardball with McSpecter!
Forcing him out of the party would probably result in his being more likely to block any judges.
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.
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.
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.
He's not leaving the majority to go into the minority...
"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.
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.
Whoops. I should have directed that post to Hendrix in post 8
You are absolutely correct.
"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!
Nuke em all,.....right!!!!
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The scenario being discussed had Specter leaving the GOP.
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.