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.
When he isn't voting on the 5th justice that will vote to overturn Roe, he's Bush's pal. Now that he gets reelected with Bush's help, and thinks he's entitled to the slot, he mouths off. What will happen when that 5th justice comes up again, do you think, if Specter's in?
I'd bet on Bork II if Specter runs the judiciary, piece of paper or not.
Sheesh, at first I thought he was rewriting the pledge of allegiance and thought, why would Specter be doing THAT???
OK, so it's been a long day with my 3 small kids, lots of fighting with loud unexplained noises followed by crying, all of course when I'm in another room, a broken frig, a 7-year-old with a belly ache and slight fever, peeing on the floor post bath, and lots of general havoc (hey wait, that's your screen name!) and mess...and then, I tried to discuss the Golden Rule during dinner (yes, there was that much fighting today) and my oldest - 7 - piped up in the middle with "When are we going to see Aunt Natalie again?" and when I asked my 3 1/2 year old what he learned from what I said, he said "Be nice or you'll get mad?"
Unnnnngh.
So when are they supposed to "go for everything?" 2006? After 2008?
I'm sick of hearing how conservatives need to worry about one more election or one more appointment. There is no better time than the present to get those appointments through, and no more important time than now to ensure they are Constitutional conservatives.
That is what Frist is saying but I usually find that politicians that threaten action, threaten because all they can do is threaten. Politicians with the power to cause an objective to occur usually just do it. Time will tell.
It only sets a precedent on filibusters of judicial nominees, and it is only a Senate rule. I don't like changing that rule either, but given the option of judges who interpret the Constitution after actually reading its plain language first or keeping the filibuster, I'll take the judges, thanks.
It does not work that way. Only Republicans on the committee vote for the chair.
You sound like a child whining "I want it all and I want it now." Patience is a virtue. The rats had the House for 40 straight years.
We have already cut taxes, improved the military and homeland defense, passed a PBA ban, reversed some of Clintons achievements, all while fighting 2 wars. Before Bush we balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and impeached a popular President.
There will be more progress over the next 2 years for you to ignore.
They did when we impeached Clinton, and recounts in Florida. They have been involved in other Constitutional crisis'. If Republicans try the nuclear option the rats will claim it is illegal, and send lawyers to the SCOTUS. Bank on it.
IMO the SCOTUS would side with the rats based upon a long history of previous Senates abiding by the rules of the last Senate.
That's a very good question.
The only possible answer, IMHO, is they did not have the votes with 51 GOP senators in the last sessions due to the RINOs, and they do with 55 in this session.
Yep.
You're right.
Thank you for the insult. Who said anything about ignoring progress? I think Bush has done a fair job on taxes. He's a great war President. I think the House is a wonderful thing. The Senate has let a lot of Bush's nominees through, and hopefully, some will turn out to be real winners on the bench.
But I think that the Senate filibuster needs to be ended on judicial appointments, and I think that the Senatorial holds on appointments need to be ended as well. The Supreme Court and the federal courts in general have been the left's method for getting in and then staying in power. Appointments are the only way we get them replaced and get them out. That our appointments to the bench must always be moderate and theirs can be as radical as they want is silly. We need radical action on the bench to repair the damage these people have done.
And regardless of how you think I'm ignoring progress, I'm still sick of hearing conservatives told 'one more election.' Any damage booting Specter will do cannot be worse than the damage that comes from meekly assenting to the continued liberal dominance of our judiciary for two more years. While liberals pile up precedent that our future appointees must kowtow to at the circuit and district level, and then go before the Senate and agree to uphold, the nation waits for government sanction and government oversight to conduct its daily life, government intrusion of which these liberal judges approve and allow to remain in place.
There is no more important issue than getting conservatives on the bench and the liberals' power there diluted. A Ninth Circuit split and courts reorganization is the second most important. After that, everything else is a distant third priority.
We might reasonably disagree on other issues, but I can say without any doubt you're wrong here. If the libs appeal to them, the Supreme Court will stay the heck out of it. They will say that the Senate makes its own rules.
That's what they do in this kind of situation every time.
Wasn't that vote 96-0? Not one Senator agreed with you. Yet you now think Republicans should push ahead with their threat to ignore the rules that were passed by 2/3rd of the Senate last time they were changed. It ain't gonna happen. I think you are misreading the last election if you think the American people are going accept the nuke option.
The liberal media will have a party. There will be protests and demonstrations, but the American people will finally feel at ease when the SCOTUS steps in.
Dubya is not the first President to face Senitorial holds on his judge nominations and assertions to the contrary are NOT based in reality.
Sorry I'm writting on 2 threads at the same time and I got confused. I asked in another thread if the nuke option is a legal option why has it not been used in the 200 year history of the Senate? Why has the Senate required a 2/3rds vote to change rules in the past?
Thanks for illustrating my point about the Pubs being a good submissive minority party or pascifists.
Yet you now think Republicans should push ahead with their threat to ignore the rules that were passed by 2/3rd of the Senate last time they were changed. It ain't gonna happen. I think you are misreading the last election if you think the American people are going accept the nuke option. The liberal media will have a party. There will be protests and demonstrations, but the American people will finally feel at ease when the SCOTUS steps in.
Do you think people (other than us political junkies) care about parliamentary procedure? Thanks for the laugh.
Dubya is not the first President to face Senitorial holds on his judge nominations and assertions to the contrary are NOT based in reality.
I never asserted any such thing. Thanks for the straw man argument
Prediction time. GOP does the nuclear option. You hail it as brilliant because the GOP did it. Mark my words.
We didn't have the votes in 2000 or 2002 and before that no one filibustered circuit court nominees. They had been either held up in committee or blue slipped. We may have the votes now because of the Senate seat pick up and Specter may have seen the light. There is nothing quite like a good "quid pro quo". If indeed one has been established.
"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."
Yup. Didja' watch Fox News today? Specter was asked about his so-called "pledge." he replied "If I do give up my independence, it will be the first time in my entire career," implying that he's gonna' do what he's gonna' do.
I am concerned about this...I wish they had chosen Kyl.
Ed
What if Spector crosses his fingers ?
OK TA, you brought it up ... I didn't want to go here but...
I stated way back (God knows when) that HRC is done!
Here it is again, for the record. HRC is done come 2006!
HRC can't beat Colin Powell, Rudy or Pataki (Pataki only goes for senate if CP or RG don't).. end of story. She loses big to CP or RG... HANDS DOWN!!!
If she can't carry the Senate from NY then she can't get elected to the DNC. So, HRC says that she won't run for re-elction in 2006 because she wants to run for Prez in 2008. Translation = 1 seat for the good guys!
Problem is... the Dems won't go with the NE lib label twice in a row ... I don't care how much money she has. She and her hubby are way too polarizing to the red states.
The next DNC shot at prez will be either the Gov of VA or IN! Mark my words, it's the only way that they even have a shot.
I know that there is not another census prior to the 2008 but... the red states are getting it and the blue states are losing it FAST! By the 2012 election, there will be sooooooooo much emphasis put on the GA, NC, SC, AL and so ons of the country people will almost say NY, OH and CA who!
Times, they are a changing!!!
Don't forget to pray for our brave men and women ...
God Bless Our Troops and God Bless America!
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.