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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 next last
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.)
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.)
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
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!)
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
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!)
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
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
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.)
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)
To: GeneralHavoc
One thing's for sure, his loyalty to the GOP is "not proven."
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. I think what is being considered is a rules change only for appointments to the federal judiciary and the executive branch, in accordance with the advice-and-consent function of the Senate (which is abrogated by filibustering appointments). Filibustering of legislation (i.e., bills pending before the Senate) would still be allowable.
52
posted on
11/18/2004 11:32:54 AM PST
by
chimera
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
At great risk to his political career, Specter went out of his way to champion Clarence Thomas (who by most accounts is the strictest constructionist on the Supreme Court). Thomas might not have made it were it not for Arlen's backing. I suspect every person posting on this thread knows this.
I applaud Specter for it if for little else. His appeal to Scottish Law generated less damage than a caving to Anita Hill and the NOW gang might have.
53
posted on
11/18/2004 11:34:34 AM PST
by
Chunga
To: Hendrix
I agree with you. The filibuster rules change is THE issue.
With Specter's impact rendered insignificant in the new Senate by virtue of the new number of seats gained by the Republicans, then the chairman's seat is unimportant. It was a good strategy, though, to highlight the real issue.
We must fight for the rules change in emails to Frist & our senators.
We must also fight for the most friendly division of seats on ALL COMMITTEES, not just the Judiciary. If the difference before was one seat, then the difference now should be Plus 3X that amount. 51-48 = 3 Seat Difference. 55-45 = 10 Seat Difference. That is a HUGE 333% Difference. A Former 1 Seat difference should now be a 4 seat difference. We get the former seat by virtue of the fraction that belongs to the victor; i.e., 1+3.
54
posted on
11/18/2004 11:35:30 AM PST
by
xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)
To: Coop
"And we want him to be the Republican in exile every time a contentious judicial issue comes up?"
If I had to choose between that and getting all of Bush's judges an up or down vote, I will choose getting Bush's judges every time. If we worry about every little thing that might happen, we will never get any conservative agenda through.
55
posted on
11/18/2004 11:37:14 AM PST
by
Hendrix
To: Hendrix
That is the Republican's problem; they are too worried about backlash. There won't be any backlash, except from the media. Media backlash is going to happen anyway so we might as well get used to it. Real backlash will be from the voters, and here the Republicans need to know that in this last election conservatives turned out in greater numbers than ever before to put them in power. They weren't elected with any 'Rat votes, and probably relatively few moderate votes. Republicans first and foremost should know that they have to dance with who brung 'em, and that means keeping their base before worrying about bringing in fringe supporters.
56
posted on
11/18/2004 11:37:55 AM PST
by
chimera
To: chimera
Amen. I don't buy into the idea that there are all these moderate voters. That's media spin. Most people who may be moderate won't vote anyway because they don't care about anything, and thus that is why they are called moderates (they have no political views).
57
posted on
11/18/2004 11:40:12 AM PST
by
Hendrix
To: Hendrix
So all of Kerry's votes were Hard Core Leftists????
58
posted on
11/18/2004 11:41:47 AM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(A Proud member of Free Republic ~~The New Face of the Fourth Estate since 1996.)
To: Hendrix
They are like Sheep, they can be frightened easily,....why do you think the Demonic Rats work the way they do....
I watched a Focus group on C-SPAN over the weekend,,,,an average Freeper would have totally dominated the group....questions were about how they voted and why....frightend the Hell out of me....and they all voted!!!!
59
posted on
11/18/2004 11:44:19 AM PST
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(A Proud member of Free Republic ~~The New Face of the Fourth Estate since 1996.)
To: xzins
Of the 55 Republicans how many are really Rinos?
If Specter is rejected like I hope he is,would those liberal pro-abortion GOP senators rebel enough to cause significant trouble?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-146 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson