Posted on 01/24/2005 7:31:36 AM PST by AliVeritas
On Friday Republican staffers in a number of Senate offices were holding meetings to discuss how to proceed with Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter and his recent hire, Hannibal G. Williams II Kemerer, who until recently was the NAACP's assistant general counsel. Kemerer was hired by Specter against the advice of senior Republican Judiciary staff and was to serve as a key vetter of Bush Administration judicial nominations. As word of Specter's hiring decision leaked off Capitol Hill, Specter is said to have shifted Kemerer into a job that would not deal with judicial nominations.
"That is not true," says a Judiciary Committee staffer. "Kemerer may have a different stated responsibility, but we've been told he will be working with Specter on judicial nomination issues regardless of what his stated role is supposed to be."
More disturbing than the hiring itself was Specter's willful behavior in hiring the left-wing litigator. "I wish I could say this was a one time, freak event," says another Judiciary Committee aide. "But I don't think I can. We got the distinct impression that Specter is going to continue to hire people like this. If conservatives care, they need to mobilize now. Because it's largely out of our hands."
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
This deal was sealed when Bush and Santorum backed the wrong horse. Bush wrote his own epitaph for his would-be Judicial Revolution. I don't hate Specter...he is just being Specter. But Santorum sinned a great sin when he backed Specter--spitting in the face of pro-life Americans. Rick ought to be opposed in the next primary by Toomey.
Conservatives cared. They already mobilized. You ignored us. You didn't care. Hope you don't mind if we don't care in the next election.
How anyone could think that this lying bag of haggis is anything but a back-stabbing-RINO-liberal is beyond me.
First the Senate Majority leader doesn't employ the constitutional option from the start, now Specter is going off the reservation. This whole operation is starting to make me nervous.
I agree with everything you say, but wonder about this line. I've questioned whether Bush wants a Judicial Revolution at all--I maintain that he doesn't want one: never intend to have any such revolution, throw the conservatives red meat that is meaningless, then throw the blame all on Specter. But, on rereading, maybe that's what you mean by "would-be".
Indeed, Catholics may be very upset with Catholic Santorum. Guess we will have to let him know.
Spector is a mean leftie. He intends payback for being given such a hard time about the Chairmanship.
I'm beginning to feel that way.
Many of us are under the illusion that "judicial tyranny" is some kind of problem that needs to be addressed in order to restore the legitimate authority to our duly-elected representatives who have had their authority taken away from them by appointed judges.
The reality is that the judicial branch of government never took any authority away from the legislative branch. Rather, this was effectively an abdication of authority by these legislators -- who realized that the judicial branch of the Federal government could be counted upon to implement certain policies on a national level that no legislator would ever have been able to support.
Here's the irony of the whole thing . . . this system is likely to continue until the system of national party politics is turned upside down -- and the GOP becomes a minority party as a result of a resurgent pro-life Democrat Party.
LOL! Neither do I.
Probably he holds lots of blackmailable info.
You are responsible for Specter. If President Bush's nominees are not approved, I fully intend to do everything in my power to see that none (as in NOT ONE)of you returns to the Senate. And if, by some chance, you are re-elected in the next cycle, I intend to continue to monitor your candidacy and to work for your defeat until you are defeated.
I do hope that was clear. This was a golden opportunity that you blew with your misplaced adherence to "senatorial collegiality" instead of the expressed will of your constituents.
Oh, go ahead, hate Specter.
He talked the Clinton impeachment, and is, in general, a lying sack of excrement. He deserves humiliation.
He is no doubt being blackmailed himself. Else why go into the tank on the impeachment? Somebody has a shock collar on this dog.
It would be especially delightful for the pajamahedeen to bring down this cur.
Thanks to all the RINOs for Spector.
Your straw man is the term "Judicial Revolution". Bush wants exactly what he says he wants, and he himself never said he wants a "Judicial Revolution".
You see, we already had one of those and it was all in the wrong direction - towards Judicial Activism, or legislating from the Bench. Bush wants to right the imbalance that we now have gotten to in America. He wants to begin pushing the Courts back toward non-judicial activism and away from legislating from the Bench. Someone calling that a Judicial Revolution is just throwing a bomb into the middle of everything, whether they are throwing it from the Left or the Right.
Bush and Rove supported Arlen Specter because they feared that Pat Toomey would lose the general election and give that seat to a Democrat who would always vote with the Dems on everything, especially on who controls the Senate, and because of political protocol, in which you never oppose an incumbent Senator in a primary election. {{{They supported Bob Smith in NH against young John Sununu, for crying out loud.}}} So far they have never varied from this protocol. No matter if the incumbent was liberal or conservative.
You are wrong in your conspiracy claims that would make Bush a very evil man, if they were true. But go ahead, drag out the BushBot rhetoric and the rest, because you just lost the argument. Time for the name-calling to begin? (But I won't be around to read it, he he).
Your post reminds me of a conversation husband and I had regarding President Bush's inaugural address and freedom vs. tyranny. How can we export freedom to other nations or even stand with freedom seekers in other nations when the freedoms we have been granted via the US Constitution are contingent upon the whims of the judiciary? Husband called it "judicial tyranny." We have lots of freedoms, but compare freedom today with freedom fifty years ago. Is democracy what makes us free?
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.