Arlen Specter to switch party

[Osage Orange]

Many sharks left to jump....Jack.

We shall see when it ends...

MOLON LABE

[exhaustedmomma]

Reid just on FOX news saying Specter returning to his “original” party. duh

[Red Steel]

That court certainly came to the wrong ruling. If the people of the state can elect a Senator then it is logical that they should have the means to remove him. That court precedence needs to be challenged, and the ruling didn't deter the recall effort to remove McCain earlier this decade.

Does the Constitution explicitly say or imply that a US Senator cannot be removed by the people? No it does not, therefore it's not unconstitutional and any laws not spelled out in the Constitution is reserved to the state and its citizens per 10th Amendment. Something is amiss, especially since the 17th Amendment changed the law from appointment by the 'legislature thereof' to the vote of the 'people thereof'. If citizens can vote them in they should be able to vote them out. Expelling senators should not only be up to the Senate but to people who put them in office.

[Badeye]

Of course he knew.

[Lets Roll NOW]

Benedict Arlen!

At least this is the last time he can stab us in the back.

[Badeye]

Thats how I see it. But the fact is he just demonstrated how wrong Bush and Santorum were in 2004.

[big'ol_freeper]

Damn. Coulda fooled me. I already though he was a dhimmicrat.

[CitizenM]

I lived in PA and met Specter at a Republican rally in DC. He was very arrogant and ignored my son, who is blind and was studying for his Master's Degree and asked Spector a question. Specter could tell he was blind, so as my son spoke, Specter was looking all around and waving to other people and never answered my son. From that time on I have never liked the man. It is obvious he is only interested in himself and his ego is tremendous.

He said that he worked to represent the people of PA and not a party. If that is so, then it should not matter which party he belongs to. In essence, that statement contradicts what he has done. Actually, what is more the truth is that he knows he would not win re-election, which he has admitted, and he feels he would still "have a job" if he became a Democrat. That is all this is about. Not the people. Not being right or left. For Specter, it is about the position that pays him a salary that he wants.

Although I am glad we are rid of him, he has picked the worst time to do this. And what happens to all the money he has taken from people for his campaign as a Republican candidate? I sure hope they get that back.

[Ditto]

It is obvious he is only interested in himself and his ego is tremendous.

I think that would apply to the vast majority of the Beltway mafia regardless of party. IMHO, that is our biggest problem. We need to do major house cleaning.

[Badeye]

Actually, I would say he picked the best time of all. His being with the GOP didn’t change who is in the majority, and his votes were always in question.

If there was ever a time to FIRE these RINO’s, its while the GOP is in the minority. I could rationalize keeping him in 2004, when the GOP had that slim ‘majority’ such as it was.

Not now. So far I’m very happy with the ‘purge’. Now lets get rid of the ditzy twins from Maine....

[Miss Marple]

I have changed my mind.

After hearing his press conference and finding out that Harry Reid has been meeting with him for FIVE YEARS I have concluded we are better off without him, even if we lose the filibuster.

The reason I think this is that I am convinced that he has been functioning as a spy, relating to Reid whatever decisions and strategy the Republican caucus made, and we are better off without a spy in our midst.

I will donate to Toomey and pray that he has a great campaign plan.

[Free Vulcan]

Wow. Most people just put a quarter in the jar.

[ME-262]

We've been infiltrated by politicians who don't believe in conservatism. A purge will be good for our party if we can throw more RINOs overboard. At this point the Democrats are already getting whatever they want. We need to be able to come back strong and principled with a fire the RINOs will not permit, when the public tires of their experiment with socialism.

[Soul Seeker]

When’s McCain leaving?

[KansasGirl]

Good riddance, Specter! We already new you were a traitor to your country and your Republican base. You will not be missed. I hope you lose re-election in a huge landslide! Don’t expect Rats to vote for you in the primary.

[Candor7]

Arlen is a switch hitter? Whoa! Wonder how he is gonna like getting it up the A$$ instead of given it.

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

He will never get another penny from the GOP coffers. I think that’s what always angered me the most-if you donate to the GOP, rather than an individual candidate, money goes to scum like him & Snowe.

[jamese777]

That court certainly came to the wrong ruling. If the people of the state can elect a Senator then it is logical that they should have the means to remove him. That court precedence needs to be challenged, and the ruling didn’t deter the recall effort to remove McCain earlier this decade.
Does the Constitution explicitly say or imply that a US Senator cannot be removed by the people? No it does not, therefore it’s not unconstitutional and any laws not spelled out in the Constitution is reserved to the state and its citizens per 10th Amendment. Something is amiss, especially since the 17th Amendment changed the law from appointment by the ‘legislature thereof’ to the vote of the ‘people thereof’. If citizens can vote them in they should be able to vote them out. Expelling senators should not only be up to the Senate but to people who put them in office.

---

From the Congressional Research Service:
Recall of Legislators and the Removal of Members of
Congress from Office
Summary
Under the United States Constitution and congressional practice, Members of Congress may have their services ended prior to the normal expiration of their
constitutionally established terms of office by their resignation or death, or by action of the House of Congress in which they are a Member by way of an “expulsion,” or by a finding that in accepting a subsequent public office deemed to be “incompatible” with congressional office, the Member has vacated his congressional seat.
Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of the respective body present and voting. While there are no specific grounds for an expulsion expressed in the Constitution, expulsion actions in both the House and the Senate have generally concerned cases of perceived disloyalty to the United States, or the conviction of a criminal statutory offense which involved abuse of one’s official position. Each House has broad authority as to the grounds, nature, timing, and procedure for an expulsion of a Member. However, policy considerations, as opposed to questions of authority, have appeared to restrain the Senate and House in the exercise of expulsion when it might be considered as infringing on the electoral process, such as when the electorate knew of the past misconduct under consideration and still elected or re-elected the Member.

As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.

The recall of Members was considered during the time of the drafting of the federal Constitution in 1787, but no such provisions were included in the final version sent to the States for ratification, and the specific drafting and ratifying debates indicate an express understanding of the Framers and ratifiers that no right or power to recall a Senator or Representative from the United States Congress exists under the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court has not needed to directly address the subject of recall of Members of Congress, other Supreme Court decisions, as well as the weight of other judicial and administrative decisions, rulings and opinions, indicate that: (1)the right to remove a Member of Congress before the expiration of his or her constitutionally established term of office is one which resides exclusively in each House of Congress as established in the expulsion clause of the United States Constitution, and (2) the length and number of the terms of office for federal officials, established and agreed upon by the States in the Constitution creating that Federal Government, may not be unilaterally changed by an individual State, such as through the enactment of a recall provision or a term limitation for a United States Senator or Representative. Under Supreme Court constitutional interpretation, since individual States never had the original sovereign authority to unilaterally change the terms and conditions of service of federal officials agreed to and established in the Constitution, such a power could not be “reserved” under the 10th Amendment.

[Miss Marple]

I am not fond of the term RINO because it somehow only gets used for moderates, and I don't think that is quite fair.

I think there is room in the party for some moderates. Norm Coleman is an example of a good moderate. He was strong on pro-life issues and the war, supeprb on the UN OIl for Food investigation, but was more with the democrats on green issues. HOWEVER, he wasn't a spy or a saboteur. He made it plain from the outset that he would be voting as his constituents in Minnesota wished on global warming issues. That's ok with me, because he said it up front, allowing the party to make arrangements to accommodate his vote.

Specter, on the other hand, keeps people guessing, and even when it is shown that he is not backed by his constituents, and even when he has been proven wrong, he still votes against the GOP.

But the absolute worst thing, to me, is that he has been working actively with the democrats for some time, and was no doubt reporting what happened in GOP caucus meetings to the democrats. That is dishonorable and there is no excusing it.

[dfwgator]

Norm Coleman lost to both Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, if that doesn’t spell “Loser” I don’t know what does.