Posted on 11/04/2004 5:54:36 AM PST by Always Right
In Day One we established the need to remove Specter from the Judiciary. To sum it up:
1. Specter is in line to become Chairman of the Judiciary.
2. Specter yesterday showed he expects to obstruct Bush in nominating conservative judges.
3. Specter’s vision of a ‘balance court’ is the exact same rhetoric of Senator Kerry.
4. Specter will do whatever it takes to see the courts do not become conservative. Read his books.
5. Specter is a huge proponent of Rov v. Wade.
6. Specter was not elected President, but has threatened the President should he nominate conservative judges.
7. As Chairman, Specter has the power to kill Bush’s judicial nominations.
Now in Day 2, we must take action. Today’s goal is to create some BUZZ. We need to contact the conservative media, like Rush and Hannity and other radio talk shows. Contact FoxNews, Brit Hume, Tony Snow. Here’s an example:
Senator Specter’s remarks yesterday concerning Bush’s judicial appointments were disturbing. If nothing is done, Senator Specter is in line to be Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We need a Chairman who supports our President and his judicial nominations in that position, not someone who is on record as wanting to obstruct the President’s judical appointments. This is a very critical position, and allowing Specter to become chairman would be no different than appointing Senator Kennedy. Specter’s vision of the court is 180 degrees off of President Bush’s. President Bush will have a difficult time enough getting appointments through, but it would be an insult if the biggest obstruction is getting past one liberal GOP Senator, especially one who Bush helped.
Also, provide them with links to yesterdays’s story, Specter warns Bush on high court nominations or the same story posted here on FreeRepublic, Specter warns Bush on high court nominations
We must not allow this back-stabbing liberal to veto President Bush’s victory.
Look at the stockmarket.
All sitting presidents endorse or camaping for the incymbent
during primaries (protocol and the fact that incumbents rarely lose to challengers).
Now after Spector unfortunately bested Toomey, I reckon
Bush campaigned more "with" Spector in tow, while Bush
campaigned in PA.
I cqan't stand Spector, so how do we stop him from
becoming the Chair,am?
Maybe your middle man can give us some ideas?
I am thinking the GOP rules for Chairmanships might
have to be changed, or Spector might have to be taken
aside and "persuaded."
All sitting presidents endorse or camaping for the incymbent
during primaries (protocol and the fact that incumbents rarely lose to challengers).
Now after Spector unfortunately bested Toomey, I reckon
Bush campaigned more "with" Spector in tow, while Bush
campaigned in PA.
I cqan't stand Spector, so how do we stop him from
becoming the Chair,am?
Maybe your middle man can give us some ideas?
I am thinking the GOP rules for Chairmanships might
have to be changed, or Spector might have to be taken
aside and "persuaded."
Posted on 11/04/2004 2:51:30 PM CST by The G Man
Washington, D.C.- Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) made the following comments today on the judicial confirmation process.
"Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.
"As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.
"I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.
"In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead."
What did we do here in PA !?!?! I'll tell you !! We worked our butts off day and night trying to get Pat Toomey to knock out Specter in the primaries ! He was predicted to win !!!!
But thanks to Rick Santorum campaigning for him and President Bush coming here a week before the election slobbering over Arlen to the kool-aid crowd he lost by 12,400 votes!(6,201 votes would have changed it) But GW thought that Arlen would bring home the state to him in Nov. (just like he did in 2000 ?)
So don't be blaming us here in PA for loosing the state for the POTUS !
I can't. Tell me?
Way UP, I hope?
Dow Up 181 Pts., Oil Under $49 a Barrel
I am sorry for the double post and the typos.
I am using a borrowed laptop and my fingernails
are long, real long, maybe too long. LOL.
WOW.
Looks like investors are also HAPPY with Bush winning.
SPECTER: We start off > with the basic fact that the Democrats are have filibustered and > expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad > range of acceptability. I think there is a very broad range of > Presidential Discretion but there is a range.
Clearly he believes, along with the Democrats, that that "broad range of acceptability" does not include pro-life Justices and judges.
> SPECTER: When you talk about judges who would change the > right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v Wade, I think that is > unlikely. And I have said that bluntly during the course of the > campaign and before. When the Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my > statement that Roe v Wade was inviolate. And that 1973 decision, > which has been in effect now for 33 years, was buttressed by the 1992 > decision, written by three Republican justices-O'Conner, Souter, and > Kennedy-and nobody can doubt Anthony Kennedy's conservativism or > pro-life position, but that's the fabric of the country. Nobody can be > confirmed today who didn't agree with Brown v. Board of Education on > integration, and I believe that while you traditionally do not ask a > nominee how they're going to decide a specific case, there's a > doctorate and a fancy label term, stari decisis, precedent which I > think protects that issue. That is my view, now, before, and always.
Meaning that any pro-life Justice who would conceivably rule in a way that weakens or overturns the tragic Roe v. Wade decision is going to have a hard time with Specter. Sounds like he just established his litmus test here.
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother > or make the move to send somebody up there who is clearly > anti-abortion.
> > SPECTER: I don't want to prejudge what the President is > going to do. But the President is well aware of what happened when a > number of his nominees were sent up, were filibustered, and the > President has said he is not going to impose a litmus test, he faced > that issue squarely in the third debate and I would not expect the > President, I would expect the President to be mindful of the > considerations that I mentioned.
So, here's where he throws down the guantlet. He says that the President must be "mindful" of Specter's views on pro-life judges or Justices who might, conceivably rule in a way that may weaken or overturn Roe v. Wade.
> SPECTER: I have been very careful in what I have said and > what I have done. The nominees whom I supported in Committee, I had > reservations on. As for judge Pryor, there had been an issue as to > whether as Attorney General he had raised money, I said in voting him > out of committee, that he did not have my vote on the floor until I > satisfied myself about collateral matters. The woman judge out of > California, who had dismissed a case on invasion of privacy where the > doctor had permitted an insurance adjuster to watch a mammogram, I had > a reservation on it, so I wanted to talk to her to see if that was > aberrational or whether that really reflected her judgment on each and > every one of those cases. This may be more detail than you want, but > there was one judge for a district judgeship, Judge Holmes, in > Arkansas, who was first in his class at the University of Arkansas, > had a PhD from Duke, had a master's degree, was touted by both > Democratic Arkansas Senators, was supported by 2 pro-choice women, > Senator Landrieu and Senator Lincoln, highly regarded in the Arkansas > editorial pages, and for a district court judgeship I thought. He had > made two statements, and they were, one was in a religious context > that a wife should be subservient to a husband, that was in a > religious context. Then he made a statement doubting the potential > for impregnation from rape, and made an absurd statement that it would > be as rare as snow in Florida in July. That was about a 20 year-old > statement and I brought him in and sat down, had a long talk with him > and concluded that they were not disqualifiers. He was the only judge > whom I voted to confirm on the floor vote where any question has been > raised and I think that was the right decision for a district court > judgeship, not to make that a disqualifier. There are few if any > whose record if you go back over 30 or 40 years, and not find some > dumb thing, I don't want you to take a to close a look at my 40 year > record.
If you can read this statement by Specter and believe that he's not going to be an obstacle to confirming or even to allow a floor vote on confirmation of Bush's pro-life, conservative judicial nominees, then you need to do something about your reading comprehension skills or you have a degree in Scottish law.
> JORDAN: Do you expect to continue supporting all of > President Bush's judicial nominees?
> > SPECTER: I am hopeful that I'll be able to do that. That > obviously depends upon the President's judicial nominees. I'm hopeful > that I can support them.
Specter is practically daring Bush to nominate pro-life, conservative justices here so that he can shoot them down. His agenda is made very obvious by this statement. He's saying that his support depends upon whether the President's nominees meets Specter's pro-abortion litmus test.
I'm thrilled that this transcript was released. It further bolsters claims that Specter should NOT be appointed the Chair the Senate Judiciary Committee. His statements are an outrage.
You're blowing your cover completely!
Roe v. Wade is not "The Law." Roe v. Wade is a deliberate usurpation of the Constitution, over which Congress has much power. The Congress was given the power to regulate the federal courts. There is no constitutional support for the idea of any court over-ruling Congress.
The founding document of this nation is the Declaration of Independence. That document states, as a founding fact, that there is a right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness. Nothing in the Constitution, which is a document limiting the powers of government, in any way attempts to modify the principles contained in our founding declaration.
Congress has the power, and a responsibility, to the Declaration, and to the Constitution, to expunge the Roe v. Wade decision.
Pure damage control. Specter's record puts to a lie what he's said here. He only reluctantly passed off some of Bush's nominees and for Pryor he said that while voting him through committee he was going to vote AGAINST him on the Senate floor.
Roe v. Wade is no more the law than the case upholding the outlawing of sodomy was, which the SCOTUS overturned last year. Any case can be overruled by subsequent precedent. Roe is no exception.
How many do we get on our side?
One more than the democrats?
RULE XXIV
APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES
Also: [snip]
(l) Committee on the Judiciary, to which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects:
1. Apportionment of Representatives. 2. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting. 3. Civil liberties. 4. Constitutional amendments. 5. Federal courts and judges. 6. Government information. 7. Holidays and celebrations. 8. Immigration and naturalization. 9. Interstate compacts generally. 10. Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal, generally. 11. Local courts in the territories and possessions. 12. Measures relating to claims against the United States. 13. National penitentiaries. 14. Patent Office. 15. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks. 16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies. 17. Revision and codification of the statutes of the United States. 18. State and territorial boundary lines.
2. Except as otherwise provided by paragraph 4 of this rule, each of the following standing committees shall consist of the number of Senators set forth in the following table on the line on which the name of that committee appears:
Committee / Members Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry / 18 Appropriations / 28 Armed Services / 18 Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs / 18 Commerce, Science, and Transportation / 20 Energy and Natural Resources / 20 Environment and Public Works / 18 Finance / 20 Foreign Relations / 18 Governmental Affairs / 16 Judiciary / 18 H.E.L.P. / 18
(1) each Senator shall serve on two and no more committees listed in paragraph 2; and
(2) each Senator may serve on only one committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b).
(b)(1) Each Senator may serve on not more than three subcommittees of each committee (other than the Committee on Appropriations) listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member.
(2) Each Senator may serve on not more than two subcommittees of a committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) of which he is a member.
(3) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (1) and (2), a Senator serving as chairman or ranking minority member of a standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress may serve ex officio, without vote, as a member of any subcommittee of such committee or joint committee. (4) No committee of the Senate may establish any subunit of that committee other than a subcommittee, unless the Senate by resolution has given permission therefor. For purposes of this subparagraph, any subunit of a joint committee shall be treated as a subcommittee.
(c) By agreement entered into by the majority leader and the minority leader, the membership of one or more standing committees may be increased temporarily from time to time by such number or numbers as may be required to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees. When any such temporary increase is necessary to accord to the majority party a majority of the membership of all standing committees, members of the majority party in such number as may be required for that purpose may serve as members of three standing committees listed in paragraph 2. No such temporary increase in the membership of any standing committee under this subparagraph shall be continued in effect after the need therefor has ended. No standing committee may be increased in membership under this subparagraph by more than two members in excess of the number prescribed for that committee by paragraph 2 or 3(a).
(d) A Senator may serve as a member of any joint committee of the Congress the Senate members of which are required by law to be appointed from a standing committee of the Senate of which he is a member, and service as a member of any such joint committee shall not be taken into account for purposes of subparagraph (a)(2).
(e)(1) No Senator shall serve at any time as chairman of more than one standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress, except that a Senator may serve as chairman of any joint committee of the Congress having jurisdiction with respect to a subject matter which is directly related to the jurisdiction of a standing committee of which he is chairman.
(2) No Senator shall serve at any time as chairman of more than one subcommittee of each standing, select, or special committee of the Senate or joint committee of the Congress of which he is a member.
(3) A Senator who is serving as the chairman of a committee listed in paragraph 2 may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of all committees listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member and may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) of which he is a member. A Senator who is serving as the chairman of a committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) may not serve as the chairman of any subcommittee of that committee, and may serve at any time as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 2 of which he is a member. Any other Senator may serve as the chairman of only one subcommittee of each committee listed in paragraph 2, 3(a), or 3(b) of which he is a member.
(f) A Senator serving on the Committee on Rules and Administration may not serve on any joint committee of the Congress unless the Senate members thereof are required by law to be appointed from the Committee on Rules and Administration, or unless such Senator served on the Committee on Rules and Administration and the Joint Committee on Taxation on the last day of the Ninetyeighth Congress.
(g) A Senator who on the day preceding the effective date of title I of the Committee System Reorganization Amendments of 1977 was serving as the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on the District of Columbia or the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service may serve on the Committee on Governmental Affairs in addition to serving on two other standing committees listed in paragraph 2. At the request of any such Senator, he shall be appointed to serve on such committee but, while serving on such committee and two other standing committees listed in paragraph 2, he may not serve on any committee listed in paragraph 3 (a) or (b) other than the Committee on Rules and Administration. The preceding provisions of this subparagraph shall apply with respect to any Senator only so long as his service as a member of the Committee on Governmental Affairs is continuous after the date on which the appointment of the majority and minority members of the Committee on Governmental Affairs is initially completed.
Already did that.
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.