Posted on 11/04/2004 9:28:08 AM PST by Bungarian
Rush says Spector claims the press misrepresented what he said about the Supreme Court judges and will issue a statement latter.
Knock it off. Specter has a history of this stuff. Don't help the guy do damage control.
Don't believe it! Specter is ungrateful (Bush campaigned for him!) and unfaithful (remember his impeachment votes).
hasnt he (specter) called and used Rushs show before to refute the very words he's(specter) said that got him in trouble with conservatives.
I remember it happening earlier this year I think."
YES!!!
Arlen called Rush 2 weeks before the primary.
Rush let him gab and took it hook,line, sinker. Didnt even have Toomey on to counter Arlen's lines.
Since that was an extremely close primary, you can conclude that it was conservative support that saved Arlen's job: Rush, Santorum ,etc. Without them, it would be Senator Hoeffel or Sen Toomey today.
The Senate was not going to convict Clinton without a third of the DemocRAT members voting to convict. Considering that all the Senate DemocRATS stuck together and voted not to convict, the less conservative Republicans in the Senate were not about to vote for conviction. Who knows how he would have voted if there were 66 votes to convict.
Isn't it funny how liberals get to choose the terms that tilts the debate automatically to their conclusions?
I dont support extremists on the bench either ... but to me, Scalia is not one, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg is. I oppose human cloning, except in the case of Antonin Scalia.
Why not make a statement right now?
Actually, Bork's defeat gave us Anthony Kennedy, a good judge but not even close to Bork as a heavyweight.
Moreover, Kennedy gave us Lawrence v Texas and voted pro-Roe-v-Wade on abortion cases ... so that certainly made a big difference.
we have only 3 reliable conservatives on the court: Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist. 4 liberals - SOUTER IS ONE OF THEM.
We cannot afford to screw around and screw up our USSC nominations. Souter was a complete and total blunder, that was Warren Rudman's doing.
"Considering that all the Senate DemocRATS stuck together and voted not to convict, the less conservative Republicans in the Senate were not about to vote for conviction. "
Why not? If he made some political calculation in his vote, that makes it worse. I trust he voted his conscience on impeachment, however weird it is to invoke Scottish law in the U.S. Senate.
If political calculation were not intended to part of the Senate's role in deciding to convict an impeached official, why is it decided by the Senate at all? Why not a panel of judges?
"Why not a panel of judges?"
For purposes of impeachment, the Senate *is* a panel of Judges.
The Framers set it up that way, concluding properly that this was a legislative check on executive power.
In an ideal world, senators are *always* voting for what they believe is best and correct, and not what is popular or will help them politically. But I know that is not the case in many situations.
It's just ridiculous that we have 7 or 9 Republican judges on that court and get these kind of decisions.
The reason they could not get the votes, is the senate would not let the House present the evidence. Every Senator took a special oath to convene the impeachment, then broke that oath as easily as you might open a door.
The Supreme Court Justice did a cowardly job as well, abandoning his duty as presiding authority.
Souter is by far the best liberal on the court. He's a decent fellow. If there were 5 of him on the SCOTUS, it would not be a disaster. It would not be good for conservative moral judicial activism, but the country would be fine.
Clean UP aisle three!
Headline incorrect: Can you help?
"the best liberal on the court"
That's an oxymoron.
The 'liberals' on thecourt are ALL judicial activists and they ALL have voted in ways that are simply WRONG for the constitution and our country.
None of them are any good.
The only judges who are real solid on the USSC are scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist... all the rest insert various levels of inappropriate personal philosophy into their rulings.
All the rest incorrectly utilize the absurd folly of "substantive due process" another oxymoron, to enforce their social agenda on the people.
"conservative moral judicial activism" another oxymoronic phrase ... consevatives dont want judicial activism, we want the courts to STOP interfering through legislating from the bench and mis-interpreting the constitution.
There is no provision for recalling US Senators.
Thank You, I told him in my email to him that we would recall him anyway. So to hell with it. I Guess I'lljust sh&t in a bag and send it to him.
Has anyone seen his "statement" yet?? Didn't think so.
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.