Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Freep Specter for Threatens to Bush Regarding Supreme Court ^ | 11/4/04 | National Federation of Republican Assemblies

Posted on 11/04/2004 7:03:07 PM PST by MNJohnnie

Arrogant Pennsylvania Senator, Arlen Specter who won a very narrow victory in both his primary and general election now purports to tell President Bush what to do. This pretender to being a Republican is scheduled to be the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee where he would be able to obstruct the nominees sent up by the President.

“President Bush has made excellent choices for the Federal bench in his first term,” said Richard Engle, President of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, “and I expect that he will nominate similarly for the Supreme Court.” Throughout the campaign Bush repeatedly shot down Democrat nominee John Kerry’s assertion that there should be a litmus test for abortion for any judicial nominee. According to Engle, “The President’s only litmus test is the U.S. Constitution

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Announcements; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: activism; activistism; freeper; judges; judiciary; puppetmasters; specter; sphincter
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 next last
Please take a minute to keep the heat on Arlan Specter by signing this petition.
1 posted on 11/04/2004 7:03:07 PM PST by MNJohnnie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

I'll never forgive Spector for being Ira Einhorn's attorney after he murdered Holly Maddux and fled to France where the French, of course protected and refused to extradite him for years while he sipped wine and ate fois gras. Murderous pig and pseudo "Earth Day" pretender.

2 posted on 11/04/2004 7:07:57 PM PST by garyhope
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

he has denied and/or recanted on his official web site:

not sure where this leaves the issue, but the posting is there

3 posted on 11/04/2004 7:08:05 PM PST by kralcmot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Please read his actual statement before getting spun by the MSM.

4 posted on 11/04/2004 7:08:56 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kralcmot

he has denied and/or recanted on his official web site:

not sure where this leaves the issue, but the posting is there

That's what he said once the crap storm started to land on him. Keep the pressure on him.

5 posted on 11/04/2004 7:09:57 PM PST by MNJohnnie (Now we got the voter's mandate, what are we going to do with it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Please read his actual statement before getting spun by the MSM.

Please keep in mind he is changing his tune now that Repb activists have started to land on him with both feet. Specter is untrustworthy and we need to keep the pressure on him.

6 posted on 11/04/2004 7:12:10 PM PST by MNJohnnie (Now we got the voter's mandate, what are we going to do with it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie
I have emailed both of my Senators (both Republicans). Have you?

Contact your Senator

7 posted on 11/04/2004 7:13:32 PM PST by CR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: All

here is the transcript of what he actually said.

you all be the judge:

> November 3, 2004
> Transcript
> JORDAN: Senator, you didn't talk about the Judiciary
> Committee, it is something you are expected to Chair this January.
> With 3 Supreme Court Justices rumored to retire soon, starting with
> Rehnquist, how do you see this unfolding in the next couple of months
> and what part do you intend to play on it?
> SPECTER: You know my approach is cautious with respect to
> the Judiciary Committee. I am in line, Senator Hatch is barred now by
> term limits and Senate Rules so that I am next in line. There has to
> be a vote of the Committee and I have already started to talk to some
> of my fellow committee members. I am respectful of Senate traditions,
> so I am not designating myself Chairman, I will wait for the Senate
> procedures to act in do course. You are right on the substance, the
> Chief Justice is gravely ill. I had known more about that than had
> appeared in the media. When he said he was going to be back on
> Monday, it was known inside that he was not going to be back on
> Monday. The full extent of his full incapacitation is really not
> known, I believe there will be cause for deliberation by the
> President. The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent,
> the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to,
> I wouldn't quite say ignored, but close to that. My hope that the
> Senate will be more involved in expressing our views. 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.
> ODOM: Is Mr. Bush, he just won the election, even with
> the popular vote as well. If he wants anti-abortion judges up there,
> you are caught in the middle of it what are you going to do? The
> party is going one way and you are saying this.
> 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.
> ODOM: You are saying the President should not bother
> to send somebody up there like that.
> SPECTER: Can't hear you
> 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.
> JORDAN: However, Senator the President has President has sent
> up, as you know, a number of very very conservative judges socially,
> you have made a point in this campaign of saying that you have
> supported all of those ______ at least I the last two years, how is
> this going to square with what you are saying today about wanting the
> Republican party to be big tent and moderate.
> 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.
> HIGHSMITH: Talk to us a little bit beyond judgeships, you
> said again today and last night that your goal now is to moderate the
> party, bring it to the center.
> SPECTER: Correct
> [BREAK-Bringing the Country Together Question]
> [BREAK-Stem Cell Question]
> MACINTOSH: What are the characteristics that you are
> looking for in any candidate for the high court who might come your
> way in the next year or two?
> SPECTER: Well I would like to see a select someone in the
> mold of Holmes, Brandeis, Cardozo, or Marshall. With all due respect
> to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don't have one. And I haven't minced
> any words about that during the confirmation process.
> MACINTOSH: Meaning?
> SPECTER: Where I have questioned them all very closely.
> I had an argument before the Supreme Court of the United States on
> trying to keep the Navy base, and you should heard what the eight of
> them had to say to me. They were almost as tough as this gang here
> this morning.
> ODOM: Senator, the judges you mentioned are obviously
> renown. Are you saying that there are no greatness on there, is that
> what you're driving at?
> SPECTER: Yes. Can you take yes for an answer Vernon?
> I'm saying that we don't have anybody of the stature of Oliver Wendell
> Holmes, or Willy Brandeis, or Cardozo, or Marshall. That's what I'm
> saying. I'm saying that we have a court which they're graduates from
> the Court of Appeals from the District of Columbia basically, some
> other Circuit Courts of Appeals. I think that we could use, and I am
> repeating myself again, a Holmes or a Brandeis.
> ODOM: Would you resign to take the appointment?
> You're the only person I can think of?
> SPECTER: I can think of quite a few other people.
> JORDAN: Like who?
> SPECTER: I think there's some possibility, just a slight
> possibility, I may not be offered the appointment.
> JORDAN: Senator, who do you think would be a good candidate?
> SPECTER: For the Supreme Court?
> JORDAN: Yes.
> SPECTER: I have some ideas but I'm going to withhold my
> comments. If, as, and when the President asks that question, Lara,
> I'll have some specific information for him. In the alternative, if
> you become President, I'll have it for you.
> [BREAK-Election 2010 question]
> [BREAK-Iraq questions]
> Jordan: Do you expect to continue supporting all of
> President Bush's judicial nominees?
> AS: 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.
> [BREAK-Election question]
> [End Press Conference]

9 posted on 11/04/2004 7:17:48 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly (want to join the judicial nominations fight?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: MNJohnnie


11 posted on 11/04/2004 7:20:32 PM PST by PianoMan (Priority One for the new government - STOP SPECTER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan

Arlen is a bigger threat to the GOP than they realize.

12 posted on 11/04/2004 7:27:26 PM PST by etradervic (I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like...victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
Donkey trapped in elephant's body © 2004 Except for the presidential election, the most important election this year will take place on April 27 in Pennsylvania. No, it's not the "American Idol" finals. It's even more important than that. That's the day of the Republican primary pitting a great Republican, Pat Toomey, against the 74-year-old, Ira Einhorn-defending alleged "Republican," Arlen Specter. Thanks to Arlen Specter: States can't prohibit partial-birth abortion; Voluntary prayer is banned at high-school football games; Flag-burning is a constitutional right; The government is allowed to engage in race discrimination in college admissions; The nation has been forced into a public debate about gay marriage; We have to worry about whether the Supreme Court will allow "under God" to be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. More than any other person in America, Arlen Specter is responsible for a runaway Supreme Court that has turned every political issue into a "constitutional" matter, giving radical liberals an uninterrupted string of victories in the culture wars. That's not a court, it's a junta. In a democratic process, liberals could never persuade Americans to vote for their insane ideas – abortion on demand, gay marriage and adoption, handgun confiscation, cross-district busing, abolishing the death penalty and affirmative action quotas. So issues are simply taken out of the voters' hands by the Supreme Court. Vitally important cultural issues are now decided for us by a handful of unelected elites, who, coincidentally, share the ideology of Janeane Garofalo. It's a lot easier to get a majority out of nine votes than it is to get a majority of 280 million votes. As long as liberals have a majority of Supreme Court justices in their pockets, they never have to persuade their fellow countrymen to support any of their crackpot ideas. They just sit around waiting for the Supreme Court to give them the "nine thumbs up!" sign to abortion on demand. When Reagan was president, he threatened to appoint justices who would not discover nonexistent "penumbras," which mysteriously read like a People for the American Way press release, and to return these issues to voters. The uneducated bumpkin Reagan's radical notion was that judges don't write laws, they interpret them. Liberals exploded in righteous anger – an emotion they've never mustered toward Islamic terrorists, I note. Still, all their theatrics would have been for naught and we would already have our democracy back – but for Arlen Specter. Specter voted against a slew of conservative Reagan appointees, including Jeff Sessions to a federal appellate court (Sessions now sits with Specter on what must be a rather chilly Senate Judiciary Committee) and Brad Reynolds to be associate attorney general. But his epochal vote was against Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. Liberals waged a vicious campaign of vilification against Bork, saying he would bring back segregated lunch counters, government censorship and "rogue police" engaging in midnight raids. No one expects more of Teddy Kennedy. But when a senator with an "R" after his name opposed Bork, it was over. Specter pretended to weigh the attacks on Bork thoughtfully and after careful consideration announced he would vote against Bork. By exploiting the fact that he calls himself a "Republican" – despite voting with John Kerry more often than he voted with Ronald Reagan – Specter gave cover to the left's portrayal of decent, God-fearing Americans who love their country as being about one step away from David Duke. As the first Republican to oppose Bork publicly, Specter ensured that other craven "moderates" would soon follow suit. The Bork fiasco utterly cauterized the Republicans. After that, Republican administrations were terrified of nominating anyone provably to the right of Susan Sarandon. Instead of legal giants like Judge Robert Bork, we ended up with Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter on the Supreme Court. Since Bork, Republican presidents have put three justices on the court. Two of the three gaze upon a document that says absolutely nothing about abortion or sodomy and discern a "constitutional" right to both. (But try as they might, they still haven't been able to discern a woman's constitutional right to defend herself from rapists by carrying a pistol in her purse.) Because of the court's miraculous discovery of a right to sodomy last term, gay marriage is now on the agenda in America. The nation waits with bated breath to see if, this term, the court will strike "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Liberals are so desperate for this to happen that some of them are actually praying for it. The only reason to hope the court might let us keep saying "under God" is that it's an election year. Like Arlen Specter, the Supreme Court often gets religion whenever normal Americans are about to vote. Luckily for the country, Clarence Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court a year before Specter was up for re-election. After supporting Thomas, Specter turned around and started bellyaching that Thomas was a "disappointment" – presumably for Thomas' failure to ferret out any more "new" constitutional rights such as gay marriage or taxpayer-subsidized penis augmentation. Don't hope for any more election-year conversions if Specter is re-elected: The old coot will be 80 years old by the end of the term. Some Republicans seem to imagine that Specter has a better chance of winning the general election by appealing to Democrats – and thereby helping Bush – than Pat Toomey does. This is absurd. Just because Republicans hate Specter doesn't mean Democrats like him. It's no wonder Pennsylvania often votes Democratic. If Arlen Specter represented the Republican Party, I'd be a Democrat, too.
13 posted on 11/04/2004 7:28:28 PM PST by ConservativeGadfly (want to join the judicial nominations fight?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: PianoMan
On the day of the president's reelection.
Specter has no class.
14 posted on 11/04/2004 7:31:48 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CR

Can you post a standard email format indicating his actions? I'm not good in wiritng but I can forward it to the rest of my conservative buddies. But I'm trapped both of my senators are LIBS in California. Probably I'll just contact my district he's a republican.

15 posted on 11/04/2004 7:36:58 PM PST by jrolfedrev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I've read his statements several times. Senator Specter should NOT chair this committee!

In addition, his Einhorne defense, Borking of Bork and adherence to Scotish law speak against him!

No Specter, None of the time.
16 posted on 11/04/2004 7:47:42 PM PST by Tripoli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: jrolfedrev
But I'm trapped both of my senators are LIBS in California. Probably I'll just contact my district he's a republican.

I can't even do that. I live in Sam Farr country.

17 posted on 11/04/2004 7:51:08 PM PST by dc27
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie

Could we get him kicked out of the party?

18 posted on 11/04/2004 8:08:46 PM PST by Delphinium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MNJohnnie


19 posted on 11/04/2004 8:16:15 PM PST by OriginalChristian (The Moral Values/Pro-Life vote was the difference...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garyhope

Specter would say that he was "just being John Adams" when he (Specter) represented the once popular (among the left) Einhorn. John Adams was unpopular for defending British soldiers implicated in the deadly Boston Massacre of March 5, 1770. But the independent Adams said that everyone deserves legal representation.

20 posted on 11/04/2004 8:26:00 PM PST by Theodore R.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson