Posted on 11/04/2004 7:45:07 PM PST by LowNslow
I agree that Specter would not "impound" but the objections to his assuming the chair expressed in the next 9 paragraphs stand.
Just how many of Specter's colleagues do you think give a freakin F about anything he thinks, much less about important judicial nominees, in which each member will make their own judgment? He is one of the LEAST respected members on the Senate, on both sides of the aisle, just like Leahy is. Specter's influence is limited to his own vote. You can write that down.
Might I suggest Co-chair of the traffic signs committee?
Is it truly your position that the voice of the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is worth only his own vote?
I will immediately alert the main stream media that they need not feign shock and dismay that the chairman of the Judiciary Committee does not support his own President's choice for the most important open position in the nation.
I am sure the editorial board of the NYT and Dan Rather, upon receiving this insight about journalistic standards, will pass such a story by and the nominee will sail on to unanimous confirmation.
Yes, when the chairman is Specter. He will make noise in any event, if he wants to.
The senate works on the committee system. Senators get their power from this system. Senators who have power from the system are not surprisingly reluctant to undermine the system.
It is the chairman who sets the tone, gets to go on Meet the Press along with his ranking collegue, and tell the nation what to think about the nominee. All it would take from Specter is a little body language directed at the camera betraying lack of enthusiasm for a nominee and the game is over.
You either stop Specter now or risk a terrible forfeit later.
This is Senate civics lesson 101.
May I suggest you read Master of The Senate, the great biography of Lyndon Johnson, it describes how the gang works.
I already read it. That Senate is long gone. It was a great book by the way; very revealing, and splendidly written. Since Specter will be chairman, I guess we can just watch and wait how it turns out, and so whose crystal ball was clearer.
Well, we both agree that he is unreliable but we differ on his ability as chairman to do mischief.
I am also concerned that Bush, who is famous for actually meaning what he says, said in the third debate that he would exercise no litmus test on abortion, but he also used language that indicates he wants a strict constructionist.
If you read the transcript of Specter's remarks, he lays great emphasis on Stare Decisis and claims the issue of abortion is now as settled as the issue of segregation. I fear that either Bush or a soft nominee who ascends to the bench might take refuge in the doctrine to avoid reversing or at least limiting Roe v. Wade. To those unacqquainted with the doctrine of Stare Decisis, it simply means a committment to following established case law.
It can be a very dangerous doctrine if one establishes bad law, such as the discovery of a privacy right to abortion in the penunbras of the Constitution, which, according to Specter must thereafter and for all time be slavishly followed. The obvious historical parallel is the Plessy V. Ferguson which was not controlling as Stare Decisis in Brown V. The Board of Ed. of Topeka when the court outlawed segregation.
My point is that new science since the early 1970s would justify a court in overruling Roe and still claim that it is respectful of Stare Decisis. The art comes in at the time of the nomination hearings when the nominee is questioned about his committment to Stare Decisis and how he difines it and how far he allows himself to be drawn on the principle.
Stare Decisis can be used as a shield by a clever nominee as well as a sword by a rabid abortionist.
Finally, it remains to be seen what Bush means by his "no litmus test" standard. If he fails to appoint a sound strict constructionist everything is lost. But it is not necessary to appoint a flamboyant strict constructionist who cannot negotiate the shoals of the confirmation process.
In this kind of tap dance a committee chairman can make the difference but I am afraid Specter holds an ill-informed view of Stare Decisis.
Lets let our bets abide the event as you suggest.
What is it with these guys that come unhinged after the election win?
What a loon!
He is a fence straddler. He has no loyalty. He would have the ability to determine the fate of the Supreme Court. His friends are Soros, Ickes, clinton and more. He cannot be trusted.
HUMAN EVENTS ONLINE :: FLASHBACK: August 18, 2003 Will Specter Chair Judiciary? by Timothy P. Carney
Specter had approved of William Rehnquist’s promotion to chief justice and Antonin Scalia’s nomination (though he notes in his book that both "yes" votes were cast grudgingly) and later would come to the rescue of Clarence Thomas. But blocking Bork, he explained in his book, was essential to preserving the balance of the court.
Specter voted yes on the nominations of liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as well as swing justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor. In his book, he notes no reservations or objections to those judges as he did with Rehnquist and Scalia.
It is not just the Right to Life, but also Liberty Counsel, Concerned Women of America, and others.
Timothy P. Carney on Arlen Specter on National Review Online
Specter seems to pop up in the center of the worst scandals of the Clinton era.
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.