Priority 1: Remove Specter from Judiciary (Day 3)

Specter Retreats: Specter denied yesterday that he threatened Bush on judge nominees. Don’t buy it. Specter knows that he got too arrogant and stepped into a hornets nest. Specter’s statement that, “I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue,” just is not true. Specter has made it clear that he considers Roe v. Wade as Constitutional as the First Amendment. When the rubber hits the road, this is a litmus test for Specter. A few token votes to save his behind doesn’t change that a bit. Never forget what he did to Bork. In words and actions, Sen. Specter is no different than President NON-elect Kerry.

The BUZZ on this issue was outstanding. Discussions were all over talk radio, cable TV, and the internet. Several reports of phone calls flooding Senators offices were made. Reportedly, Sen. Frist grilled Sen. Specter on this and told him flatly that the Judiciary Chairmanship is not guaranteed. Folks, this is winnable. We can not let this issue die.

1. Sen. Hatch must resign the Chairmanship because GOP rules forbid him to hold it for more than 8 years.
2. Sen. Grassley is next in line, but because he is Finance Chairman he is forbidded to have both.
3. Sen. Specter is next in line, followed by Sen. Kyl who would make an excellent Chairman.

4. Seniority on Committee gives priority, but it still must be voted on. We need to find out the when, what, where, and how behind this vote.

There is an effort to try to persuade Grassley to resign his Finance Chairmanship and take the Judiciary. I support this. It’s a clean way to resolve this without changing the rules or ruffling of too many feathers. But having Grassley give up the coveted Finance Chair is a big if.

Let’s keep in mind the real goal here too as we strategize. We want Bush to appoint good conservative judges who will not go along with the judicial activism that currently runs rabid in our courts. There are two obstacles to this.

The next 60 will determine how big the obstacles will be. In my opinion, what happens over the next 60 days are the most critical. We need to establish a clean path so Bush’s appointed judges can get voted on the full floor of the Senate. We must keep up the pressure on our Senators. If we let it die now, nothing will be done and we will have lost the best opportunity of our lives to make a difference in our Courts.

Your response (#114) to my #52 is excellant.

I have read the case. I have always viewed the language you quote: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. . . . " to say that the state of the science permits the Court to conclude that the state of the science (development of man's knowledge) does not resolve the issue at the point in time the case is decided.

I have thought that your evidence when you tried the case you were going to use as the vehicle to challange Roe would be an overwhelming scientific demonstration that life begins at a very early point in pregnancy; the legal argument would be a response to the Court's language above inviting that kind of case when and if (as it now has) "man's knowledge" extends to the point where science reaches a conclusion.

More important, in my view, is the level playing field issue. If we don't get a level playing field because liberal judges decide that the result dictates the law, the game is over and we will never prevail again--on any issue.

That was the point of Bush v. Gore: The Florida court decided that you count only presumed Gore voters on the recount for the purposes of overturning the majority vote in Florida. You can't have that result because you deprive the voters in Oklahoma of equal protection when they elect electors by counting all the votes; and as well deprive other voters in Florida of equal protection of having all their votes counted also. (Now it wouldn't have worked out that way--subsequent counts demonstrate clearly that whoever you "recounted", Bush still wound up with the most votes. But if the legal result were otherwise and that had not been the vote count, Gore would have been president.)

In the election setting, we want to be clear that everyone is entitled to vote and to have their vote counted. But we want everyone limited to casting only one vote (can't vote twice as many of the double registered Florida voters do); and we think the voters ought to be sufficiently informed so that it is clear who they are voting for. We also think that all voters ought to be real qualified electors (as opposed to individuals voting in the name of dead registrants). Personally, I also see the "walking around money" voters where the Dem's have been paying people to vote for them as an affront to the voting process which ought to come to an end.

A final good example which is an argument for level playing field judges is McCain-Feingold. The campaign finance limitation concept is an effort to preclude non-incumbents from gaining traction in contests against incumbents by raising enough money to buy access. That is what McCain Feingold is all about. A specific directed limitation on the right of free speech which is a fundamental constitutional right the first amendment was designed to protect. Blatently unconstitutional--upheld by the existing court.

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.