Posted on 11/05/2004 6:28:01 AM PST by Always Right
Politically speaking, I agree with you. Failing that, however, Specter must be stopped by other means.
Same nonsense because no one will read any earlier posts on this thread.
Again, again, again, Senator Grassley has already said NO to the asinine suggestion to ditch Finance for Judiciary.
No sane Senator would sacrifice Finance for Judiciary.
Can we please move on from that which is a non-starter?
Everything that you said reflects your "hope", not facts. I'd prefer to be sure by keeping all of the "probablys" out of the equation and Specter out of the chairmanship.
Chairs are decided by seniority protocol from the entire caucus.
There are very few "PA RINOS".
After personally reviewing the voting results from three counties (and hearing about results from a good many more), DEMOCRATS VOTED FOR SPECTER, and most Republicans split their votes between Hoeffel and Clymer. Yes, a few Republicans voted for Specter because they were afraid we would lose the majority in the Senate, but most Republicans (I believe this will be supported by data, but I just don't have it yet) voted for Hoeffel or Clymer, and Specter won based on the support of Democrats.
Folks....Specter said in his press conference that the Chief Justice is much more ill than we know.
The Corner caught this:
"did the media miss another screaming headline in that Specter press conference? "... 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." Sound to me like a Supreme Court vacancy is no where near academic. This is happening. And Specter, behind closed doors even before he is causing public trouble at a hearing, is going to be calling some major shots."
WE MUST GET HIM OFF THE CHAIRMANSHIP.
Please see posts 45 and 78 for an array of factual data to substantiate my position. Even study the voting habits of RAT senators Feinstein, Feingold, and Kohl, among others, both in committee and on the floor.
We will get our judges -- district, circuit and USSC -- whether Specter is chair or not.
The electorate has spoken, and these Senators will defer to the President, particularly during 2005-06. The circuit court filibusters are over, and any filibusters of Supreme Court nominations will be unsuccessful if attempted.
We will begin by working off the backload of stalled circuit court nominees, and the pace of confirmations will pleasantly surprise conservative activists.
I grant all that you say and still say that Harry Reid will filubuster conservative Supreme Court nominees, and that Arlen Specter will do what he can to torpedo them. The election means that they won't filibuster the Appeals Court nominees anymore, and that Arlen will be more circumspect in his opposition.
Bill Frist Phone Number (202) 224-3344
For a list of all the judiciary committee phone numbers go here and follow Laura Ingraham's EZ to find, EZ to follow instructions:
http://lauraingraham.com/public/
Just do it!
It also works in favor of the appointment of a strict constructionist as the next chief justice. It's beginning to look like this battle will be sooner rather than later. How does Chief Justice Thomas sound to you?
I agree, ths issue is a strict constructionist one.
However, Roe was not decided upon science at the time, unless one means they did so by declaring it also inconclusive.
Roe v Wade makes its decision based on some interesting thinking:
First, it asserts that it is not capable of knowing ancient attitudes toward when life begins, and toward abortion, precisely. But finds no proscription against abortion in ancient religion.
Then it dismisses the hippocratic oath by showing that it precisely reflects only one group's point of view.
Common and Canon law receive the same treatment, as it is able to point to a variety of opinion.
in any case, it does not appear to have based its opinion on scientific evidence, but on the history (or lack) of jurisprudence regarding the matter:
"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.
"...Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable,"..."
A beautiful quote from REHNQUIST's Dissent:
"The decision here to break pregnancy into three distinct terms and to outline the permissible restrictions the State may impose in each one, for example, partakes more of judicial legislation than it does of a determination of the intent of the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
see post #110 for something you missed. Comments?
No. Would in flame the media immediately and guarantee a disaster.
Bush will promote Justice Scalia to chief justice and backfill from there. Maybe even re-nominate Miguel Estrada.
Do you think the RATS are gonna be dumb enough to filibuster a Hispanic again?
When Specter's state had the chance to replace him with a REAL Republican, they passed on the REAL Republican and kept Specter in there. The voters have only themselves to blame for this. They were warned, but went with name recognition. I'm not surprised by Specter's comments. I hope they get him OUT of the chairmanship and do it BEFORE the Senate starts up again. Let's get those rules changed before it's too late (regarding majorities), and give Specter a job overseeing what the cafeteria is serving each day.
It's perfectly fine to keep the heat on Specter, Frist, the entire GOP caucus.
Moves to deny Senator Specter his chairmanship, however, IMHO are doomed to failure. The caucus won't break precedent. If they do it once, every one of them becomes at risk for any single vote that the others don't like.
The Senate doesn't work that way, folks.
Additionally, we have not even begun to dialogue on the constitutional role of checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches. George Bush does not run the Judiciary Committee. There are institutional, historical, and constitutional roles and responsibilities between the two branches.
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.