Sadly, there is a lot of nonsense and hyperbole making the rounds on this. Many freepers refuse to listen and learn the facts before jump-starting their mouths. What is most evident is a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Senate works and the institutional norms during and following a presidential honeymoon. If you don't understand what that even means, go pick up a civics book and come back later.
1. Grassley has already said NO, he will not give up the Finance chair for Judiciary. No one in his/her right mind would. Give it a rest, for God's sake.
2. Specter will get the job done for the President. The MSM is already trying to create a wedge between the moderates and the conservatives. Don't be a fool to their games. Specter understands perfectly well that Bush saved his ass. He will play ball. Moreover, Specter provides a tremendous foil for Bush with the media -- if Specter is supporting these Bush nominees, then they cannot be that bad.
3. The Senate committee ratios will change with the expanded majority - Judiciary will go to 11-9 or 10-8 GOP from the current 10-9. Specter's vote may be irrelevant in some cases to favorably reporting judges to the floor.
4. As to the comment earlier that the RATS will continue to filibuster judicial nominees, this is nonsense, and truly reflective of how little understanding there is of how the Senate works, and the ramifications of the Daschle defeat. The RATS no longer have the votes. Our starting number is now 55, not 51. We have the crossover votes to break every filibuster.
The concern over Specter is tremendously overblown. He will pleasantly surprise a lot of conservatives and lead Bush's judidicial appointments to successful confirmations.
And Lincoln Chafee is a stalwart of conservatism. It must be nice to live on your planet.
Also, there are several Republicans who will vote to block a nominee who is obviously pro-life.
They will not be elected if they don't.
Yes, it's very unusual to vote against the party on cloture, they will do so only because they will lose their seat if they don't.
I doubt anyone here is too ignorant of the Senate to see this.
Sure, nominees who are not obviously pro-life or otherwise popularly rejectable, can no longer practically be filibustered.
>
2. Specter will get the job done for the President. The MSM is already trying to create a wedge between the moderates and the conservatives. Don't be a fool to their games. Specter understands perfectly well that Bush saved his ass. He will play ball. Moreover, Specter provides a tremendous foil for Bush with the media -- if Specter is supporting these Bush nominees, then they cannot be that bad.
>
I am one of those embracing the idea of getting him bounced from Judiciary. I supported him vs Toomey because I wanted to hold his seat. I guess that makes me a flip flopper. Ha. But your comment above is both very smart and naive. I'm not sure which carries the day. Yes, he could be a great foil with the media in that "if he supports the nominee, the nominee can't be all that extreme". That would be HUGELY effective and let's applaud your analysis on that.
But, will he support the nominee? Will he pay his debt to Bush? Hard to see him running again so why should he?
>
3. The Senate committee ratios will change with the expanded majority - Judiciary will go to 11-9 or 10-8 GOP from the current 10-9. Specter's vote may be irrelevant in some cases to favorably reporting judges to the floor.
>
Committee chairs have power beyond their vote. You have underestimated this.
Who are the 5 Dem crossovers? Not arguing with you, just wanna know. Also have you accounted for possible defectors like Chaffee, Snowe, Specter?
You state that "Specter will get the job done for the President." Examining his long record, and what he says now and in the past, I believe that Specter is committed to the pro-abortion position, and sincerely wants to do what he can to block judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. This opposition can take lots of forms. He can leak information about judges he doesn't like, he can berate them in hearings, he can schedule witnesses that are unfavorable and give them a forum, even if they are lying weasels, he can delay the hearings for a long time to allow the NY Times to pound them for weeks on end until the President is willing to give up on a nominee--in short, he can torpedo nominees without actually coming out against the president. I think Arlen will do this as much as he can.
You are right to note that the committee numbers will change to give the GOP a majority of 2, so this factor makes it conceivable that Specter could be on or even chair the committee and not be able all by his lonesome to keep nominees from reaching the floor. A vote against a nominee by Specter will send a signal of blood in the water to the lib media, but they could still get to the floor. So, if you were to let Specter have the chairmanship, the only way to do it is to call him in to a serious meeting of the Senate leadership and judiciary committee members, maybe in the Oval Office with the President. In that meeting, you lay down the law to Arlen. You tell him that the President's standards for judicial nominees are well known. They must be extraordinarily well qualified. They must NOT be judicial activists, but the types who understand that judges interpret the law. The President believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in accord with the original intent of the founders, and that changes should come through amendment. "Do you disagree Arlen? If so, run for President, but don't be chairman. You will be expected to support and push hard for nominees who share the President's values. That's who he will send up. And you can be sure that they will all be vetted for qualifications and background."
Arlen must be told that if he is not willing to take the chairmanship under those terms, then don't take it. If he says he will support the President's nominees, but it turns out he doesn't, he should be assured by all the other members of the committee that he will lose his chairmanship but quick.
Do that to Arlen, and I will go along with letting him be chair, reluctantly. But I'd feel safer if they just took it away from him, gave him something else to soothe his fragile ego and kept the most important post in someone like John Kyl's hands.
Regarding the filibuster, you are very mistaken about the nature of the rats. I guarantee you, and feel free to bookmark this, the first time that President Bush sends a Scalia type nominee for a Supreme Court position, the Rats will do everything in their power to block him/her, including filibuster. The court is their whole ball of wax, the keys to the kingdom, and as soon as they feel it is threatened, they will go nuclear, to use a phrase. That includes filibuster. They can do no less, NOW and NARAL and Emily's List and the ACLU will demand it.
We might have a few Dims who don't go along with the filibuster, but we might have a few Pubbies, including Arlen, who support it. They can lose 5 Dems and still succeed in a filibuster, and so they will let Dorgan and Baucus and Hegel and a few others opt out, but keep the others disciplined and in line. Bank on it.
Therefore, it is vital that the Senate rules on filibuster be changed, in the organizing resolution, to limit filibusters on judicial nominees. Otherwise, we will have gained nothing on this issue in this election, and the conservatives will punish the GOP in 2 and 4 years.