Posted on 11/08/2004 12:07:05 PM PST by pookie18
If we keep the heat on Specter, there is a good chance of Specter defecting to the Democrats and Specter dragging a few along with him. What's that leave our side? A bunch of Senators, many of them staunch Conservatives, who will willingly roll over for the minority.
Whether Specter is on the chair of the Judiciary or not, he still gets a vote, just like the 100 other Senators in the Senate. The nominees either get blocked in committee, or they get blocked on the Senate floor, just like the nominees would get voted on in the committee and on the Senate floor or perhaps they'll get blocked on the Senate floor.
Specter's vote is a lot less significant than the power that comes from chairing the committee.
It makes little sense to make Specter the lead person if he brags that he will block extremist nominees (meaning Bush nominees that he or the New York Times, might consider to be extremists).
Maybe you weren't paying much attention during the last judicial fight, but it was the Democrats who seemed like they were in the majority, while the entire GOP Senate just rolled over for them. Your anger seems targeted toward one man, mine seems targeted toward an entire party [emphasis added]
Your comment about me not paying attention could easily be considered as a condescending remark, but I'll assume that you simply intend, in good faith, to enlighten me in case I missed something. However, I was paying close attention and direct you to the below referenced thread.
It's not a matter of my anger, it's a matter of distrusting Senator Specter. It's really about advancing sound judicial nominees even if they are called extremists by the New York Times, and the usual suspects, possibly with the aid of Specter as in Bork's case. (I do note great anger by Senate vice-obstructor Democrat Harry Reid in my personal report quoted below.)
And you can see what an extremist I am from the below reply I made after attending a late-night Senate session on this issue last year. (I know, I mistakenly referred to Reagan as winning 89 out of 100 states and it was really 93 of 100 in two elections.)
Justice for Judges Freep Report (D.C. Chapter anti-filibuster buttons featured in Washington Post)[snip]
To: kristinn; Angelwood; tgslTakoma; daughterofTGSL; LisaFab; EternalVigilance; maicaSuper report and effort by you and other FReepers!
I arrived about 12 midnight Thursday and stayed for about an hour as Sens. Lindsay Graham, Norm Coleman, and Harry Reid spoke.
When Dem Senator Harry Reid was speaking, I put my head on the wall just behind me. Within 20 seconds after closing my eyes, The attendent sternly told me, "Sir, you're not allowed to sleep." I opened my eyes and apologized, but left about 10 minutes later.
Reid seemed quite angry that the 'Pubs were forcing him to actually try to defend the Dem obstructionism. He kept it in check most of the time, but the anger clearly surfaced for one brief second when he contempuously referred to the 'Pubs doing the session for "right-wing extremists."
Considering myself as an unappologetic Reaganite, I thought that I was so extreme that my favorite recent president only get 89 states out of 100 in 1980 and 1984 combined. He beat his nearest opponent by ten percent.
Yep, I'm real extreme. And "out of the mainstream." Just like Judges who believe that the Constitution means what the founders intended and is not a contemporaneous judicial Rorshak "living document."
reply 10 posted on 11/14/2003 9:40:54 PM PST by BillF (Fight terrorists in Iraq & elsewhere, instead of waiting for them to come to America!)
Not "hanging" anyone. I'm saying that he is NOT going to chair the judiciary if I have anything to do with it. He is welcome in the party, and even on the committee (though, in the long run, I have my doubts about even that). Furthermore, it goes to show how much better off we would have been with Toomey.
When an guard at a bank refuses to give a robber the combination to the safe, the robber does not put his gun to the guards head and pull the trigger. That will not get him the contents of the safe.
When one is trying to get the Support of RINOs to confimr nominees to the surpreme court, one does not put his gun to the RINOs head and pull the trigger.
One tells the guard that if he fails to give you the combination to the safe you will then kill him. If he gives you the combination you tell him you will kill him if he does not help you load up the gold.
Spector is not stupid. He wanted to know for sure what he could get away with. Now he knows. He will likely vote for the nominations before he votes against them. That is all we need from Spector to change the nature of the Supreme court for at least a generation. That is the object. The object is to change the nation not extract revenge against Arlen Spector.
Bush understands that if he gets his first choice nominees confirmed he will go down as a great president. If he has Spector drawn and quartered, and fails to win confirmation of conservative justices history will count W a failure. Our nation may not last another hundred years.
Wining the battle and losing the war is never what President Bush will choose to do.
Click here for the tator take on voting for before voting against.
And Santorum, who is as conservative as Toomey and far more so than Specter, manages to get elected regularly.
Maybe you weren't paying much attention during the last judicial fight, but it was the Democrats who seemed like they were in the majority, while the entire GOP Senate just rolled over for them. Your anger seems targeted toward one man, mine seems targeted toward an entire party which includes Conservatives, of which I am proud to say, I am one. Bush didn't lose his judicial nominees because of one man, or a small set of moderates, he lost them to an entire GOP Senate who was unwilling to challenge the filibuster of the entire Democrat party.
And from your post #241:
If we keep the heat on Specter, there is a good chance of Specter defecting to the Democrats and Specter dragging a few along with him. What's that leave our side? A bunch of Senators, many of them staunch Conservatives, who will willingly roll over for the minority.
This is an accurate assessment of the way it's been. Believe me, I'm angry right along with you! I am particularly furious with Frist, but I'm mad at them all.
I'm so angry and disgusted by Santorum for campaigning for Mr. "Roe v. Wade" Spector, that I could spit.
Indeed, the only Senator who has been showing true fire for the right, is Zell Miller, who was absolutely stunning at the Convention.
The difference is the last election. Who voted, and that the majority of votes were values based. We need to act like we won the damn thing. We need to keep on everyone's backs. So what if Specter defects and takes the others with him?!?
I'd rather lose now by doing the right thing, because this course of action will insure our victory.
We must be relentless in doing right, the right way.
That was Santorum and Bush's big mistake in PA. They played politics and didn't go with Toomey, the true conservative. They didn't go the right way. The road to hell is paved with good intentions...and political expediency.
This could be a whole new ballgame, because of the last election, if we only keep on their backs.
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.