Priority 1: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 7)

11-9-04 | Alway Right

[OXENinFLA]

Contact Your Senators
-- Ask them to oppose naming anti-gun Sen. Arlen Specter as Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org

Tuesday, November 9, 2004

You would have thought John Kerry had won an astounding Electoral
College victory, rather than George W. Bush.

But, within 24 hours after the presidential results were in, there
was the Senate Judiciary Committee heir-apparent, Pennsylvania liberal
Republican Arlen Specter, warning Bush not to make conservative
nominations to the U.S. Supreme court.

The "code words" used by Specter centered around abortion, but the
message was clear: "No pro-gun conservatives need apply."

Said Specter:

"That is my view, now, before, and always. ... The president is well
aware of what happened, when a bunch of his [conservative, pro-gun]
nominees were sent up, with the filibuster... I would expect the
president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning..."

Yes, this is the same Specter who GOA opposed in the Pennsylvania
Senate primary earlier this year, when he was being challenged by an
A-rated congressman, Pat Toomey. (GOA was the ONLY national gun lobby
to support Toomey.)

This is the same Specter who has opposed your gun rights over the last
several years. To be sure, this is the Specter who:

* Cosponsored legislation in 1991 to make it a FELONY to possess any
magazine that holds more than 15 rounds (S. 635).

* Voted FOR the crime bill (HR 3355) which contained the Clinton semi-
auto ban in 1994.

* Voted FOR the Incumbent Protection Act in 2002 to prevent groups like
the NRA and GOA from criticizing public officials in the electronic
media up to 60 days before an election (HR 2356).

This is also the same Specter who voted AGAINST arming the nation's
pilots in September 2002. Amazingly, he was one of only SIX senators
who voted against this bill. Even anti-gun Senators John Kerry and
John Edwards voted right!

Specter has shown his true anti-gun colors over his career in the U.S.
Senate, and now he is next in line to be the chairman of the all-
powerful Judiciary Committee which controls judicial nominations --
not to mention gun control legislation.

The last thing we need is for pro-gun Supreme Court nominees to be
blocked by a Republican Chairman.

But there is good news: There is no Senate rule which guarantees
Specter the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee -- where he
can block Bush's nominees from even getting a Senate vote. The new
chairman will be chosen, first, by a majority of the Republicans on
the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, then, by a majority of all
Senate Republicans.

Thus, it is well within the rights of Senate Republicans to award the
Judiciary Committee post to current-chairman Orrin Hatch, Iowa's Chuck
Grassley, Arizona's Jon Kyl, or Alabama's Jeff Sessions. Any of these
men would presumably support Bush's conservative pro-gun nominees,
rather than opposing them.

ACTION: Contact your Republican senator(s). Ask him or her to vote
against naming anti-gun Senator Arlen Specter as chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

Please visit the GOA Legislative Action Center at
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm and look up your Senator(s)
contact information. Just plug in your zip code under "Elected
Officials," and then use the pre-written message below to call, fax or
email your Senator(s).

NOTE: Because committee chairmanships are effectively decided by the
majority party, only Republican Senators need to receive this letter
below. Newly elected Republican Senators are not yet included in the
GOA Legislative Action Center, however, you can contact them using
the following information:

FL -- Mel Martinez, fax: 407-897-8595 or 305-443-3611
GA -- Johnny Isakson, email: ga06@mail.house.gov
LA -- David Vitter, fax: 202-225-0739
NC -- Richard Burr, email: richard.burrnc05@mail.house.gov
OK -- Tom Coburn, fax: 918-294-8380 or 580-353-1978
SC -- Jim DeMint, fax: 202-226-1177
SD -- John Thune, fax: 605-221-1021 or email: info@johnthune.com

----- Pre-written letter -----

Dear Senator:

Less than 24 hours after the presidential election, Arlen Specter was
warning George Bush not to nominate pro-gun conservatives for the two
to four anticipated slots expected to be available on the U.S. Supreme
Court.

The last thing we need is for pro-gun Supreme Court nominees to be
blocked by a Republican senator who votes like a Democrat.

Please do what you can to stop Arlen Specter from being named as
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sincerely,

[reformed_democrat]

I don't think there is a process to remove a committee chairman.

You are correct. As the rules stand right now, a Chairman serves for six years. Period.

One possibility would be to change the rules to allow other committee members of the same party to unseat the chairman by popular vote.

Personally, I would prefer to have Specter off the Judiciary Committee altogether, but would consider it a win if we could have a rules change that would allow conservaitve Senators to exercize control over Sen. Specter.

[reformed_democrat]

The more I think about it, the more I am leaning in the direction that throwing Mac under the bus now would be immediately (and immensely!!) satisfying, but long-term costly.

The cost to us -- worst case -- is that we lose control of the Senate due to Specter, Chaffee, Snow, Collins, and two other left-wingers switching parties en masse. We still have control of the House and the Presidency, so we would be in the same position Jeffords put us in several years ago -- we would have to stonewall all legislation.

Specter may then take over Judiciary as a democrat chairman, but it would be a stand off. No judges would be confirmed -- that's guaranteed. But the position we're in now, with the uncertainty of Specter's agenda, gives us only a 50-50 chance of confirming conservative judges.

I believe Specter, if he jumped at all, would take a maximum of two renegades with him. That would place him in the minority party for at least two years, and he would have even less power as a democrat than he would as a Republican serving on a committee other than Judiciary.

It's my contention that Specter would not like those odds, and wouldn't make that gamble. If the Senate were closer, say 52-48 or even 53-47, a threat to jump would hold some merit. At 55-44 (and we'll probably win the LA Senate seat, so it will be 56-44 come December), the spread is too wide. It would take too much work to convince six others to switch simply to support Specter. The other potential switchers have committees of their own to think about, and at least one of them would lose their next race due to their decision.

[BibChr]

Plus, a thrown-under-the-bus MacSpectre would have a huge vendetta, and six years in which to indulge it. He'd feel he owed nobody anything for certain, except revenge. He'd also have the fawning devotion of the media, who love nothing better than a GOP Judas.

It may well be an unhappy case of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Dan

[Cedar]

"It may well be an unhappy case of "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.""

With that logic we all might as well hang out with the Mafia or street gangs.

No thanks.

[reformed_democrat]

He'd feel he owed nobody anything for certain, except revenge. He'd also have the fawning devotion of the media, who love nothing better than a GOP Judas.

We have this situation now, with the exception of the revenge aspect. Specter has always been a media darling, and always believes his own press.

As I see it, we have two choices: Either we remove him and take the consequences, or give him the Chairmanship but institute a Rules change that will allow oversight by his fellow Republican Senators. One possibility mentioned by hansel on a thread last night was changing the rules to allow a Chairman to be voted out by other members of his committee.

Putting such a rule in place would irritate Spector, and he would most likely be inclined to be as abrasive as possible, daring the others to vote him out.

If we simply let the Chairmanship go forward with no oversight on Specter, we're forced to take him at his word. The question in that case would be, "Can we trust him?"

[BibChr]

So we'll put you down for expelling all "non-pure" Senators from the party, and accepting permanent minority status. Nice.

Dan

[Cedar]

And we'll put in the same league with the baby killers. Since you insist...

[BibChr]

Good points. I'd also factor in something Hugh mentioned yesterday: Mac's words versus his deeds. Actually, in this case, the ratio is in his favor.

He &itches and moans about Thomas and Rehnquist -- but he did defend and vote for them. He blusters and postures about pro-life judges -- but he has in fact voted for every one of W's picks.

The argument could be made — and do keep in mind, I DO NOT like MacSpectre — that he satisfies his ego by all this bluster and whining. But what we care about is his VOTE, his ACTIONS. (And let's keep focused here: we're talking about the judiciary.)

So what do we demand of him? Fair hearing, and move them out to a vote. We can't demand that he vote our way -- though he has, during W's term. Is it reasonable to believe he'd give them a hearing, and move them out to the Senate? I think so.

Dan

[BibChr]

What enables the baby killers is losing control and influence. That's what we're talking about here. You might try starting to follow the conversation; it's among allies. Not a question of where we want the ball to go, but of how to get it there.

Dan

[Cedar]

...meaning we'll add your name to the abortion-rights league. Have a nice neighborhood.

[BibChr]

I will leave you with your idiotic, unintentionally self-revealing blurt.

Dan

[Cedar]

Thank you. And I"ll leave you with your compromising.

[Spiff]

So we'll put you down for expelling all "non-pure" Senators from the party, and accepting permanent minority status. Nice.

Would you tolerate within the party advocates of a return to slavery for members of a minority race?

Abortion is far worse than slavery every was. Abortion is far worse than racism. I have no real numbers to look at on this, but I would venture to say that we kill more unborn children per year in the U.S. (1.3 million) than all of the slaves who were murdered throughout the history of the United States. I would venture to say that we kill more unborn children every two days in the U.S. (7,000)than all of the blacks who were lynched since the end of slavery.

While slavery denied the humanity of a portion of the population, it did not kill them outright. Abortion similarly denies the humanity of a portion of the human population and it is quite fatal to them.

You would never tolerate a proponent of slavery in the party, or even someone who is openly racist or even strongly suspected of being one. Yet you would tolerate proponents of the wanton slaughter of innocent unborn children?

Reagan said it well when he made the following three statements:

"We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." — Ronald Reagan, 1965

"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs, which must not compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers . . . And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these conservative principles, then let them go their way." - Ronald Reagan, March 1, 1975

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. . .There is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning. - Ronald Reagan, 1983

[BibChr]

Okay, I'll try at least once with you now, and assume we're having a conversation among friends. (c8

I think we're having two different conversations. You are saying "Pro-aborts are bad!" With that, I totally agree. More than you know, I guess, or you'd not be arguing with me about it. I have yet to find one pro-abort, ANYWHERE, who can make even the beginnings of a defense on the issue. (See my The Bible and the Bull's-Eye on the Baby.)

So, insofar as that's the conversation you're having, you and I totally agree. NOBODY should be pro-abort. It is in de fen si ble. It's immoral, it's monstrous, it's sub-barbaric, wrong.

So far, I would assume, we're agreed.

So now, the discussion is just about what to do with it. Absolute ideological purity would demand that I only work with people who agree with me 100%. That would immediately eliminate President Bush, as he accepts the killing of babies whose parents, one or both, did something wrong (rape or incest). I find that position indefensible.

But in partnering with President Bush, I partner with someone whose position would eliminate, what, about 97% of all abortions? So I figure a lot is better than none, and I will gladly partner with him.

Now, if one accepts that principle, it is only a question of what "imperfect" partnerships seem wise in achieving our ends.

Now, take the target of our mutual disdain: Arlen MacSpectre. His position on abortion is atrocious. He probably couldn't put together two cogent sentences defending it — no surprise, none of them can.

BUT.

BUT, he has voted to confirm a number of very pro-life judges, including Clarence Thomas and Rehnquist.

Now, did those votes advance our position, or not? Were they good, or not?

All of that to say this: Hugh Hewitt makes the case better than I could (see his extended argument, www.hughhewitt.com, if you haven't already), but it's a matter of asking whether the short-term gratification of nuking MacSpectre would ultimately advance our shared goal, or keeping him on, chastened and watched. I very much respect those who think the former; I've been trying to explain why I'm coming to lean towards the latter.

Of course, as I've said, in an ideal society, we'd have neither of these problems.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board

[Spiff]

Now, take the target of our mutual disdain: Arlen MacSpectre. His position on abortion is atrocious. He probably couldn't put together two cogent sentences defending it — no surprise, none of them can. BUT. BUT, he has voted to confirm a number of very pro-life judges, including Clarence Thomas and Rehnquist. Now, did those votes advance our position, or not? Were they good, or not?

And if instead of being "pro-choice", Sen. Specter was "pro-licensed indentured servitude" (ie. pro-slavery), but he had voted to advance the pro-life or pro-freedom cause a couple of times - would you still be willing to allow him to serve as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee?

100% purity or agreement on all aspects of every issue is impossible and certainly not going to help a party retain majority status. On that we can agree. There are some things, however, that utterly disqualify a person from holding a sensitive position or from being in the party at all. I mentioned being an advocate of slavery would be a cause for such disqualification in just about everyone's opinion. Why is being an advocate of abortion any more acceptable? It is not.

I know, we're splitting hairs here. We're on the same side of the issue. I just think that it is tragic that we find it so impractical to treat abortion and its supporters as they deserve to be treated. Being so practical on abortion has lead to, since Roe v. Wade, something like 40 million deaths. Maybe someone could make the case that our timid approach to this issue over the last 31 years has finally brought us to a point that we might actually do something about it. But, if that is so and we're finally at the point where we might be able to overturn Roe v. Wade, do we really want someone like Arlen Specter standing in the way or even effecting this effort at such a critical time?

[ppaul]

Specter Sphincter ping.....

[BibChr]

Thanks again. I do quite agree with your basic thoughts and sentiments. And you're absolutely right, it is tragic that we even have to consider such moral bottom feeders as those whose conscience is hardened to the dismemberment of living, innocent babies. It's a damning indictment of our society, all in itself.

Let me try to answer your question head-on. Would I countenance a pro-slavery man in Mac's position? No — not today. Because there is an overwhelming legal and societal recognition of its immorality.

But you put me back 145 years, in a society without that consensus, where I am one of the people trying to move to that conclusion without a bloody civil war — I might have to give you an answer I'd rather not have to give.

And that's about where we are now. Most people do favor some restrictions on abortion, and that is a powerful factor, if we'd but use it. (I have no clue why pro-life pols don't flog that fact, to a man.) But the sad truth of the matter is that most people are not where you and I are on the issue.

So, how does a minority (you and me) see its goals reached, over against the majority?

To over-simplify, it seems that we have two large theoretical options. One is a violent civil war. I trust you, with me, reject that option.

The other route forces us to apply all the wisdom we can in persuasion and politics. And that's what this is about.

Again, thank you for understanding that I am not telling you the way I wish things were, or the way things should be. Just the way I think they are, and what we have to do about it.

Dan
Biblical Christianity web site
Biblical Christianity message board

[Cedar]

Maybe we should get John Kerry to be Defense Secretary...hmmm...he served time in Vietnam!

[ppaul]

GOP Leadership Needs to Hear from You on Sen. Specter

Are you concerned about the possibility of pro-abortion
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter assuming the chairmanship of the
all-important Senate Judiciary Committee? There's still
more you can do to help get a more qualified candidate
installed -- even if you've already contacted your own
senators about the matter.

The Senate's Republican leadership and the Republicans on
the Judiciary Committee -- who have the authority to
prevent Specter's promotion -- must be made aware of how
strongly pro-family Americans oppose his ascendancy.
That's why we're urging you to take a few minutes today
and/or Wednesday -- no matter what state you live in -- to
call and e-mail each of the key lawmakers below.

Please tell them that Sen. Specter's pro-abortion views
make him a poor choice to oversee the process of getting
President Bush's judicial nominees approved. And urge them
to oppose his ascendancy to the chairman's chair.

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-3344
Main District Office: (615) 352-9411
Fax: (202) 228-1264
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=540&type=CO&state=TN

Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-2541
Main District Office: (502) 582-6304
Fax: (202) 224-2499
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=262&type=CO&state=KY

Senate Republican Conference Chair Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-6324
Main District Office: (412) 562-0533
Fax: (202) 228-0604
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=498&type=CO&state=PA

Judiciary Committee Members

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
D.C. Office: (202) 224-5251
Main District Office: (801) 524-4380
Fax: (202) 224-6331
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=586&type=CO&state=UT

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
D.C. Office: (202) 224-3744
Main District Office: (515) 284-4890
Fax: (202) 224-6020
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=248&type=CO&state=IA

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-4521
Main District Office: (602) 840-1891
Fax: (202) 224-2207
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=203&type=CO&state=AZ

Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio
D.C. Office: (202) 224-2315
Main District Office: (614) 469-5186
Fax: (202) 224-6519
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=456&type=CO&state=OH

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-4124
Main District Office: (334) 244-7017
Fax: (202) 224-3149
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=269&type=CO&state=AL

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-5972
Main District Office: (864) 250-1417
Fax: (202) 224-3808
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=531&type=CO&state=SC

Sen. Larry Craig, R-Ind.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-2752
Main District Office: (208) 342-7985
Fax: (202) 228-1067

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.
D.C. Office: (202) 224-3521
Main District Office: (770) 763-9090
Fax: (202) 224-0103
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=197&type=CO&state=GA

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
D.C. Office: (202) 224-2934
Main District Office: (512) 469-6034
Fax: (202) 228-2856
E-mail form:
http://capwiz.com/fof/mail/?id=31770&type=CO&state=TX