Posted on 11/27/2006 4:17:49 PM PST by bd476
[JURIST] US Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) [official website; JURIST news archive], outgoing chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee [official website], has indicated that President Bush may have to nominate moderate judges to any future vacancies on the US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] following midterm elections that ceded control of Congress to the Democrats. Monday's Philadelphia Inquirer also quoted Specter as speculating that the Democrats, who formally take control in January, may restrict or even halt judicial confirmations until the 2008 presidential elections.
In related comments, Specter expressed hope that the lame-duck Congress will push through legislation [JURIST report] authorizing domestic surveillance [JURIST news archive] of suspected terrorists. Last week, Bush urged lawmakers [transcript] to pass the Terrorist Surveillance Act, which he called an "important priority in the war on terror."
The House version of the bill, which was passed in September [JURIST report], would allow warrantless surveillance for fixed periods following an "armed attack" or a "terrorist attack," or if the president perceives an "imminent threat of attack," with indefinite extensions pending congressional and court oversight.
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) [official website; JURIST news archive], who is expected to take over as Judiciary Committee chairman, has said that any legislation passed authorizing domestic surveillance of terrorists must contain "adequate checks and balances."
The object at this point may not be to nominate anyone if a liberal judge quits or dies, it just means one less obstructionist justice.
With=Without.
Have you heard about the liberal Democrat Michigan Court of Appeals Judge who was nominated (by President Bush) to the Federal Court Western District?
Newly elected Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow (Michigan) accepted campaign funds from the Judge's liberal Democrat Labor Attorney husband.
Senator Stabenow is now threatening to continue the logjam in the judicial nomination process if her friend, the liberal Democrat Judge is not appointed to the Federal Court.
Senator Sam Brownback, (R Kansas) became concerned when it was revealed that the liberal Judge nominee presided over/attended a gay wedding in 2002. Thus far, Senator Brownback appears to be the only Senator who is trying to block the liberal Judge's appointment to the higher Court.
Senator Specter wants the liberal Judge approved, now.
(Democrat) Senator hits back on judges (Liberal Democrat Judge Nomination)
That's a great idea, Nick.
No I hadn't heard of this. Thanks for the enlightenment.
I stand corrected, appreciative and humble.
You're welcome F.J. However it wasn't my intention to correct you as much as to pass along the information I found today, including the $1,750 in campaign contributions Judge Neff's husband gave to Senator Debbie Stabenow's campaign.
(By the way, the literal translation is actually "vomit", not "spit".)
One openly liberal Democrat Michigan Appeals Court Judge, has been nominated and is waiting for appointment to the Western District Federal Court. Senator Specter wants Judge Janet T. Neff approved immediately.
One Republican Senator, Sam Brownback (Kansas) wants the nomination blocked. Some do not approve of Senator Brownback's reason to block the nomination - the Judge presided over/attended a gay wedding in 2002.
The most outspoken supporter of the Judge's appointment to the Federal Bench is Senator Debbie Stabenow (Democrat Michigan). Stabenow accepted $1,750 in Senate campaign contributions from the Judge's Labor Attorney husband and is now threatening to continue the logjam in the judicial nomination process if the Judge's appointment doesn't go through.
(Democrat) Senator hits back on judges (Liberal Democrat Judge Nomination)
Well, the cat looks happy....
I guess Specter wants judges sometimes to interpret the law and sometimes to write the law. With that attitude, we could just tell the members of Congress to go home because they are redundant.
Well, when the decision to let Specter be chairman was being debated, I argued strongly against it, warning that when Bush became a lame duck Specter would probably break loose and do what he wanted.
Other Freepers argued that Bush had a hammerlock on Specter, but I wasn't so sure.
Now we've reached that point. We'll see. If Specter makes liberal noises and Bush approves, then it's Bush's fault. If Specter goes off in his own direction and refuses to take any direction from Bush, then it's Specter's fault.
But it must be admitted it would also be Bush's fault, since he's the one who put Specter in this position. Yet I'm willing to wait and see what happens, nonetheless. It's what politicians do in the crunch that counts. I don't care what Specter says, as long as he remains a team player and does the right thing.
You are right...and I voted for this president twice...But now I realize he doesn't have the stomach for a real fight...he has lost the congress, and he will now try to accomodate the Demoncrats...
I am a life-long conservative who cannot stand the thought that even though the majority believes in conservative principles, we put hacks in office who just don't get it...and Specter is among the worst...
But BUSH knew what he was, and STILL supported his getting the chairmanship of that committee...
HOW MUCH MORE NAIVE (HATE TO SAY STUPID) BEHAVIOR CAN BUSH PERFORM???
I agree. That is a very contented cat.
'Moderate' judge is a code word for 'Pro-abortion' judge.
Why are you baiting Dane?
He made a valid point.
Bush has ignored Specters 'advise' and continued to put up conservative judges.
Lets see how 'pro-life' those Democrats who were elected as pro-life, really are.
I think if it goes unsigned for so many days, it automatically becomes Law. Blackbird.
Not if it's vetoed.
Specter is paroting the words of his left wing staffers.
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.