1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Specter warns against packing Court

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by HayesStreet, Nov 4, 2004.

  1. No Worries

    No Worries Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    29,840
    Likes Received:
    16,695
    http://www.specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=661&Month=11&Year=2004
    November 4th, 2004

    SPECTER COMMENTS ON THE JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION PROCESS

    Washington, D.C. - Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) made the following comments today on the judicial confirmation process.

    “Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

    “As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

    “I have already sponsored a protocol calling for a Judiciary Committee hearing within thirty days of a nomination, a vote out of Committee thirty days later, and floor action thirty days after that. I am committed to such prompt action by the Committee on all of President Bush’s nominees.

    “In light of the repeated filibusters by the Democrats in the last Senate session, I am concerned about a potential repetition of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead.”
     
  2. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    Specter folds under pressure.

    As the 2000 election showed, the SCOTUS is supremely political. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
     
  3. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    The point is that the Supreme Court should NOT be political. And that precisely is the point.
     
  4. Woofer

    Woofer Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    I think you and I are just destined to disagree. We had the same discussion about reporters. :)

    It would be nice if what you think *should* happen, happened. Every court has an agenda whether or not we want them to have one. Rehnquist has had his since his early days in politics and has used the SCOTUS to shape the law of the land to mirror his beliefs. Some of these appointees stand out more for their political beliefs and ties to the Republican party than their judicial minds, notably Scalia, and Thomas and to a lesser extent Rehnquist.

    *If* we accept this as a necessity, then we have to select justices not only based upon judicial temperament but political beliefs.
     
  5. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    I came of age in the 60s. I am rooted in idealism.:)

    I understand the reality and frailties of humanity and politics, but I still swim upstream toward what's right and good and just.
     
    #45 thumbs, Nov 5, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2004
  6. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    Did you just name only the so-called "conservative" judges as the ones who have political agendas?
     
  7. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    This is a widely held misconception. The Bush campaign actually were the ones who brought the issue to the court hence the name of the case was Bush v. Gore and not Gore v. Bush.
     
  8. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    Point well taken.

    I agree that there are certain overriding issues that go straight to the Constitution that should be settled on a federal level like civil rights. OTOH there are a broad range of moral issues that the Constitution doesn't directly address or is very vague about.

    Marriage is one of those issues because the Constitution doesn't address marriage at all. I would say there is a solid argument on the grounds of the 14th ammendment to say that gay unions should get equal treatment within there states but at the same time there is nothing to mandate that states have to recognize any marriages at all or just any marriages from outside their jurisdiction.
     
  9. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    I was talking about who took the case to the FL Court. Isn't that what happened? The Dems tried to force the recount and the Reps took it to the Supremes who stopped it.
     
  10. Dark Rhino

    Dark Rhino Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 1999
    Messages:
    592
    Likes Received:
    81
    http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2886694

    Nov. 5, 2004, 11:54PM
    Specter incites callers
    Conservatives don't want senator to be chairman of the judiciary panel
    By CARL HULSE
    New York Times

    WASHINGTON - Angry conservatives flooded Senate phone and fax lines on Friday demanding that Republicans prevent Sen. Arlen Specter from presiding over the Judiciary Committee after his comments predicting that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate.
    ADVERTISEMENT

    Republican lawmakers and top Senate aides, speaking privately for the most part, said the uproar from the right was becoming an impediment for Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who has coveted the chairmanship. They said while it was likely he would still get the post, it was no longer a certainty.

    "He is not out of the woods," said one Senate aide who is closely monitoring developments on the Judiciary Committee.

    Most of those Republicans said they initially believed that Specter's subsequent clarification — that he did not mean his remarks as a warning to Bush not to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who would be inclined to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision — would protect him. But they said continuing resistance to his taking the chairmanship of the committee that examines judicial nominees was being fanned by conservative talk-radio hosts and activist groups outraged over his comments in the immediate aftermath of resounding Republican wins on Tuesday night.

    Lawmakers and aides said Specter's comments have touched a nerve since Democratic resistance to Bush's judicial nominees was an important element of the Republican campaigns. In addition, the expanded Republican Senate majority is strongly anti-abortion.

    The outpouring illustrated how the party's conservative wing has been emboldened by the White House win and the strengthening of Republican majorities in Congress, potentially raising new hazards for moderate Republicans who might want to break from the president or House and Senate leadership on major issues.

    Some Republicans on Capitol Hill said the attempt to quickly exert that influence could work in Specter's favor since members of the Senate do not necessarily want their first action after an energizing election to be jettisoning Specter under pressure from outside groups
     
  11. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    56,793
    Likes Received:
    39,077
    I wouldn't be at all surprised if this was used to keep Specter out of the chairmanship. Frist, handpicked by the Administration, skipped past a truckload of Republican senators to become Majority Leader, and then didn't hesitate to campaign against Minority Leader Tom Daschle, which destroyed an ancient Senate tradition. This isn't the old Republican Party, and the Leadership, directed by the Administration, is totally ruthless.




    Keep D&D Civil!!
     
  12. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Mr. Daschle must be livid considering that Mr. Kerry did not come to his assistance early and often. True, South Dakota has no electoral clout, but a minority party cannot afford to lose its Senate Minority Leader.

    As far as Mr. Specter is concerned, I think his colleagues are engaged in slapping his hand rather than holding his feet to the fire. Even with an additional five new seats, the risk of fracture is too great for the Republican majority voting bloc.

    My continuing hope is that they will choose justices who concentrate on interpreting law justly and wisely rather than serving as a backup Congress. The question for us all is defining the "justly and wisely."
     
    #52 thumbs, Nov 7, 2004
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2004
  13. HayesStreet

    HayesStreet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 1999
    Messages:
    8,506
    Likes Received:
    181
    I understand. However my point is that when we've had these 'activist' judges on the left, we've had things like civil rights for blacks confirmed, which is good. When we've had 'constructionist' judges from the right we tend to 'lose' rights or at least lose protection (see Bowers for example). I'd prefer the former to the latter.

    I'm not a lawyer, but it would seem that if they ratify marraige at all, then under the 'equal protection' clause they would have to ratify marraiges for homosexuals.
     
  14. isoman2kx

    isoman2kx Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    0
    arr! I know what court-packing be!

    thanks U.S. History!
     
  15. Zac D

    Zac D Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2000
    Messages:
    2,733
    Likes Received:
    46
    Daschle's campaign, I believe, did what they could to separate him from Kerry, who as you know lost South Dakota by a large margin. His loss can be pinned only on him and on the unexpected vigor of the Republicans' campaign against him.
     
  16. thumbs

    thumbs Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Zac, I was personally delighted to see Mr. Daschle voted out of office. Now, if particular electorates, will replace extreme idealogues like Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi I will be ecstatic. Unfortunately, several notable candidates from the political extremes were elected so the Congress remains immoderate.

    No, my observation was no more than a clinical, non-partisan diagnosis as I see it. Mr. Daschle lost by only 8,000 or so votes. Had Mr. Kerry stumped the Native American population and shaken a few hands here and there, he may have helped his colleague. It could not have hurt because Mr. Daschle is well known for his ideology. Those who were going to vote for him did, and those who were going to vote against him also did.
     
  17. qwerty

    qwerty Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2001
    Messages:
    402
    Likes Received:
    18
    Damn that S.P.E.C.T.R.E.
    Always up to something.

    Oops, this is what happens when you go from a James Bond thread in the hangout straight to the D&D without preparing your mindset.
     
  18. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    From a Constitutional and legally conservative standpoint the Democrats were correct to press the issue in FL courts since this the disposition of electors and the rules under which elections are conducted are issues left up to the states. The Republicans by pushing it into Federal courts violated their own beliefs in states rights while the USSC ruling was not inline with historical bent towards states' rights by the Rehnquest court.
     
  19. Sishir Chang

    Sishir Chang Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2000
    Messages:
    11,064
    Likes Received:
    8
    This is a real danger to the Republicans now that they have consolodated their grip on power.

    If social conservatives decide to purge or minimize the moderates in their party I'm sure the Democrats will welcome them like they did Jeffords.
     
  20. giddyup

    giddyup Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    20,464
    Likes Received:
    488
    Well, hadn't the state already decided... when the Dem lawyers tried to push the case into Florida courts? I think the Republicans were trying to prevent a misuse of justice not meddle in states' rights.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now