Fight the REAL enemy

[Anna]

[quote]And besides, it only takes 51 votes to approve a justice to the supreme court, or any other court. The 60 comes from the fact that it takes 60 votes to end debate, therefore, someone opposing a judge can fillibuster the nomination.[/quote] Perhaps I should've said that we need 60 votes for a fillibuster-proof confirmation.

[Anna]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 8 2004, 03:44 PM'] read in the news today that Sen. Specter has come out and said that he will apply no litmus test in regards to the pro-life judges, nor will he block them based on that...
according to CBS:

[i]However, on Thursday Specter refuted these remarks, saying, "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..." Specter added.[/i]

However, the concern appears to remain that he cannot be trusted with this responsibility based on his past... [/quote]
[url="http://www.specter.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=661&Month=11&Year=2004"]Specter's website:[/url]
[color=green][b]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.” [/b][/color]

Please note that the reporter who broke the story of Specter's "warning" to President Bush, Lara Jakes Jordan, is herself a liberal political activist/reporter and is married to Jim Jordan, the former executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and manager of Sen. John Kerry's presidential bid. [url="http://209.157.64.200/focus/keyword?k=larajakesjordan"]She ambushed pro-life Senator Rick Santorum[/url] in an interview in April, 2003, which some media colleagues have called "a hatchet job."

Yet, everyone is taking Jordan's word for it, quoting her Associated Press article, and not even asking the guy who was being quoted, who states, in writing, to the American people on his own website, that his remarks are being misconstrued.

While Specter has no admirable pro-life record, he has sided with the pro-lifers more often than Lara Jakes Jordan! Why would she publish an article to assist pro-lifers now?

Edited November 8, 2004 by Anna

[Anna]

But on a brighter note!!!

As I understand it, (if I'm correct) with a 51% majority, the Republicans in the Senate could vote in January to change the rules on fillibustering, and bust the Democrat's tactic they use to block the nominees' confirmations.

Now, if they did that....

That would another whole different scenario...

Edited November 8, 2004 by Anna

[Pio Nono]

Anna, overall I agree with your assessment of the 100 Senators. I'd make these changes though.

Ken Salazar D-CO-maybe (he campaigned as a conservative democrat and received the backing of many Hispanics, many of whom are pro-life)
Joe Lieberman D-CT-maybe (he used to be pro-life before running for VP in 2000)
Thomas Carper D-DE-maybe (he actually is pretty moderate)
Bill Nelson-D-FL-probably (he supported such nominations as Miguel Estrada, William Pryor, Chip Pickering, and Debra Cook, I see no reason why he won't continue to do so)
Johnny Isackson-R-GA-defintie yes
Evan Bayh-D-IN-maybe (he's considering running for President in 2008 and will not want to have a record as someone who is a divider, he also has a reputation as a moderate)
Mary Landrieu-D-LA-probably no (Louisianna is trending more and more conservative and there are a boat load of Catholics there, she may be forced to take a more conservative position on some of these things)
Harry Reid-D-NV-maybe


The thing to remember here is that many senators do not vote for judiciary nominees based on partisan politics. Many vote based on qualifications. They may personally disagree with a nominee on key issues, but they may still vote to confirm that man/woman because he/she is qualified for the position. Take Bill Nelson of Florida for example. Sen. Nelson had many disagreements with the judges I spoke of above. However, he supported them because he feels the judiciary should not be politicized and he felt those judges were well qualified for the positions for which they were nominated. Estrada, for example, graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Law School after not knowing a word of English at the age of 14. He clerked on the Supreme Court and argued many cases before the court. He clearly is an extraordinary legal mind. Therefore, Nelson supported him.

[JP2Iloveyou]

sorry, that last post was from me. I didn't log Pio Nono out of this computer. Sorry bro.

[Anna]

Thanks for those insights, Pio Nono.
As I said, I didn't create that list~ goodness, I wouldnt' know where to begin to do that!
So, the count looks even better for the pro-lifers, then?
Great!

So, how do you feel about the urgent petitions and requests to deny Specter the Chairmanship?

I'm looking to do the most wise, prudent thing that will help us overturn Roe.

Some say Specter must go; I say Roe must go. I dont' want to win a battle but lose the war.

[Anna]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Nov 8 2004, 04:58 PM'] sorry, that last post was from me. I didn't log Pio Nono out of this computer. Sorry bro. [/quote]
oops!
That's ok!
The person who made the list in the first place also suggested some possible changes.
Here is what he said:
[color=green]I once had him (Specter) as Mixed because of some of his votes, but in reality he is more pro-abortion than "Mixed".
I once had Senator Biden and Senator Landrieu as "Mixed" and changed them too.
Senator Pryor of AR thinks he is pro-life, but he is "Mixed" at best.
Senators Dorgan and Conrad of ND should be moved to "pro-abortion" because they are pro-abortion. However, because of the state they live in, they have to ACT like they are "Mixed".

This is not an exact science.

Senator Murkowski of Alaska is not sure what she is because her state is very Republican. [/color]

[JP2Iloveyou]

yeah, Alaska is weird. I get the impression they are more libertarian than anything up there. I think Murkowski will support the President. The Wild Card in all of this though is Don Nickles. As many of you may know, Nickles retired this year from the Senate. He was the majority whip and he was very good at making sure everyone was on board with the team. Whoever becomes whip next will need to do as good a job as Nickles did. My prediction is Santorum becomes whip and if Specter owes anyone in the Senate is it Santorum.

[Good Friday]

The Priests for Life issued a statement. It isn't on their website yet, but I got it via e-mail from their mailing list and posted it on my blog. You can view it [url="http://nnelson.blogspot.com/2004/11/more-on-specter.html"]here[/url]. They're backing the effort to keep Specter from chairmanship of the committee, and they included the National Right to Life action alert in their e-mail.

When National Right to Life is opposing Specter, and when the Priests for Life are opposing Specter, when he has said that Roe v. Wade is "inviolate" and when he has held 90% ratings from NARAL and 0% ratings from National Right to Life, it seems to me that some people with good intentions are on the wrong side of this and need to reconsider. And that's the last thing I have to say about this.

[Anna]

Thanks, Nathan, I appreciate that, because he hasn't answered my personal email yet, and I'd checked his website previously and found no mention of it.

Just got finished listening to Sean Hannity Live, who interviewed Arlen Specter, followed by an interview with Robert Bork. It, too, was quite informative. I think you can listen to it archived by tomorrow.

[Oik]

Anna, I want to correct your assessment of Senator John McCain, Arizona senator.

He is not 100% pro-life, He just spoke at my college here is Az a couple of days before the election. He said, and I quote, "I am pro-life. I don't believe in abortion,
[b]except[/b] in cases of rape and incest."

I still voted for him because the guy that ran against him was 100% pro-abortion!

Sen. McCain is an asset to the cause in the long run. He also voted against the FMA because he said "...i believe it should be left up to the states to decide and I am confident that in this state (Arizona) it would pass (legislation to ban gay marriage, that is)."

So, Sen. McCain is:
Against gay marriage, to be decided at the state level
For supporting Bush in Iraq
Against abortion, except in cases of rape and incest

Still, an asset to the cause. Oh, and Sen. Kyl is 100% pro-life! So Arizona is in really good hands!

[popestpiusx]

McCain shifts around almost as bad as Kerry. It just depends on who he is talking to. ONe day he is pro-life and against gay marriage, the next he won't be nailed down on any issue. Plus he co-sponsored that horrendous campaign finance bill with that communist Russ Feingold.

[Anna]

Firstly, it was not "my" assessment. I said that before I posted it, and again afterward.

Secondly, no one here ever said McCain was "100%" pro-life. These are generalizations of how the senators generally vote, and speculated projects of how we might expect them to vote on a judicial confirmation vote.

Thirdly, the issue isn't McCain. McCain can be expected to back the President's nomiees to the Supreme Court. I don't believe he has indicated otherwise.

The issue is Specter.

That said, I have an announcement to make:

*hops up on soap box*

Thank you to Nathan for providing me with the information of Father Pavone's approval of the course of action to be taken regarding the impending Chairmanship of Senator Arlen Spector on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In addition to reflecting upon Fr. Pavone's recommendations, plus listening to the highly-qualified political analysis of Laura Ingraham, and hearing Arlen Specter speak on the Sean Hannity program last night, together with a great amount of research, inquiry, and soul searching, I've emailed Senator Frist opposing Specter's Chairmanship.

My two senators are both Democrat pro-aborts, so there is no sense in contacting them. I will most likely contact the other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee as well, because once I am onboard with something, I generally give it my all.

However: There is still one urgent piece of the puzzle that only a few have mentioned. We must petition the Republican Senators to [u][b]reform the fillibuster rules[/b][/u]! They can do this in January, when the new Congress begins. They can change the rules from requiring [i]60 votes for a fillibuster-proof confirmation[/i], to a [u]simple majority 51 votes[/u]! Then, whichever way Specter decides to go, he can't hurt a thing.

So, please, don't drop the ball and think you've done all you need to do.

If you've contacted the Senate requesting Specter not be made Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, (and even if you haven't!) please contact the Republican Senators and request that they make fillibuster reform a reality in the next Congress. They need to make this the first item on their agenda. (imho)

Thank you all for your patient persistence, and May God Bless America.

SAVE THE BABIES!!!

*steps off soapbox*

yeah.....

Pax <><

[Guest Aluigi]

[quote]Dear Friend:

Thank you for contacting me regarding judicial nominations in the
newly-elected session of Congress.  It is an honor to serve in the United
States Senate.

The Constitution's "advice and consent" clause clearly gives the Senate the
prerogative to accept or reject any of the President's judicial
nominations.  Unfortunately, a minority of Senators have been using Senate
rules to stop the confirmation of many of these nominees and thwart the
will of the majority.  Their unwise and dangerous efforts are unprecedented
and must not be allowed to succeed.  That is why I have taken several steps
to address this attack on our Constitution and judicial system.  On June 5,
2003, I proposed a narrow change to Senate rules that would prohibit long
term filibustering of judicial nominees.  On November 12 - 14, 2003, I held
the Senate in session for almost forty straight hours — the longest
continuous debate in over 10 years — to force the minority to defend their
actions.

I believe that the American voters sent a very clear and stunning message
in the November 2, 2004, elections.  That is why, as I begin work as
Majority Leader in the 109th Congress, I will continue to work to ensure
that President Bush's judicial nominees receive fair treatment.  I am sure
the President will continue to nominate judges who believe in protecting
the rule of law, and I am confident that the Senate will be able to confirm
these judges in the 109th Congress.  Activist judges who make law instead
of interpreting law undermine the rule of law.  It is imperative that the
Judiciary Committee approve the President’s judicial nominees and send them
to the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote.

Rest assured, I will continue to fight for fair treatment of the
President's judicial nominations.  Anything less is unfair to the nominees,
the President, the integrity of the judicial system and the American
people.

Sincerely,
William H. Frist, M.D.
Majority Leader
United States Senate[/quote]

[Good Friday]

I was going to post the same thing; Al, you beat me to it.

And Anna, good for you!!!