Gunco Forums banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Specter elected chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee


[size=-1]By STEVE GOLDSTEIN[/size]

[size=-1]Philadelphia Inquirer[/size]

WASHINGTON - Following a drawn-out political melodrama triggered by his own intemperate remarks, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., was elected chairman Tuesday of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.

The vote was 10-0 among fellow Republicans on the panel.

"I'm pleased," Specter said after the hour-long meeting in the offices of departing chairman Orrin G. Hatch, R-Utah. "I've been on the committee for 24 years, and it's a real opportunity to deal with some very important issues which affect the American people."

The vote marked the conclusion of a long ordeal for Specter, 74, who ignited the ire of conservatives with postelection remarks suggesting that Supreme Court nominees would not be confirmed if they sought to roll back the 1973 ruling that granted abortion rights.

Faced with a relentless campaign of phone calls and faxes from conservative activists, GOP Judiciary Committee members withheld endorsing Specter until he promised in writing that he would support all of President Bush's judicial picks.

Specter also agreed to back other goals on the GOP agenda, including tort reform.

Tuesday, the GOP committee members were all smiles, joking that the secret ballot was no longer much of a secret. Specter, too, was relaxed and jovial, though he wore a bandage on the bridge of his nose as a result of the removal of a precancerous skin lesion.

"You should see the other guy," Specter said.

In addition to voting on all nominations to the federal bench, including Supreme Court justices, the Judiciary Committee deals with issues of legal reform and legislation relating to law enforcement. It also has oversight of the Justice Department and the FBI.

Specter said much of Tuesday's meeting was spent discussing proposed legislation on legal claims relating to asbestos exposure.

"We have a tremendous number of issues which we're going to be facing ... and I'm prepared," the former Philadelphia prosecutor said.

With the committee's backing, Specter now must receive the blessing of the 55 members of the Republican Conference, who are to meet Wednesday. In theory, they could reject the committee's choice, but that is unlikely.

Specter is expected to preside Thursday over his first Judiciary hearing, addressing the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales to be U.S. attorney general.

Earlier in the day, as the 109th Congress convened, Specter was one of 34 senators elected Nov. 2 to be sworn in by Vice President Cheney. Specter, who begins his fifth term, will shortly become Pennsylvania's longest-serving senator.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,351 Posts
AARRRRGH!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
DorGunR said:
The vote marked the conclusion of a long ordeal for Specter, 74, who ignited the ire of conservatives with postelection remarks suggesting that Supreme Court nominees would not be confirmed if they sought to roll back the 1973 ruling that granted abortion rights...
Myself, I think he was but speaking the truth, saying aloud a political reality.

But I have to concede that he would have gotten flack from the left had he spoken the political reality that an atheist Black woman also wouldn't get confirmed.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
I did not want to hear that!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Preacher said:
I did not want to hear that!!!!!
I should think that's not a problem if Bush doesn't nominate an anti to be a Federal court judge.

Perhaps a bigger "if" than folks realize, though.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
I should think that's not a problem if Bush doesn't nominate an anti to be a Federal court judge.

Perhaps a bigger "if" than folks realize, though.
Then you think that only pro-baby killers should be appointed?
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
From The Liberal Lexicon:


Abortion: Post-conception contraception. That divine Democratic sacrament by which Liberal women can secretly expunge their bodies of the inconvenient results of their own licentious promiscuity. By sweeping their love affairs and irresponsible drunken rutting under the rug, Abortion elevates women into the ranks of the gods, deciding who will live and who will die. It shows the world that women have a greater claim on the lives of their children than do the children themselves, that the Unborn are mere property, like slaves (or furniture). In the Liberal world, Women are the smartest, wisest, most caring creatures in the cosmos, so when they turn on their own offspring and kill them, it must be a brilliant, compassionate decision, not to be questioned in any way. Those Conservatives who arrogantly maintain that Liberal women are shameless tramps (who view sex as mere recreation instead of procreation) and sleazy whores who, once maddened by their fear of pregnancy, labor and delivery become cowardly killers, destroying the most defenseless, vulnerable creature they can, the innocent child in their womb (the blameless child who can't even run away from the murderous grasp of its own mother), those Conservatives (most likely Christians) are the real extremists. They're bastards from Hell who just want to punish Democratic Women for having fun. They don't understand that it's a good, holy thing when Democrats kill the unborn. C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
717 Posts
Yep, they can kill the innocent unborn....but God forbid we kill a raping child murderer by lethal injection
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Pogo said:
Then you think that only pro-baby killers should be appointed?
Please refer back to my original comment - I think he was but speaking the truth, that a pro-life appointee is unlikely to be confirmed. As a lesbian Black atheist is unlikely to be confirmed.

As regards my own sentiments... No, I would not cast a vote to confirm the appointment of a judge who thought government power should be extended to make decisions that should instead be made by the citizen and his or her physician - regardless of whether or not the decision imposed by the government was one that I myself agreed with. That opinion extends to matters beyond abortion.
 

·
DADDY WARBUCKS
Joined
·
19,433 Posts
Now, the judges in Roe made a scientific decision, did they not, to support their legal decision?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Sorta. They had a good legal premise, at least by my standards: That there's an unenumerated right to privacy in the Bill of Rights and that the government should butt out of the decision. Where they screwed up is then going on to try to drawing a line - I think at the end of the first trimester - on where that right ends based upon the scientific evidence they had at the time the decision was made.

I think the government should just butt out.

Anyway, I would not be inclined to cast a vote for judicial appointment of a person who believed in increased governmental power over the citizenry - that's the general rule I'd go by were I involved in the confirmation process.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Sorta. They had a good legal premise, at least by my standards: That there's an unenumerated right to privacy in the Bill of Rights and that the government should butt out of the decision. Where they screwed up is then going on to try to drawing a line - I think at the end of the first trimester - on where that right ends based upon the scientific evidence they had at the time the decision was made.

I think the government should just butt out.

Anyway, I would not be inclined to cast a vote for judicial appointment of a person who believed in increased governmental power over the citizenry - that's the general rule I'd go by were I involved in the confirmation process.
OK, that's what I was wondering. You gave me a lot of words that simply said you don't think someone with a pro-life view should be allowed to be appointed as a justice. But, it's OK if a pro-baby killer is appointed.

Guess we'll just have to disagree on this one (as usual). :biggrin:
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Dzerzhinsky said:
Anyway, I would not be inclined to cast a vote for judicial appointment of a person who believed in increased governmental power over the citizenry - that's the general rule I'd go by were I involved in the confirmation process.
What about those that are being denied the most basic right there is? The right to life!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
I was on a flight to L.A. when the captain announced that he was aborting the flight and returning to the airport.

I found myself wondering who among us is wise enough to know when flight really begins.
 

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Then by that logic, the airline company has the right to tell the pilot to crash the plane.
 

·
Mystic Knight of the Sea
Joined
·
13,384 Posts
Preacher said:
Then by that logic, the airline company has the right to tell the pilot to crash the plane.
:biggrin: :rofl: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,233 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Preacher said:
Then by that logic, the airline company has the right to tell the pilot to crash the plane.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,690 Posts
Hey, let's show a little respect for the sanctity of flight!
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top