|
Republican Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Warns Bush On SCOTUS Appntments
|
View this Thread in Original format
| occrider |
Bush Is Warned About Anti-Abortion Judges
Thu Nov 4,10:16 AM ET
By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer
PHILADELPHIA - The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee (news - web sites) next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush (news - web sites) on Wednesday against putting forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.
Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record), fresh from winning a fifth term in Pennsylvania, also said the current Supreme Court now lacks legal "giants" on the bench.
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade (news - web sites), I think that is unlikely," Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion.
"The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster," Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. "... And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
With at least three Supreme Court justices rumored to be eyeing retirement, including ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites), Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court. He would have wide latitude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., expressed confidence Wednesday that Bush will have more success his second term in winning the confirmation of his judicial nominees.
"I'm very confident that now we've gone from 51 seats to 55 seats, we will be able to overturn this what has become customary filibuster of judicial nominees," Frist said in Orlando, Fla.
Legal scholar Dennis Hutchinson said Specter's message to the White House appears to be "a way of asserting his authority" as he prepares to chair the Judiciary Committee when Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, is term-limited from keeping the post next year.
"What he may be trying to do is say, 'Don't just think that I'm going to process what you send through. I have standards, I'm going to take an independent look, you have to deal with me,'" said Hutchinson, a law professor at the University of Chicago.
When asked Wednesday about Specter's impending chairmanship, another Republican on the panel, Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, did not offer a ringing endorsement.
"We'll have to see where he stands," said Cornyn, a close friend of Bush who worked to get all of the president's nominees through the Senate. "I'm hoping that he will stand behind the president's nominees. I'm intending to sit down and discuss with him how things are going to work. We want to know what he's going do and how things are going to work."
While Specter is a loyal Republican — Bush endorsed him in a tight Pennsylvania GOP primary — he routinely crosses party lines to pass legislation and counts a Democrat, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record) of Delaware, as one of his closest friends.
A self-proclaimed moderate, he helped kill President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and of Jeff Sessions to a federal judgeship. Specter called both nominees too extreme on civil rights issues. Sessions later became a Republican senator from Alabama and now sits on the Judiciary Committee with Specter.
Despite a bruising challenge from conservatives this year in Pennsylvania's GOP primary, Specter won re-election Tuesday by an 11-point margin by appealing to moderate Republicans and ticket-splitting Democrats, even as Pennsylvania chose Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) over Bush.
A former district attorney, Specter also bemoaned what he called the lack of any current justices comparable to legal heavyweights like Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo and Thurgood Marshall, "who were giants of the Supreme Court."
"With all due respect to the (current) U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites), we don't have one," he said.
Though he refused to describe the political leanings of the high court, Specter said he "would characterize myself as moderate; I'm in the political swim. I would look for justices who would interpret the Constitution, as Cardozo has said, reflecting the values of the people."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...r_supreme_court |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| I would be every skeptical of these remarks allegedly made by specter. i read and heard that that the senator denied making these remarks. this leads me to beleive that the neo-cons may be planting these 'remarks' as a way to scuttle his forthcoming chairmanship, or to weaken him politically when the bush adminstration nominates judicial candidates. in time, we'll see. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
Here is the press release from the senator's office. Progressives should support the senator because he is more moderate and independent than the current wave of repubs sweeping the country.
Press Release Link
| quote: | 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.” |
CNN Excerpt
| quote: | Specter: Advice on high court not a warning
After cautioning President Bush a day earlier that he should be "mindful" of picking judicial candidates with a "broad range of acceptability," moderate Republican Sen. Arlen Specter issued a statement Thursday saying his comments were not meant as a warning.
"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," Specter said in a statement released on his Senate Web site.
"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 (William) Rehnquist, Justice (Sandra Day) O'Connor, and Justice (Anthony) Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice (Clarence) Thomas."
Specter, who won his fifth term from Pennsylvania in this week's election, is next in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, but he cautioned that his succeeding Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah is not certain until the committee meets and votes in January. Hatch is barred from another term as chairman because of term limits.
Specter said he supports prompt Judiciary Committee action on all nominees.
He also told reporters he doesn't believe Bush would make issues like abortion into tests for Supreme Court nominees.
"We start off with the basic fact that the Democrats have filibustered and you can expect them to filibuster if the nominees are not within the broad range of acceptability," Specter said. "And I think there is a very broad range of presidential discretion. But there is a range."
Overturning Roe v. Wade 'unlikely'
Noting that Bush said during the third campaign debate that he would "not impose a litmus test" for Supreme Court nominees, Specter said he "would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations I've mentioned."
He added that he thought the chance of overturning Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, was "unlikely."
Specter, 74, also said he hopes the Senate has more input on Bush's judicial decisions more than it has in the past.
"The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent," he said. "The advise part is traditionally not paid attention to, I wouldn't say ignored, but close to that. It's my hope that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views."
Specter said he has "some ideas" on potential nominees but declined to share them with reporters.
"If and when the president asks me that question, I'll have some specific information for him," he said.
He did say he would like to see more distinguished, even legendary, jurists on the high court.
"I'm saying we don't have anybody of the status of Oliver Wendell Holmes or Louis Brandeis or a (Benjamin) Cardozo or (Thurgood) Marshall," he said. "That we have a court which they're graduates from Courts of Appeals from the District of Columbia, basically, some other Circuit Courts of Appeals, and I think we could use a Holmes or a Brandeis." |
|
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
The fight among the neo-cons and the moderate repubs has started. My suggestion in an earlier post that neocons would use alleged remarks by the senior senator from Penn as an excuse to scuttle his chairmanship is bearing true. (See the article below.)
Republicans, look at what is happening to your party. Its becoming overwhelmed by evangelical idealogs. Is this the party of Lincoln, Bush Sr., Ronald Reagan, etc.? This battle will, in the end, may turn off socially moderate repubs and move them to the dems (if the dems adopt more fiscally conservative policies) or independents like the Jim Jeffords. Social moderates in ur party are fast becoming endangered species. Is this the best for your country? For your party? I gaurantee that this rightward shift, in the end, will hurt your party.
Maybe things for progs aren't so bad afterall. There are good things to come.
NYT Link
| quote: | November 6, 2004
THE COURTS
Abortion Remark by G.O.P. Senator Puts Heat on Peers
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, Nov. 5 - Angry conservatives flooded Senate phone and fax lines on Friday demanding that Republicans prevent Senator Arlen Specter from presiding over the Judiciary Committee after he remarked that strongly anti-abortion judicial nominees might be rejected in the Senate.
Republican lawmakers and top Senate aides, speaking privately for the most part, said the uproar from the right was becoming an impediment for Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania lawmaker 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, echoing a sentiment expressed by Republican senators and other party officials.
Most of those Republicans said they initially believed that Mr. Specter's subsequent clarification would protect him. Mr. Specter said he did not mean his remarks as a warning to Mr. Bush not to nominate to the Supreme Court a judge who would be inclined to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion.
But the Republican officials said that continuing resistance to his taking the chairmanship of the committee that examines judicial nominees was being fanned by conservative talk radio hosts and groups outraged over his comments.
Lawmakers and aides said Mr. Specter's comments have touched a nerve because Democratic resistance to Mr. Bush's judicial nominees was a key element of Republican election campaigns and a likely factor in the defeat of Senator Tom Daschle, the Democratic leader, in South Dakota. 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 victory 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 Mr. Specter's favor. They said that after an energizing election, senators would not necessarily want their first action to be jettisoning Mr. Specter under pressure from outside groups. "We need to show some discipline and not overreact,'' one said.
The initial comments by Mr. Specter on Wednesday, at a news conference, that it would be unlikely for staunch opponents of abortion to be confirmed for the Supreme Court, came after Mr. Bush campaigned hard for Mr. Specter, a backer of abortion rights, to win a primary challenge against a conservative lawmaker and opponent of abortion.
But in subsequent interviews, he said that his remark at the news conference merely stated an obvious political fact: that just as Democrats had filibustered judicial nominees before, they could expected to do so again, and that Mr. Bush was aware of this.
"I did not warn the president about anything and was very respectful of his constitutional authority," he said in a written statement on Thursday, adding that he would apply no "litmus test" on abortion.
In interviews, Mr. Specter said he did not believe his chairmanship was in jeopardy. "I voted for every one of President Bush's nominees in the committee and on the floor, every last one of them,'' said Mr. Specter. He has been contacting his colleagues in an effort to calm the situation.
Mr. Specter's status as potential chairman was the subject of discussion on Thursday during a telephone conference call among Senate Republican leaders, who expressed concern about his remarks. Republicans will return to the Capitol the week after next to begin reorganizing for the coming session and could address the matter then.
The chairmanship is subject to a vote by the members of the committee and then ratified by all Senate Republicans, who almost always follow seniority in deciding committee leadership. The current chairman, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, is reaching his six-year term limit. Mr. Specter is next in line, followed by Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona.
Given their new 55-to-45 majority, Republicans also want to increase their numerical advantage on the Judiciary Committee, giving them more leverage to move judicial nominees. With that power, some Republicans said it would be counterproductive to then have a chairman who might balk at some of the president's choices.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and a member of the panel, said he anticipated "healthy discussion'' about Mr. Specter's comments.
"The original comments attributed to Senator Specter were very unnerving,'' said Mr. Graham, who also said Republicans should not endorse a "litmus test'' that they would not accept from Democrats. "His statement clarifying his position is reassuring, and I hope we will work our way through this.''
But the conservative groups were not mollified. The Concerned Women of America planned a news conference critical of Mr. Specter on Saturday in Pennsylvania, and Michael Schwartz, the group's vice president for government relations, said his organization would continue to press the case against the lawmaker.
"It is clear to me that with this statement and his past record of performance, Senator Specter has disqualified himself from any right to be considered as chairman of the Judiciary Committee,'' Mr. Schwartz said.
A message distributed electronically by the Family Research Council urged its supporters to call Senate leaders and committee members to lobby against Mr. Specter. "He has a history of pandering to the aggressive abortion lobby, and a Specter chairmanship would be disastrous,'' the group said.
Senate offices said the response was intense. "We are getting slammed,'' said Mike Brumas, a spokesman for Senator Jeff Sessions, Republican of Alabama and a panel member. "Some of them are saying things like they voted for values on Tuesday and this is a slap in the face.''
An aide to Senator John Cornyn of Texas, another Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said the office was getting several calls a minute, a volume equal to the calls during consideration of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
Democrats say they fear that the Bush administration intends to use its second term to nominate judges interested in striking down abortion laws. They view the fight surrounding Mr. Specter as a strong indication that their concerns are warranted.
"I think Senator Specter is right and the fact that there was a negative reaction to his remarks is not a good omen,'' said Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. |
|
|
|
|
|
