The election and its aftermath
There is a certain irony here. In April 2004, Senator Arlen Specter was in he fight of his life, being challenged by a conservative Pro-Life congressman Patrick Toomey. Toomey was surging as the primary election day grew closer. Arlen Specter then went to the White House, asked for and received support from the President and from the junior senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum. The argument by the White House and Santorum was that the Republicans needed to hold on to the Senate and that Specter would help them win Pennsylvania.
Specter barely squeaked by in the Pennsylvania primary defeating Toomey by 17,200 votes. Given the closeness of the race, his re-election did not endear the President or Santorum to the countless pro-lifers who had worked so hard for Toomey. Many believed that had the president or Santorum remained silent, Toomey would have won. This author was one of those who extremely displeased with the actions of the White House. Both Santorum and the White House were told that caving on the pro-life issue would not help the cause either in the short or the long run. My comments were dismissed as coming from someone without any real credentials. They are right except that I am part of the grass roots. I do rub shoulders and work with the people who carry the petitions and make the phone calls. These folks do not like being conned or misled or told that they have to “trust” the “higher ups.” They want reasons and there were no morally good reasons to support Arlen Specter. Indeed, if there are possible reasons why Pennsylvania did not go for the president, this may be one of them. How many just did not vote on Tuesday because they were upset. Specter did not help the President during the campaign. He only looked out for himself.
Now less than two after the general election, he sends a shot across the bow and tells the press that the president better not send him any conservative pro-life judges. Then just after it is reported, he retreats and claims he never said that.
Well, let’s look at the record. Arlen Specter is pro abortion. He believes in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood and the pro-abortion extremists support him. He was responsible for the defeat of Judge Bork. He prevented this fine jurist from being appointed to the Supreme Court. From that defeat, the left took strength in their ability to ‘bork’ candidates. We can thank Arlen Specter for empowering the enemies of unborn children and giving the nation even more division and acrimony during the last ten years.
Even now Specter is siding with the Democrats. Compare his statement with that of Terry McAuliffe, Chairman, DNC.
“I don’t think a 51-49 election is any mandate…they need to be very careful that they now need to govern from the middle in a bipartisan way.” - Terry McAuliffe, chairman, DNC, November 3, 2004.
“President Bush’s margin of victory proves that we “have a narrowly divided country, and that’s not a traditional mandate…the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center.” - Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.
Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004 stated
“President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation’s future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate.”
Referring to a email sent to me through our related contacts, I quote the following points which all appear to be excellent reasons why Specter should NOT be the chairman
Specter denied the legitimacy of President Bush’s historic mandate.
Specter announced a pro-abortion litmus test for the president’s judicial nominees. Specter claims that Roe v. Wade is “inviolate” and insists that “nobody can be confirmed today who does not agree with it.”
Specter’s illegal litmus test would disqualify all constitutionalist nominees from serving on the Supreme Court of the United States and the lower federal courts.
Specter’s illegal litmus test demands that all nominees violate the canons of judicial ethics by announcing or pledging how they will vote in a particular case.
Specter will not promise to support the President’s nominees. Instead, he merely “hopes” that he can support them. The day after the election, when a reporter asked Specter if he would support the president’s nominees, the senator hesitated and equivocated: “I am hopeful that I’ll be able to do that. That obviously depends upon the president’s judicial nominees. I’m hopeful that I can support them.”
Specter criticized President Bush’s first-term judicial nominees: “The nominees whom I supported in committee, I had reservations on.”
Specter insulted Janice Rogers Brown, president Bush’s nominee to the important U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. Specter referred to Brown, a distinguished conservative and the first African American woman to serve on the California Supreme Court, as “the woman judge out of California” who he had reservations about.
Specter insulted the entire Supreme Court of the United States, including Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas. When a reporter asked Specter “Are you saying that there is not greatness” on the Supreme Court, Specter replied: “Yes. Can you take yes for an answer?”
Specter’s comments reveal that, like Sen. Kerry and Sen. Daschle, Specter favors judges who follow politics and popular opinion, not the Constitution and the rule of law.
Specter accused President Bush of ignoring the Senate’s advise and consent role: “The Constitution has a clause called advise and consent, the advise part is traditionally not paid a whole lot of attention to, I wouldn’t say quite ignored, but close to that.”
Specter wants to encroach upon the president’s appointment power. Obstructionist Democrats filibustered ten of President Bush’s appeals court nominees. Now Specter wants the Senate to become MORE involved in judicial appointments: “My hope is that the Senate will be more involved in expressing our views.”
SPECTER’S RECORD OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS DEMONSTRATES A PATTERN OF VERY TROUBLING CONDUCT ON JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ISSUES
Specter fought against the distinguished Judge Robert H. Bork, betraying President Reagan and his fellow Republicans.
Specter voted against Judge Bork on the judiciary committee, and against Bork’s confirmation on the Senate floor. By joining liberal Democratic senators and radical left-wing groups in their opposition to Judge Bork, Specter gave those groups aid and comfort, and was instrumental in Judge Bork’s defeat.
If Specter remained faithful to his president and his party, Judge Bork would almost certainly have been confirmed to the Supreme Court. Specter’s opposition doomed him.
Judge Bork warned Americans that Specter does not understand the Constitution and that Specter, along with Senate Democrats “professed horror at the thought that a judge must limit his rulings to the principles in the actual Constitution.”
President Ronald Reagan called the left-wing assault against Judge Bork “an unprecedented political attack” on a Supreme Court nominee and “a tragedy for our country.” Specter rebuffed President Reagan’s plea to support Judge Bork.
Specter helped defeat the nomination of conservative Jeff Sessions for a federal judgeship.
Specter warned filibustered appeals court nominee William Pryor that just because he voted for him on the committee did not mean that he would vote on the Senate floor for his confirmation.
The “National Review” exposed Specter as “The Worst Republican Senator” in a prominent September 1, 2003 cover story. According to “National Review,” Specter “is not a team player…is an abortion rights absolutist, a dogged advocate of racial preferences, a bitter foe of tax reform, a firm friend of the International Criminal Court.”
Specter refuses to support the elevation of Justice Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice: “I’d have to think about that,” Specter equivocated. Ditto for Justice Antonin Scalia: “I’d have to think about that too.” Specter once slandered Justice Thomas as a “disappointment.”
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE MUST BE SOMEONE DEVOTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AS WRITTEN AND THE RULE OF LAW
The situation is urgent. Chief Justice Rehnquist is gravely ill. A Supreme Court vacancy is imminent.
President Bush may be called upon to nominate a Supreme Court justice within the next several weeks.
Court watchers predict as many as three Supreme Court vacancies during President Bush’s second term.
President Bush will likely have a historic, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to return the Supreme Court to constitutionalist principles.
The President needs as chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee a loyal, reliable, conservative partner who will shepherd his nominees through the confirmation process.
Under intense political pressure, Specter tried to recant portions of his post-election statements the day after he uttered them. That means nothing. His 20-year record of party disloyalty and tormenting conservative nominees means everything.
As chairman, Specter will act as a vexatious intermeddler, second-guessing President Bush’s Supreme Court and lower court nominations. This imperils the President’s legacy.
As chairman, Specter will have control over the committee’s staff, agenda, and schedule, giving him great power to obstruct the confirmation of conservative judges.
Under the Senate’s seniority rules, Specter is slated to take over the Judiciary Committee, but under Senate rules and procedures, he can be stopped from becoming committee chairman.
The window of opportunity to stop Specter is limited. Once he becomes chairman, it will be impossible to unseat him.
Act now to stop Specter. There are a number of websites set up to assist you including Arizona Right to life at www.azrtl.org, www.stopspector.savethegop.com, www.notspecter.com.
You can also check out the National Right to life committee website at www.nrlc.org
George Bush was re-elected to uphold the moral values that protect the lives of all human beings. He was re-elected so that we could move toward ending abortion in this nation. An abortion kills an unborn child. No court decision can legitimize the killing of a child. It is never morally permissible to intentionally kill an innocent person. Now more than ever we need to act.