Specter urges caution for Bush

[JoeChalupa]

Discourages nominating anti-abortion judges.

Specter urges caution for Bush

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (AP) -- The Republican expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee next year bluntly warned newly re-elected President Bush 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, 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, 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, Specter, 74, would have broad authority to reshape the nation's highest court. He would have wide la ude to schedule hearings, call for votes and make the process as easy or as hard as he wants. (Rehnquist absent as high court returns)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, expressed confidence Wednesday that Bush will have more success his second term in winning the confirmation of his judicial nominees. (Supreme Court vacancy could come sooner than expected)

~~~You see. Republicans and Democrats can think alike.

[Marcus Bryant]

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 Cons utional 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 repe ion of such filibusters. I expect to work well with President Bush in the judicial confirmation process in the years ahead."

[JoeChalupa]

Well don't I look like an idiot.
I'd Rather not.

[Drachen]

Interesting take on the situation MB

[Yonivore]

Well don't I look like an idiot.
I'd Rather not.

Bush pulled Spector's bacon out of the fire in his election...he owes him. And, I suspect this is some of that "political capital" the President earned yesterday.

Now, convince 5 Democrats to cross the aisle on appointments and it's a done deal.

[FromWayDowntown]

Now, convince 5 Democrats to cross the aisle on appointments and it's a done deal.

Good luck, if you appoint judges inclined to overturn Roe or to acquiesce in the de facto creation of a religious orthodoxy.

[Samurai Jane]

Good luck, if you appoint judges inclined to overturn Roe or to acquiesce in the de facto creation of a religious orthodoxy.

I believe Bush made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to appoint judges based on a "litmus test" of over turning Roe v. Wade.

.

[FromWayDowntown]

I believe Bush made it pretty clear that he wasn't going to appoint judges based on a "litmus test" of over turning Roe v. Wade.

I've heard that, but we'll see if Bush isn't emboldened by the results on election day. He's always maintained that he wants to appoint judges like Antonin Scalia and Scalia's lapchild, Clarence Thomas, both of whom are "conditional textualists" -- they both will read the Cons ution literally until it doesn't support their position. We need more smart judges like Scalia (though I fundamentally disagree with his political viewpoint, I will admit that he is easily the smartest judge that Court has seen in many, many years), but Bush is going to have a difficult time getting hard-core conservatives like Scalia (or judges like Robert Bork, to take a more extreme example) confirmed.

And, of course, if he appoints Al Gonzalez (widely rumored to be in the works), the entirety of the State Bar of Texas will giggle, knowing that most of its membership is smarter than at least one Supreme Court justice.