Group petitioning for Specter to not chair committee

[Gravity]

Well, it looks like Specters comments might have best reserved for after his appointment/selection to chair the judicial committee. Groups have been calling for him to not be selected to chair the committee.

Here's one example:



here

The link includes a petition.

Your comments?

 

[Moonbeam]

He's a secular heathenist and has to go.

 

[lordtyranus]

Specter is practically a democrat.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Specter is practically a democrat.

That's a load of crap. What he is, is, a traditional Republican who happens to be pro-choice.

The groups petitioning to have him shot down to chair the Judiciary Committee are obviously doing so because they want someone who WILL use a litmus test and approve only pro-life judicial nominees.

Sen Specter has approved every pro-life candidate sent for confirmation by the White House - it's not as though he's a bleeding heart.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Interesting discussion,

Don Vito, do you think the Supreme Court's history of honoring stare decisi somewhat protects the Roe VS Ward decision?

(I think I have it right)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Interesting discussion,

Don Vito, do you think the Supreme Court's history of honoring stare decisi somewhat protects the Roe VS Ward decision?

(I think I have it right)

Not even slightly. The Court is quite capable of pulling an about-face, and a lot of Constitutional scholars feel Roe v. Wade is on rather uncertain ground Constitutionally in the first place.

Scalia is definitely the primary textualist on the Court, and would like nothing more than to wipe all the Substantive Due Process cases, of which Roe v. Wade is one, in favor of what he sees as a more rigid textual application of the Constitution.

The more interesting question would be how a party would achieve standing to raise the whole issue before the Court in the first place (the Court does not issue advisory opinions - there has to be a case in controversy, with a plaintiff who is wronged in some way).

It seems to me it would require some jurisdiction to impose a law in violation of Roe v. Wade, and have someone challenge it all the way up to the USSC. It seems quite clear that President Bush would prefer pro-life justices, which was why Sen Specter fired his warning shot across the bow in the first place.

If a couple of justices retire in President Bush's second term (Rehnquist appears to be on his last legs, but obviously is quite conservative and dissented in Roe v. Wade, so replacing him will be a wash in that regard), I could very easily imagine the case being overturned eventually.

At that point, I imagine it would be left up to the individual states to decide whether to legislate on this issue. There's no way a Constitutional amendment making abortion illegal would ever pass, and IMO there's only a rather tenuous basis for federal legislation on this (the federal government can only pass laws that relate in some way to interstate commerce, or other distinctively federal issues).

 

[Pliablemoose]

Damn it, now I need Devil's Advocate to interpret this for me...

Not really, and thanks for the opinion

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Interesting discussion,

Don Vito, do you think the Supreme Court's history of honoring stare decisi somewhat protects the Roe VS Ward decision?

(I think I have it right)

Not even slightly. The Court is quite capable of pulling an about-face, and a lot of Constitutional scholars feel Roe v. Wade is on rather uncertain ground Constitutionally in the first place.

Scalia is definitely the primary textualist on the Court, and would like nothing more than to wipe all the Substantive Due Process cases, of which Roe v. Wade is one, in favor of what he sees as a more rigid textual application of the Constitution.

The more interesting question would be how a party would achieve standing to raise the whole issue before the Court in the first place (the Court does not issue advisory opinions - there has to be a case in controversy, with a plaintiff who is wronged in some way).

It seems to me it would require some jurisdiction to impose a law in violation of Roe v. Wade, and have someone challenge it all the way up to the USSC. It seems quite clear that President Bush would prefer pro-life justices, which was why Sen Specter fired his warning shot across the bow in the first place.

If a couple of justices retire in President Bush's second term (Rehnquist appears to be on his last legs, but obviously is quite conservative and dissented in Roe v. Wade, so replacing him will be a wash in that regard), I could very easily imagine the case being overturned eventually.

At that point, I imagine it would be left up to the individual states to decide whether to legislate on this issue. There's no way a Constitutional amendment making abortion illegal would ever pass, and IMO there's only a rather tenuous basis for federal legislation on this (the federal government can only pass laws that relate in some way to interstate commerce, or other distinctively federal issues).

Thanks for the info and the honest assessment Don Vito :thumbsup:

 

[Tarpon6]

Specter has backed off of his earlier comments about having a litmus test for judges in a BIG way. He will not out of hand hold a judges view on abortion against them. Specter is not my favorite Senator but these groups need to back off.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Tarpon6
Specter has backed off of his earlier comments about having a litmus test for judges in a BIG way. He will not out of hand hold a judges view on abortion against them. Specter is not my favorite Senator but these groups need to back off.

You wish. The Evangelical Nut Jobs have been emboldened by this election and the reports they were the reason the Dub won. They definitely expect preferential treatment for this Administration now! you reap what you sow!

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

If the religious right does not get what they want from this president in this term, do you think it's possiblet that the right may longer be able to count on them voting in droves? I mean, they all came out and voted because they perceived they could make huge changes in our country ,and if it all turns out to be for nothing I dont see them voting like this again.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
If the religious right does not get what they want from this president in this term, do you think it's possiblet that the right may longer be able to count on them voting in droves? I mean, they all came out and voted because they perceived they could make huge changes in our country ,and if it all turns out to be for nothing I dont see them voting like this again.

I think that depends on the candidates who are fielded. They have certainly demonstrated that, when properly motivated, they are a very powerful voting bloc, but I don't know that we'll soon see another presidential candidate who is a born-again Christian, and who is so willing to speak publically in favor of a conservative Christian agenda. We shall see . . .