This is why I voted against that clown first in the GOP Senate primary and then in the main election.
God forbid there's one moderate Republican. For every voter like you he lost, he picked more Democrats.
If this, the scariest aspect of Bush's 2nd term, can be lessened in any way...damned if I won't be estatic.
Specter may have lost in the primaries without Bush's support. Bush doesn't care what Specter says now. Neither do most liberals. Neither do many conservatives.
Out of the tinfoil hat department... On Air America yesterday one fo the guests was talking about Senate rules, and how they're infrequently changed because the Senate itself is treated as one continuous body rather than a series of related sessions. There's no law on the books for this; it's simply tradition. He speculated that the reeps will, this time, treat the senate as an entirely new body and change some of the rules - one of which would be the requirement for 60 votes confirming a SC justice. I'm obviously not a Senate scholar, so I can't tell whether or not this would be possible. Does anyone have a better understanding of the process here?
The 60 votes is necessary to end debate and bring any issue to a vote. You still only need 50 votes to confirm. But because of the debate cutoff rule, you can filibuster anything as long as the other side has less than 60. As committee chair too, Specter has an ability to schedule hearings on nominations or sit on them. He would never sit on a Supreme Court nominee for his own president though.
Prolly not, but this may be a warning shot for the other vacancies. and I like the fact that he's looking for quality as Clarence Thomas is unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Technically, yes, it's possible for the Senate to eliminate filibustering by a majority vote. It's just a rule, there's no Constitutionally-protected right to filibuster. It's not even a law that requires dual-house approval and Bush's signature. Practically, it's not likely. Senators from both sides deep down like the filibuster rule because they fear not having it if/when they are the minority, and it would take a massive GOP will to power movement to eliminate it. I would expect several of the longer-tenured GOP Senators to oppose overhauling the rules, people like Lugar and McCain. But who knows; if Frist strong-arms everyone it's possible.
I think they are more, or at least just as many, Southern Democratic Senators who better tread lightly about sounding too 'abortion rights'. (I'm looking at you Mary Landrieu).
I'm not too worried who Bush nominates to replace Rehnquist. I mean, come on, it's pretty tough to top Rehnquist. Just like I wouldn't be too worried about the nominee if either Scalia or Thomas got hit by a bus tomorrow. It's the moderates and liberals on the court that I'm worried about.
A similar rule exists in the Texas Senate, requiring a two-thirds majority to bring any bill to vote, a rule which was suspended by the Lt. Governor (who is the president of the Senate) to hammer Tom Delay's redistricting plan through. However, as I understand it, the difference is that in the US Senate, the Senate would actually have to vote to suspend that rule, as opposed to Dick Cheney's being able to suspend it by fiat.
Souter and Breyer are fine. Ginsburg is a cancer survivor, and we should be able to get a couple more years out of her. At least until the Dem Congressional Takeover of '06. Stevens... well, let's just say that someone from NARAL has pledged to prop him up on the bench at every session and move his arms occasionally even if he's dead. And he still won't ask fewer questions than Thomas.
Forget it. Look for Spector to get shuffled to Armed Srvices and somebody intelligent to get Judiciary. Bush isn't going to let that little weasel call the shots. Arlen will bitch like hell, but nobdy will care.
You're correct; the rules are changed only through a vote. It would only take a majority but there are more than five GOPers who would be aghast at the idea: McCain, Hagel, Lugar, Collins, Snowe, Specter, and Chafee, off the top of my head. There are still a couple of reasonable Republican thinkers in the Senate.
I don't what role he had as they tend to change over time, but going into his 5th term, he has had at least 24 years as a Senator and would be interesting if anyone knows if he had anything to say about Long Dong Silver when he had the chance.
This is good news as Specter will get the chair of the Judiciary Committee and the Administration will need him on their side. He wouldn't sit on a Supreme Court nomination, but he could cause them trouble on lesser nominations.
It all depends how he uses the chairmanship. I'd like to think that he would use the position to get the Administration to nominate less "controversial" candidates, since that'll make for fairly speedy work for him and the committee.
I think Bill Archer is right (a brief intermission to allow the poster to shower). The wolves from that commercial were re-directed at Spector from the moment he opened his mouth. I do not think you will see him as chairman of the Judiciary Committee.