Patterico's Pontifications

2/8/2005

Specter Expresses Doubts About Nuclear Option

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:31 am



The Washington Times has the details here. A transcript of their interview with Specter is here.

Let’s hope this is just rhetoric designed to put pressure on Democrats. But I am not encouraged, especially by this snippet from the interview:

Q. You really don’t want to have to do the “nuclear option” (a rules change to limit filibusters of judicial nominees)?
A. Reid has been very explicit. His language is he’s going to screw things up. And he can. You don’t have to be a leader of 44 Democrats to screw things up. Only one senator can throw the monkey wrench in. I think it’s very much in the interest of the president and the Senate if we can try to work through it.
Q. If that doesn’t work, would you support the nuclear option?
A. I’m not going to jump off that bridge until I come to it and I hope I dont’ come to it.
Q. Do you have the votes for it?
A. You’d have to check with somebody at a higher paygrade.

Someone needs to tell Arlen that there are those ready to push him off that bridge, and install someone with a higher pay grade, who actually knows whether he can do the most important job facing the Judiciary Committee.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: what a buffoon.

15 Responses to “Specter Expresses Doubts About Nuclear Option”

  1. I just don’t know why we can’t go back to the system that was in place when the GOP was the minority.

    actus (ebc508)

  2. The best thing for the Republicans is to let the Dems filibuster. Some of the words flying around now may be an attempt to ease the Dems into doing that – removing any shame in doing that.

    For middle of the road independent types, the obstruction of an up/down VOTE on the judges is just not defensible. I say let the filibuster go on for 3 weeks to grab up a bunch of mainstream voters.

    The holy grail is to see Senator Boxer emitting her whispy airheadspeak on TV shows, describing how obstruction is just, compassionate, and the will of all decent people like her and her pets.

    Ladainian (91b3b2)

  3. It is Bush’s responsibility to reign in Specter, because it was Bush (and Santorum) who got him elected. However, I’m not holding my breath until he does something. Frist is due for a knuckle rap, because he had the chance to remove Specter, but refused. Essentially, the GOP is getting what it deserves for not having the guts to do what it should have done before the election.

    Bachbone (de6b7a)

  4. Oh, come now. You’re all reading too much into this (including you, Patterico!

    Specter didn’t say anything. I mean, really nothing… we don’t know from this snippet whether he will or will not support the constitional option when (if?) Frist hauls Cheney in to attempt it.

    At this point, I think Specter is simply leaving his options open so he can be “persuaded” by a sufficient bribe from Frist.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd (df2f54)

  5. Senator Specter has proven at times to be a good soldier. Remember the tough confirmation fight over Judge Thomas in which Senator Spector kneecapped Anita Hill. Don’t count this man out before the fight.

    john (6fdeb3)

  6. John, I agree that he’s a good soldier. The problem is that he doesn’t always fight for the right army. See, e.g. Bork, Robert.

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  7. True. However we can’t know which side he will pick until he takes action. Don’t yell foul until you’ve been hit. Senator Specter is in fact lethal in any case and there is no way to shut him up, so why not make the best possible case with him in mind instead of being so foolish as to ensure his antagonism? All of us have egos and politicians have enormous egos so let him feel that he has an honored and respected place as the fighter for the Republican point of view. This is not a man who is afraid to mix it up and will do so.

    john (6fdeb3)

  8. if in fact Senator Specter turns to the dark side there will be plenty of time for proper revenge–I prefer draw and quartering but others may prefer crucifiction or possibly flaying him alive. Those with an especially cruel and mean turn of mind might require Specter to spend the remaining years of his life listening to HIllary”s speeches and comforting disappointed Democratic losing candidates Kerry and Gore, assuring each of them that they are much smarter than Bush and that each really won their election.

    john (6fdeb3)

  9. I had a bad feeling when they let Toomey go in favor of Specter. He’s got a short memory and needs to be prodded weekly to remember what side he’s on. I’d suggest a cattle prod, but, that’s just me

    Frank G (78c097)

  10. Count me as one lifelong Republican who is completely against this “nuclear option”.

    I will never agree to attempt to completely shut out, or shut up, those who disagree with me, no matter how distasteful I might find their views.

    This is America, fellows; let’s make sure our politicians don’t forget this and decide they don’t need us anymore.

    de Breeze (867fdc)

  11. (Remember: It could be us on the other side of this before too long. Treat others as you would have them treat you.)

    de Breeze (867fdc)

  12. de Breeze— I couldn’t agree more. I think the real cure from a conservative point of view is not who is selected to fill the Supreme Court but a check on the Supreme Court’s decisions. Why not allow the President to veto any Supreme or Appelate Court decision and then aloow the House and Senate to overturn that veto by majority vote? Conservatives should be in favor of creating more checks and balances, not on stream lining the decision makeing process. To remove the filibuster is inherently an anti-conservative move that allows the majority to override the minority virtually anytime. Let us as conservatives make it more difficult for a tyranical and undemocratic body like the Supreme Court to create new laws and rights with input by the voters or their representatives.

    john (6fdeb3)

  13. Sorry–That last line should read “Let us as conservatives make it more difficult for a tyranical and undemocratic body like the Supreme Court to create new laws and rights WITHOUT input by the voters or their representatives

    john (6fdeb3)

  14. John, I like your thinking, but you know this is the conundrum of democracy. It wouldn’t work if it were a system based purely on transmitting public opinion into legislation quickly and efficiently. That’s why the judiciary was set up to begin with, as a filter against laws, however enacted, that conflict with the Constitution or existing laws. Today’s court may tilt in one direction, tomorrow another’s; that’s the nature of human politics.

    I don’t know what the “solution” to this is. At some point someone or some body is going to make decisions that a lot of American’s don’t like, but that just need to be accepted for what they are. The main redress we have against laws/decisions/policies we don’t agree with is to make our opposition known, loudly if possible. Therefore, allowing this to happen freely and without impediment is perhaps the real bedrock upon which a healthy Democracy is built.

    Which is why I’m happy to allow Democrats to have their say, and to use any and all means by which to do so. The free marketplace of ideas should be allowed to decide which opinion holds the day.

    This isn’t fighting for or against one side or the other; it’s fighting for universal principles that sometimes are in danger of getting trampled underfoot in moments of exuberance.

    de Breeze (867fdc)

  15. Specter Expresses Doubts About Nuclear Option
    … Specter Expresses Doubts About Nuclear Option Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:31 am The Washington Times has the

    PajamaHadin (0fcb48)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0909 secs.