Comments on: The Specter Standard For Supreme Court Nomination Hearings

By: M Gomez

M Gomez — Mon, 29 May 2006 20:09:14 +0000

ARLEN SPECTER IS A TRAITOR
Arlen Specter is not to be trusted and goes to the side that is most beneficial to him. He is an unprincipled traitor to this country and wants to hand over our immigration and border policies to Mexico. The entire senate is made up of traitorous scum, and we need to wrest control from these fat cats by voting in strong 3rd party candidates who actually represent us. That’s the way to make real change.

By: exposed thongs

exposed thongs — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 04:54:36 +0000

exposed thongs

You can also check out some helpful info about naked young girls tiny teen ebony girls

By: Think Progress »

Think Progress » — Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:07:09 +0000

[...] [...]

By: John Fisher

John Fisher — Sat, 16 Jul 2005 20:48:22 +0000

Specter owes his life blood to his constituents in Pennsylvania. Many of these constituents, Democrat & Republican, have supported him for decades. I believe you will find that he is not a conservative as you would like to believe. Nor do I believe Specter will compromise the standing he has with his constituency & the nation as a whole!!!=:)

“Jack”=:)

By: PA_Conservative

PA_Conservative — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 16:05:02 +0000

Specter will stick by the republican party – he owes his lifeblood (literally) to them.

Plus if there is any hint of ideological shananighans by Specter, you can bet you ass, his head will be on a platter quicker than you can say Chief Justice Carl Rove

By: CardCarryingMember

CardCarryingMember — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 20:37:01 +0000

The Constitutionally Politicized Confirmation Pro

Remember these points next time someone tries to tell you that all that matters is whether a nominee is resume-”qualified”.

By: The Specter Standard for Supreme Court nomination hearings - Broke Kid

The Specter Standard for Supreme Court nomination hearings - Broke Kid — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:43:18 +0000

[...] (via ThinkProgress.org)Here’s what Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote in his 2000 book, Passion for Truth: [T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views. [...]

By: Spitting Llamas » Blog Archive » The “Specter” of Truth

Spitting Llamas » Blog Archive » The “Specter” of Truth — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 14:45:42 +0000

[...] In his 2000 book, ironically titled Passion for Truth, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, wrote that: “[T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s expressed views.” Of course, this book came from the same person who created the Magic Bullet Theory regarding the assassination of JFK, called Anita Hill a “flat-out” perjurer, and failed to truly investigate the Iran Contra affair. [...]

By: LGM

LGM — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:15:10 +0000

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think trying to figure out some orignal intent will help us here.

To a man, every one of the founders would laugh at our notions of “original intent”.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson

There is good reason to suggest that, to a man, they would invoke the same extreme measures with respect to this self-styled boy King they did with his more mature, regal and equally mad namesake some 229 years.

By: LGM

LGM — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 22:04:02 +0000

It’s “Arlen Spector” not “Specter”. Although everyone makes this mistake.

By: Susan

Susan — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 21:51:44 +0000

I wouldn’t hire an applicant for a job without interviewing the applicant first.
What the right is saying, “just hire whomever, don’t worry if they are qualified for the job”.

Thats the exact attitude and lack of responsibility that has destroyed America.

Hey wingers, I would like the job of the Presidency, Here’s my application now start paying me and send a limo to take me to the White House.
Wow, that was easy. I’m President no questions aked.
Thanks righty tighties, your so easy.

By: TurtleCat

TurtleCat — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 15:11:17 +0000

The idea of the congress screening Justices has gone through a lot of changes. I don’t think trying to figure out some orignal intent will help us here. Maybe we should ask what would be relevant in this case. And let’s try to ask this out side the shortsighted partisan questions of current events. Asking about judicial philosophy seems more apt. Though judical philosophies have themselves, become, or maybe always have been partisan. What liberal, myself being one, will have to accept is that Bush gets to appoint someone. That someone will be more conservative than O’Connar, and that is the way democracy works. The fight should center on not getting someone like Gonzalez in there. Have a right of center canidate should be exceptable. We’ll have our turn.

By: ramecon

ramecon — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 13:27:37 +0000

Yesterday I couldn’t spell “rhetorician” but today I are one.

By: Cameron

Cameron — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:55:07 +0000

Snide hatefullness? Oh please Skid you moonbats and your over heated rehtoric, it is what causes sane folk to throw up their hands and go running in the other direction you know. Specter’s betrayel of Bork has not been forgoten Skid, elephants have long memories you know.

By: accurate but fake

accurate but fake — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 04:44:48 +0000

Think Progress needs better right wing trolls. These clowns are illiterate. I heard Toby Petzold is available, having been fired from his previous position.

By: Skid

Skid — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:39:17 +0000

C’mon fake, you just want to be a dick. We’ll see how this unfolds in time. Get off the high horse without the usual “but the Dems and the liberals were mean to me first, Mom” crap.

By: tigrismus

tigrismus — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:33:28 +0000

Biden said the information gained during confirmation hearings is essential, so it’s not hypocritical for him to want it to continue holding confirmation hearings-he hasn’t changed his tune, the cases aren’t parallel. The rest is strawman and ad hominem, so I’ll pass.

By: fake but accurate

fake but accurate — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:25:10 +0000

Specter, Hatch, whatever, at least you guys are reading books by conservatives. Amazon thanks you I’m sure : )

By: fake but accurate

fake but accurate — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:13:57 +0000

tigrismus, Biden was saying the process is relatively new, and nominees have refused to appear and still been confirmed, and this is true. So it would not be unprecedented for a nominee to bypass this spectacle all together. As to Bidens opinions on the how essential the process is, I, unlike the liberals on this board who now have taken Sen. Hatch’s words to be the gospel, really don’t care about Biden or Hatch’s opinion. The President gets to appoint justices, and historically if there was a problem with an appointee, it involved past wrongdoing of some kind, not questions of philosophy. This all boils down to one thing, liberals are afraid of the constitution, you know that any literal reading of the constitution would overturn many of your judicial bypasses used to push through your warped philosophies that are rejected by the voters and not enshrined in the constitution. I attempted to contrast nothing, I suggest you read that post again.
I was however poking a sharp stick at those who bring up Hatch’s writings on the subject, who now will get to watch both Biden and Hatch show themselves to be hypocrites. Who wants to bet they only comment on Hatch? I’m a Republican out of necessity, because they are fighting my enemies, and I disagree with them about fewer issues, not out of blind obedience. If the Democrats would grow a pair I might vote for them again one day, but they also would have to flush out the vermin in their camp, and at this point, that would leave an almost empty camp.

By: tigrismus

tigrismus — Sun, 03 Jul 2005 23:30:22 +0000

So Fake, what’s the contrast you’re drawing between “senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidateÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s expressed views” and “the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging … [such] questions on judicial methods and philosophy … are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog”? Are you saying his background information on the process was actually a call to do away with what he called “essential”?