Thursday, January 5, 2012

Thank You Rick Santorum: If It Wasn't for Your Support of Specter We (most likely) Wouldn't Have Either Alito or Roberts on Supreme Court


Senator Arlen Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Rick Santorum was in the senate.  Being the sneaky opportunistic little devil that Specter was he pretty much blackmailed Santorum, saying if you support my reelection bid I will support whichever Supreme Court nominees that Pres. Bush picks.  The fact that Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee meant that he had a lot of power over who was going to make it out of the committee.  So, yes, Santorum supported Specter over Toomey.  Santorum knew that his decision to do so would be a greater benefit in the long run to both conservatism and the pro-life movement. Now, we have Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two conservative strict constructionists that will be on the Supreme Court for a very long time which will benefit us for years to come.  What if Santorum had said no to Specter and there were two moderate wishy-washy types sitting on the bench today where would that leave us with Obamacare and other important controversial issues brought before the Supreme Court?  So, I send a big thank you to Rick Santorum for supporting the greater good.  Pennsylvania conservatives should be thanking Santorum for this, not chastising him and railing against him because of what you perceive as a mistake, a blemish on his conservative, pro-life credentials.  His conservative, pro-life credentials are very much in tact.  He supported Specter in exchange for two pro-life justices who are now sitting on the Supreme Court.  He made a good deal.  Santorum made the best decision he could have at that time.  He turned a lemon into lemonade IMO because now we have two lifetime appointed, pro-life, strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court.

12 comments:

John Galt said...

Congratulations, Teresa. You were right all along on Rick Santorum.

Silverfiddle said...

Excellent point. For reasons like this I caution people about focusing in too much on one act or one aspect of a politician's actions or career.

It has to be taken in totality and put in context. Santorum is too statist for my tastes, but I think he is a good an honorable man, as politicians go.

bunkerville said...

Excellent points. And he explained the earmarks he had made superbly..It was what was done at the time, and it seemed better for the Congress to appropriate monies than Czars. Unfortunatley it leads to waste and abuse.

Joe Potillor said...

What many people don't understand, the means to an end are sometimes ugly. Santorum did the right thing then.

Just a conservative girl said...

Sorry, I can't buy this. I read a book on the court not too long ago. In it, there is a quote from Specter about not holding votes for Alito because he wanted to wait until the next president was in office, to make things "fair". Specter was always a snake. That should never be supported.

He may have had the power to slow down the lower level justices, but the country wouldn't have allowed him to hold over an appointment to the high court. They always would have made it out of committee.

Teresa said...

JACG,

"He may have had the power to slow down the lower level justices, but the country wouldn't have allowed him to hold over an appointment to the high court. They always would have made it out of committee."

What exactly would the country have done if had held up the appointments? Face it, the Congress has way more power than the American people do over longer periods of time. The only time we have a say that counts in a meaningful way is when we vote. He was the head of the Judiciary Committee and had great power over who would make it out of committee or not. You haven't shown that not to be the case. Specter was a snake but in this case he actually honored his deal with Santorum. So the evidence indicates that I am correct in this case. And, you believe that quote from Specter even though he you have admitted he is a snake? That may be his claim now, using revisionist history, but I don't buy his claim that was mentioned in that book.

FGA said...

You make the mistake of assuming that Toomey would have lost and that no one else could have shepherded Alito and Roberts through the nominating process. Neither you, nor I can know what the outcome of the election would have been if Toomey had been given a chance, so it is either naive or disingenuous to attribute the elevation of these two jurists to Santorum’s decision to buckle to the GOP establishment. Rick Santorum is a good man who made a prudential decision. It is a decision which I and many others still feel was wrong.

Teresa said...

FGA,

You make the mistake of disregarding the fact that Specter was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Even if Toomey had won, which would have been a feat to say the least since he only won by a very slim margin in 2010 when public support was on his side versus in 2004 when public support of the GOP was dwindling that wouldn't have guaranteed that Toomey would have had any clout over the nomination process like Specter did. He may not have even had a say at all. Even if Toomey had won the Senate seat there is no guarantee that either he or a Republican would have chaired the Judiciary Committee. You are discounting the fact that Specter was a senior member of the Senate and had much political sway as well as he was crucial in helping to pass the Bush tax cuts.

Aged parent said...

Teresa:

With all due respect you need to temper your enthusiasm over Mr Santorum with a little more calm judgment. Those who are pointing out to you that his support for Specter was wrong and wrong-headed are correct. Mr Santorum's explanations as to why he did that are not convincing and, contrary to what you have stated, Toomey was almost assuredly going to win, and would have won had not the Republican establishment got into high gear to torpedo him.

The best and most complete (and fairest) telling of this sad tale can be found on the Culture Wars website. It is a wakeup call that we need to read and reflect on.

The Republican establishment is hell-bent on more unjust wars (as are the equally disgusting Democrats) and in Specter they had a candidate who could be relied on to support these horrible policies. Toomey, an authentic pro-life Catholic, was someone they were not sure of on that point, and Mr Santorum went along with that. This, by the way, is the same Republican establishment who, along with the Democrats, just passed a bill (signed by the monster-in-chief on new year's eve) that eliminates the Fifth Amendment and now allows for Indefinite Detention of Americans, without trial or evidence, if they are "suspected" of aiding terrorists. With that bill the USA now joins Cuba, Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as countries that can throw anyone they want into a gulag. You might reflect on that point for a moment. Most so-called "conservative" Republicans voted for this horror. So much for the Republicans and their Democrat co-conspirators.

Mr Santorum is a good man who has made, and is still making, very bad judgments (particularly on foreign policy matters). And we pro-life Catholics have got to stop looking through our rose-colored glasses at any candidate who talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk. How many times do we have to be stabbed in the back by so-called "pro-life" politicians who, once in office, simply go along with the flow. How many examples do you want?

As for Mr Santorum, while I praise his pro-life words I would feel much more comfortable with his candidacy if he would apply his Catholicism to his war views, which are anything but Catholic.

FGA said...

Theresa,

Thank you for allowing me to join the discussion and for your reply. Having just found your blog and posted for the first time I should apolgise for my manners in not starting out thus. The opportunity to engage in spirited political discussion is always a great joy - so again - Thanks!

Now on to the politics!

I disregard the fact because it was meaningless. Let’s look at the numbers:

Prior to the 2004 elections the republicans held 51 senate seats; after the elections they were up by 4 to 55.

Justice Roberts was with 95 votes - there is no question that with or without Specter, Roberts would have been confirmed.

Alito won confirmation with 58 votes. Even if we lost the four Democrat votes (making the dubious assumption that they voted thus only due to Specters presence – he could not even convince his fellow Republican Lib Lincoln Chafee) and even if we assume that Toomey would have lost the election – that still leaves the vote for confirmation at 53 to 47.

Unless you are suggesting that Senator Frist and the Republican leadership had less clout than a fading liberal, there is no doubt that the end result – an Alito victory – was still assured.

All of the candidates in the Republican field have their negatives, including my own, so I close by once again acknowledging my respect for Senator Santorum – and for all of his supporters. Though I believe he erred in the “Toomey incident” He is a solid candidate and would make a fine President.

Teresa said...

FGA,

Welcome to Teresamerica. Discussion is always welcome here.
You make some good points but I still believe that Santorum made the correct call under the circumstances that he was dealt.

They may have had enough votes once they made it out of committee but my purpose is more to point out that there is evidence which, especially with Specter's political chicanery, suggests that Alito and/or Roberts names may not have made it out of the Judiciary Committee if Santorum hadn't supported Specter's reelection.

Teresa said...

Aged Parent,

With all due respect you need to temper your disdain for Santorum and stop distorting or making false accusations about his Catholicism. He adheres to and employs those Catholic beliefs which are obligatory just fine - he follows the Magisterium. With regards to war, you can disagree with his positions but to classify them as being in opposition to the Catholic faith is a lie. Policies that have to do with war are matters of prudential judgement but the Church has condemned abortion as an intrinsic evil. There is a huge difference between matters to do with war and abortion which is always a grave moral evil.

For you to assume that Santorum is apart of the Republican establishment is absurd and proves that you live in some distorted reality.