- Daily Photo: Obama Jokes Around at G-20
- Blackwater gets replaced in Iraq
- Daily Photo: U.S. Marines Look Out for Taliban in Afghanistan
- Hillary Clinton the Tomboy and Her "Ah-Ha" Moment
- Obama Administration Sudan Envoy Headed to Region
- Daily Photo: Potential Flashpoint in Iraq
- Clinton Says New Afghanistan-Pakistan Plan Depends on Diplomacy
- Exclusive: Three Israeli Airstrikes Against Sudan
- Additional 4,000 Troops to Be Ordered to Afghanistan
- Daily Photo: Navy Submarine Trains in the Arctic
- Alarm Over North Korea Missile Prep
- Anti-Terror Stimulus? US Offers Rewards for Top Terrorists
- Daily Photo: Pakistani Women in Refugee Camp
- Condoleezza Rice Appears on "The Tonight Show"
- Diplomat and Aid Group Sound the Alarm on Darfur Camp Situation
- auto industry rescue
- Ballotwatch
- Biden, Joe
- Bush, George W.
- Clinton, Bill
- Clinton, Hillary
- Dodd, Chris
- Edwards, John
- Giuliani, Rudy
- Gravel, Mike
- Huckabee, Mike
- Hunter, Duncan
- Inauguration
- Iraq
- Kucinich, Dennis
- McCain, John
- Obama, Barack
- Palin, Sarah
- Paul, Ron
- Romney, Mitt
- Tancredo, Tom
- Thompson, Fred
- Veepstakes
- Vote 2008: Democrats
- Vote 2008: Republicans
- Washington
- White House
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Answers Letter, Rebuked By Specter
Email
ShareApril 16, 2008 1:05 PM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: Sen. Arlen Specter is holding a press conference Wednesday to discuss his Hodgkin's recurrence, but true to his new book "Never Give In," he spent the morning discussing judicial nominations on the Senate floor.
The Pennsylvania senator is the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been trying to bring more attention to judicial nominations stalled on Capitol Hill.
Last week, in order to bring some media attention to the issue, Specter suggested senators sign a petition to take responsibility for initial consideration of three nominees away from the judiciary committee, and wrote letters to all three presidential candidates asking for their opinion.
The letters - which he released yesterday to the media - each included a hand-scrawled "Good Luck!" after his signature (presumably, the sentiment was most genuine for Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate).
But only Sen. Barack Obama responded.
Obama, who pointed out in a letter that he doesn't sit on the Judiciary Committee, didn't take a position on discharging the nominees from committee consideration (or lack thereof).
The chairman of the Judicial Committee, after all, is Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-VT, one of Obama's most vocal supporters. So it would be surprising not only for Obama to go against Democrats generally on the issue, but more so for him to cross Leahy, who is in charge of scheduling hearings for the stalled nominees.
"As a former constitution law instructor," Obama wrote, "I fully appreciate the important work that our federal judges do and the need to fill judicial vacancies. However, I have great respect for the Senate's constitutional advice and consent role in the confirmation of these judges."
Obama goes on to say he'll defer to Leahy to schedule hearings and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule votes.
On that point, there is some hope for stalled judicial nominees. A deal hatched between Leahy, Michigan Democrats and President George W. Bush to consider one of President Bill Clinton's blocked nominees from eight years ago in exchange for considering one of Bush's nominees right now was announced Tuesday.
Reid has pledged to hold three votes on circuit court nominees before the summer, but none of the three judges Spector wrote about to the presidential candidates is included in the deal.
Obama's response drew criticism from Spector Wednesday morning on the Senate floor even though the Illinois senator was the only one to respond.
"A senator's duties are not delegable. No senator can delegate to anyone else his constitutional responsibilities. The constitution does not refer to the judiciary committee. The constitution does not refer to the majority leader," Specter declared.
"Even if it did, that would not provide a basis for a senator duly elected, sworn, sworn to uphold the constitution, as I took an oath on five occasions, and as senator Obama has taken an oath," he continued.
"Every member of this body has taken an oath to uphold the constitution. The constitution says the Senate confirms."
April 16, 2008 in Kucinich, Dennis | Permalink | User Comments (81)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Another "present" moment from Obama.
Perhaps Obama and Leahy can star in a remake of "Chico and trhe man" -it's not my job!
Posted by: geevill | Apr 16, 2008 1:14:36 PM
Obama, the man that you can always count on to say something empty, but ever so slightly BITTER!
========================================
Obama BITTERGATE '08, saying and doing anything he can to lose an election!
========================================
Posted by: WestCoastMessenger | Apr 16, 2008 1:16:54 PM
gee, Tiffany, did you see the SUSA polls today? Looks like poor lil Barack is down 14 points in Penn despite his gazillion dollars worth of adds and the faked scene of a Vet giving him a flag pin, that apparently now he has decided to wear.
He is going to LOSE. He has no experience and hired that evil Axelrove to run his campaign. He hired about a dozen exlobbyists too, guess he wanted to keep their paychecks comin in!
Posted by: PaseoDelMar | Apr 16, 2008 1:27:59 PM
Ha, Ha, Ha..this Clinton suporter will never vote for Obama because of the stuck up snobs that back him. Good-luck when allot of us "Clinton" democrats vote for McCain!
Posted by: John in Cape May | Apr 16, 2008 1:33:41 PM
Obama was the only one to respond yet he was the one getting flamed. You can tell his bias is showing.
Posted by: Dann | Apr 16, 2008 1:33:45 PM
3 more Super Delegates for Obama today. Let's see. If she wins by 15 points in Penn she gets 9 more delegates...subtract 3 from that equation = 6. When is she gonna get the message she can't win this thing?
Posted by: Mickey Blue | Apr 16, 2008 1:36:13 PM
Kate...Right on....Just another ploy to trapped people....Politics at is best..
Posted by: cindyct | Apr 16, 2008 1:40:05 PM
"Amazon woman?!"
HAHAHAHA...you know, back in high school, my friends and I would refer to good-looking guys as "fine amazons" if they were tall, dark, and handsome. I'm guessing it's a compliment. Michelle is pretty.
Posted by: Susan | Apr 16, 2008 1:40:13 PM
PaseodelMar-
So, out of all the polls that show Clinton losing the DNC bid by 8-13% to Obama, showing her losing nationally to McCain while Obama is ahead of McCain, and all the polls showing Pennsylvania to be between 3 and 6% separation you choose to quote one outlying poll. Interesting choice, but not unexpected. Tell your candidate to pay her bills (and try not lying for a day or two) then come back and maybe there can be a constructive conversation.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 16, 2008 1:40:43 PM
The super delegates are going to decide who will be the Democratic presidential nominee.
After Hillary wins Pennsylvania and Indiana, it will be much clearer than most small town Democratic voters have rejected Obama's view of small-town Americans of being bitter and clinging to God and guns.
Posted by: USmarine0331 | Apr 16, 2008 1:43:42 PM
A voice of reason: The only way the democrats will capture the white house is together. I will not vote for Barack because of his thin resume, but if he added eight years as vice president, no one could claim that he was inexperienced and I think this would all but assure the democrats of 16 years in the white house. This is sound reasoning and Barack could end this all now and fill in the gaps and probably make a wonderful president. If democrats came together and made this the sound that both candidates could hear, maybe we could get this done.
Posted by: justme | Apr 16, 2008 1:44:11 PM
Just remember for all of you that are throwing the temper tantrum of threatening to vote for McCain. Another 100 years of Iraqi war, no legitimate plan for economic recovery, renewing the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1%, invasion of Iran, Roe v. Wade, the GI bill, and the potential of 3 supreme court justices being nominated should be first and foremost in this election. If any democrat would entrust these issues or any of the many other upcoming issues to McCain instead of either Obama or Clinton I have serious doubts about levels of sanity. Get over yourselves and think about the future of the country.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 16, 2008 1:46:26 PM
Susan...now that will resolve everything. Having the republicans running the country for 4-8 more years? You think it is bad now...wait and see...I am a Rep and I ma voting Dem this year because we cannot afford another Rep, especially McCain. Let's be realistic...Yeezz
Posted by: cindyct | Apr 16, 2008 1:46:58 PM
If you read the article closely, you'll see that Senator Obama is not only respectful of the Senate judicial committee's role (headed by Leahy) AND considerate and professional to respond.
Hmm, let's see professionalism and considerate of due process... sounds like Obama's doing the right thing! Don't be fooled by Senator Specter's baseless rants. He's playing politics.
Posted by: ecm | Apr 16, 2008 1:50:02 PM
In case you Hilary supporters haven't figured it out yet, the evil empire known as the "Republican Party" does not scare Obama supporters. Bring them on! Cheerio!
Posted by: Susan | Apr 16, 2008 1:51:28 PM
Okay, for the slow people: Clinton LOST Texas and likely would BARELY have won Ohio, except for the cross-over vote.
Posted by: brantl | Apr 16, 2008 1:54:49 PM
WHO GETS REBUKED?
THE ONE RESPONDING..not the ones IGNORING.
DISEASE OF HYPOCRISY IS MORE OVERPOWERING THAN CANCER ON A true politician.
Posted by: moeen | Apr 16, 2008 1:56:07 PM
Specter has no credibility--he should resign and make room for someone healthier, younger and with more integrity. Somehow memories fade (conveniently) during election cycles, but I have not forgotten how Specter sold his soul for the Chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the Republicans had the majority. Anyone remember the "loyalty" oath he was told to sign that essentially said he would rubber stamp the President's nominees or else he could kiss the chairmanship goodbye? I remember. I remember how he groveled for the position and signed this outrageous document.If he had any integrity at all, he would have told Orrin Hatch to take their loyalty oath and shove it. Specter talks a good game, but when it comes down to it, he's just another political hack and his voting record reflects this--cancer or no cancer, he's a disgrace.
Posted by: April Campbell | Apr 16, 2008 1:56:16 PM
A voice of reason: The only way the democrats will capture the white house is together. I will not vote for Barack because of his thin resume, but if he added eight years as vice president, no one could claim that he was inexperienced and I think this would all but assure the democrats of 16 years in the white house. This is sound reasoning and Barack could end this all now and fill in the gaps and probably make a wonderful president. If democrats came together and made this the sound that both candidates could hear, maybe we could get this done. They could capture the White House together. Let's revist this idea!
Hillary/Barack....Barack/?
Posted by: justme | Apr 16, 2008 2:01:07 PM
Barack Obama would gain more voters by not having Clinton on the ticket than he would by considering her for VP. There's no logical reason for him to even consider her with so many strong candidates that haven't resorted to Rovean tactics to pursue the office. There's no reason for me to even consider her choosing him as VP since she can't win the Democratic nomination.
Posted by: Kevin | Apr 16, 2008 2:05:15 PM
Post a comment
