Skip to comments.Will Specter Chair Judiciary?
Posted on 11/05/2004 4:59:10 PM PST by Founding Father
FLASHBACK: August 18, 2003
Will Specter Chair Judiciary?
by Timothy P. Carney
Posted Nov 4, 2004
[Editor's note: This article originally appeared August 18, 2003]
Liberal Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) is in line to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005. This means the confirmation of the next Supreme Court justice could be presided over by a pro-choice senator who holds that Roe v. Wade was correctly decided and who helped sink the Supreme Court nomination of conservative judge Robert Bork.
If voters do not oust Specter in next years primary or general election, the Judiciary gavel -- and control over confirmations to the federal courts -- will fall into Specters hands unless a few powerful GOP senators are willing to stop it.
The simplest solution to the problem would take a personal sacrifice by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R.-Iowa). When the partys term limits on committee chairmen force Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) to give up the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee at the end of the current Congress, Grassley will be next in line for that position. To assume that role, however, he would need to surrender the gavel of the powerful Finance Committee.
But, according to a Grassley spokesman, the Iowa senator (who faces an easy reelection this year) is unwilling to surrender Finance, which drafts all tax law and Medicare legislation. That leaves Specter as Hatchs heir-apparent at Judiciary.
New Senate Republican Conference rules limit senators to eight years as chairmen. The only other time seniority is bypassed is if the senior senator on a committee already holds another chairmanship.
Hatchs eight years expire at the end of the current Congress. (The few months of GOP control before the Jeffords defection in the 107th Congress are not counted against term-limits.) Grassley, who is serving his first full year as Finance chairman, is eligible to run his committee until after the 2010 elections.
The Grassley gavel trade is not the only way to block Specter, but it is the easiest and the cleanest. Such a sacrifice on Grassleys part would become unnecessary, of course, were Specter to lose reelection, either to conservative primary challenger Rep. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.) or to Democratic Rep. Joe Hoeffel (Pa.) next November.
Also, the members of the Republican Conference could make one of two rule changes to prevent a Specter-led Judiciary Committee. First, they could waive the term limit for Hatch. Alternatively, they could circumvent rules and tradition and skip Specter for Sen. Jon Kyl (R.-Ariz.), a pro-life conservative who is fourth in seniority.
A final option, more peaceful than either of the above, is that the leadership could talk Specter into taking the chairmanship of some other committee, perhaps by offering a spot on another coveted panel.
The case is strong that conservatives and pro-lifers (as the Senate Republican leaders claim to be) ought to be ready to take drastic measures to keep Specter from running the Judiciary Committee.
The single most important function of the Judiciary Committee is to vet federal court nominees, especially nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. Assuming President Bush wins a second term in 2004, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee need to defend Bushs nominees against assaults from the likes of Senators Ted Kennedy (D.-Mass.), Pat Leahy (D.-Vt.) and Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.).
The Judiciary Chairman must be the champion of any Supreme Court nominee. so he must be enthusiastic about all presidential judicial nominations. Specter, however, subscribes to the pro-abortion judicial activism of the left.
In October 1999 and then again this Spring, during debate on a bill to ban partial-birth abortion, Specter voted in favor of an amendment holding that Roe v. Wade, which in 1973 seized the abortion issue from the states and elected legislatures, was correctly decided and ought not be overturned. The amendment passed both times.
Even pro-choice legal scholars maintain that the Roe decision -- based on "penumbras" and "emanations" rather than the text of the Constitution -- is a prime example of shoddy jurisprudence. Most noteworthy is pro-choice law professor John Hart Ely, who laid out the absurdities of Roe in his 1973 essay "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A comment on Roe v. Wade."
In 1987, Specter grilled Federal Appeals Court Judge Robert Bork, President Reagans conservative nominee to the Supreme Court. In his book Passion for Truth, Specter explained why he resisted Borks nomination, which was eventually voted down by the Senate. "The Constitution has turned out to be much more dynamic than [Bork believes]: a living, growing document, responsive to the needs of the nation," wrote Specter. "Borks narrow approach is dangerous for constitutional government."
Specter had approved of William Rehnquists promotion to chief justice and Antonin Scalias nomination (though he notes in his book that both "yes" votes were cast grudgingly) and later would come to the rescue of Clarence Thomas. But blocking Bork, he explained in his book, was essential to preserving the balance of the court.
Gentleman from Scotland
Noting his fear that Reagan and Bush might get to fill three more vacancies (in fact they filled two more), Specter wrote: "A court dominated by Borks intellect with three similarly disposed new appointees plus Rehnquist and Scalia could adopt original intent and weaken or even reject judicial review. I concluded that the country couldnt take that risk."
Specter voted yes on the nominations of liberals David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer as well as swing justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day OConnor. In his book, he notes no reservations or objections to those judges as he did with Rehnquist and Scalia.
The Judiciary Committee, in addition to vetting judicial nominees, has jurisdiction over many abortion-related bills. In this Congress, Specter has garnered a 50% rating from the National Right to Life Committee. In past Congresses, he has hovered between 0% and 25%. This year, Specter has voted in favor of the partial birth abortion ban, but supported funding for abortions on military bases and for International Planned Parenthood.
In many circles on Capitol Hill, Specter is known derisively as the "Gentleman from Scotland" for his bizarre attempt to escape judging President Bill Clintons high crimes and misdemeanors. At the end of the impeachment trial, Specter appealed to Scottish legal tradition, explaining that he found President Clinton neither guilty nor not guilty, but, "not proven." Specter then proceeded to vote not guilty on both counts.
The import of keeping Specter out of the chairmanship is not a matter of revenge, but a matter of ensuring that President Bush can feel comfortable nominating conservatives and constructionist judges -- and that those judges will be confirmed
Already in this Congress, Specter has shown resistance to such nominees. While casting the deciding vote to report the federal Appeals Court nomination of Alabama Atty. Gen. William Pryor out of the Judiciary Committee, Specter indicated he might join the Democrats in opposing the conservatives nomination on the Senate floor.
Similarly, Specter is stirring up resistance to the nomination of Leon Holmes, according to GOP Senate staffers close to the confirmation process.
Some White House advisors are already counseling the President to nominate White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to the high court once a vacancy occurs. Gonzales, they reason, will overcome the filibusters that face conservative nominees.
With Specter running the process on the Senate floor, the White House would have more reason to nominate such a moderate.
If the White House is to feel comfortable nominating a judge such as Pryor to the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary chairman will have to be conservative -- meaning not Arlen Specter. This will take an act of courage, either by Grassley, or the GOP Senate leadership.
Mr. Carney is a reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report
C'mon, isn't it important to have someone knowledgeable about Scottish law heading up the Senate's judiciary committee? Makes sense to me even if it is 'not proved.'
If I were to put money on it, I'd say he has the chair. Not that I like it. We'll see if conservative positions are sought, or if the only thing sought is conservatives' votes.
We have a winner.
The only way it doesn't happen, is if Bush gets real mean. Mad dog mean.
Okay, so we write President Bush.
This is going to be a problem for President Bush. Original Intent. That's the only way to see the Constitution in my opinion. Specter is a danger to the Republic.
Lead from the front.
In other words, how could the guy be the right choice for conservatives in the Penn. GOP in their primaries but the wrong choice for conservatives when it comes to the bipartisan US Senate Judiciary committee.
Doesn't compute, does it?
This is the site from which to submit a question. I did this, first congratulating the President on his re-election, and then I told him that as many of us worked with our local parties to ensure his return to the White House, the Supreme Court nominees were first and foremost in our minds. I told him that we were very concerned about Senator Specter, and wonder if someone else could be give that chairmanship.
We must contact the conservative media in addition to contacting the politicians. They both feed off of the other.
Keep up the pressure...we will hit critical mass if we keep pushing.
If the GOP wants to go back to taking it the a** from a RINO, screwing America with him, then I must once again pull out the Stupid Party label and affix it on the GOP.
Is the Toilet during break time.......
I heard Tony Snow today say that the phones are melting at the Senate over this buffoon Specter...
This @sshole should have been dumped by the GOP when they had the chance.
President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nations future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate. Remarks by Vice President Cheney introducing President Bush for his victory speech, Ronald Reagan Building, November 3, 2004.
President Bushs margin of victory proves that we have a narrowly divided country, and thats not a traditional mandate the number-one item on my agenda is to try to move the party to the center. Sen. Arlen Specter, November 3, 2004.
Senator Arlen Specter's shocking comments the day after President Bush's decisive re-election raise troubling concersn
Specter's record over the last 20 years demonstrated a pattern of very troubling conduct on Judiciary Committee issues
The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee must be someone devoted to the Constitution as written and the rule of law
Everyone - keep up the pressure. Sounds like Bush is giving in to Specter who claims he will "play nice." Why should we have to go on his promises when they are in stark contrast to his record. We should go with someone who we can count on based on a consistently good track record.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.