Posted on 11/05/2004 10:22:33 PM PST by MplsSteve
Friday, November 5, 2004
Posted at 10:30 PM, EST
After a late-night flight from the west coast, and a day spent interviewing would-be law professors, I have had a chance to catch up on the news, and I see that there is a blog swarm forming around the expected assumption of the chairmanship of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary by Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter. The opposition to Specter seems headquartered at The Corner. Many friends post at The Corner, so I paused, considered their arguments, and thought it through. On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. I hope my colleagues on the center-right that embrace pro-life politics will reconsider.
I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch. Institutions that are destabilized for expediency's sake do not regain stability after a convenient alteration. That was the lesson of the Roman Revolution, where a series of departures from settled precedent in the name of urgent expediency eventually brought down the entire structure. For the past four years Republicans have complained bitterly of Democratic obstructionism that upended the traditions of the Senate. Should the GOP begin its new period of dominance with a convenient abandonment of the very rules they have charged Dems with violating repeatedly?
In 1986 the Democrats won control of the Senate from the Republicans with a margin of 55 Democrats and 45 Republicans. The Republicans now enjoy an even greater edge of 55 to 44 (Jeffords is an Independent). The Judiciary Committee of 1986 had 14 members. I cannot find the exact breakdown, but the allocation of seats was at least 8 to 6 for the Democrats, and may have been 9 to 5. Regardless of the exact split, the GOP in 2005, with a Judiciary Committee of 19 members ought to enjoy at least an 11 to 8 majority, and possibly a 12 to 7 split. The Chairmanship will have great power, of course, but what matters far more than the name of the Chair is resolve in insisting that the GOP majority be reflected in the Committee make-up, and that Senator Frist appoint serious pro-life members to the new vacancies.
What also matters is a transparent debate and vote on the rules governing the nominations by the president to the courts. A great deal of extra-constitutional nonsense has grown up in the traditions of the Senate. The GOP majority ought to insist on a rule that assures that every nominee that gains a majority vote of the Judiciary Committee be brought to the floor. This is a long overdue reform of reactionary practices such as "blue slip" holds and filibusters of judicial nominees. Conservatives are not demanding the right reforms when they aim at Senator Specter. They should be insisting on a rebalancing of the processes employed by the Senate according to constitutional norms.
Senator Specter has supported every judicial nominee sent forward by President Bush. More important than that, he won first the primary and then the general election in Pennsylvania, and is a man of the party and the party needs to welcome its members who hold minority views, not punish them. The prospect that Senator Specter might oppose a Bush nominee is not a happy one, but neither is it inevitable nor, given the appropriate committee make-up, fatal to the nominee's prospects. Conservatives ought to be focused on demanding the right allocation of seats and the right names for the new members, not on their fears about Senator Specter's reliability. Recall that Specter did a fine job defending Justice Thomas. Given Senator Specter's reputation for moderation, his support of future Bush nominees could prove hugely valuable.
So, fellow pro-life conservatives, we should keep our focus on the key issues: The split of the seats, the names of the new members, and reform of the rules governing judicial nominees.
I honestly can't say that I disagree with Hugh.
Let's put aside our visceral dislike of Arlen Specter an ask ourselves whether Hewitt is right or not.
Opinions anyone?
"I honestly can't say that I disagree with Hugh"
I can. Enough of that "center-right" crap.
I believe this was up before -
Whatever needs to be done do it - because judges are needed
Hewitt might be wearing rose colored glasses, but he is right. Bouncing Specter would be counterproductive. This is an issue about tactics. Almost everyone on this site, from Torie to Apesforevolution, wants the same end, and end to judicial over-reach.
It was Specter. He is the one using threats and intimidation. He is the one who has created the furor, the one who has sown to the wind. And he should be the one to reap the whirlwind, even if it is only to cause him to sweat.
If country-club Republicans believe they can win in 2006 or 2008 or beyond without the social conservatives, they got another think comin' (as my Texas born wife likes to say).
I certainly don't agree with him. Snarlin Arlen is a RINO who can't be trusted. We've finally gotten rid of obstructionist Daschle, why put another one in to do the Left's dirty work? We've waited long enough to get some decent judges, and it would be a disgrace to put a "Republican" in place who will continue the obstruction.
Fact is, as previously posted SPECTER created this controversy. HE is the one that essentially tried to assert himself...
He is not fit for the leadership position. PERIOD!
I totally disagree with hugh Hewitt. A person should not be ENTITLED to certain positions just because.
My opposition to Specter isn't about abortion...it's about slapping the President of the United States after he took a major stretch to support your re-election over a popular conservative.
Specter has no respect for the leader of his party...
Off with his head.
Hugh is wrong. Specter nor anyone else should be entitled to certain positions. This man Spectre is not someone who supports the agenda of the Republican Party or of President Bush and should be treated as such.
Everyone keep up the onslaught.
The only way I could see Arlen being allowed to assume the Judiciary chairmanship is if he gets a stern lecturing from W and Frist that he better be a team player or he's off, and is put on probation. Strategically, there may be some plus to having Specter chair Judic. He may be willing to fend off the crazies better than Kyl. Maybe. Pehaps.
Hugh Hewitt is an idiot. How conveniently he leaves out how Arlen Specter destroyed Robert Bork, and K.O.'d the nomination of Pete Sessions. Thankfully Sessions is now a Senator. Specter has no business in the Senate himself, let alone as Chairman of our ideological control room.
Hewitt is correct. Because of the filibuster rule, no one Specter might oppose is going to get confirmed anyway.
And as Hugh points out, Specter has the credibility necessary to sell nominees to the other side.
All this can be accomplished without Arlen Spector as chair of the committee.
I agree with Hugh. Arlen may be a RINO but his reputation as a moderate can only help the President's nominees. I won't agree with all of his views but I prefer him at Judiciary over Patrick Leahy. We should look at the bigger picture and try to get Senate rules and procedures changed so judicial picks both get a fair hearing and an up or down vote in the Senate. That matters.
We live in a world in which we don't get everything we want. Arlen has been supportive of most GOP goals. A Leahy would obstruct everything we hold dear.
What? Specter doesn't have the "credibility" to "sell" nominees to the other side. In some respects I agree with Hewitt, but to say that Specter can "sell" the other side anything is a naive stretch at best.
We are talking about the SAME committe where documents were uncovered CLEARLY demonstrating FELONY obstruction of Justice by intentionally manipulating the delay of a sixth Circus appointment while an important civil rights case was in front of it. That same judicial committee member has a problem with keeping women alive in cars when he's driving drunk, and HE has more sway over the dems on that committee.
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.