Hugh Hewitt's Take on Arlen Specter

Hugh Hewitt ^

[MplsSteve]

Hugh Hewitt takes a different approach to the recent controversy regarding Arlen Specter assuming the Chair of the Judiciary committee.

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?

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

"I honestly can't say that I disagree with Hugh"

I can. Enough of that "center-right" crap.

[Pastnowfuturealpha]

I believe this was up before -








Whatever needs to be done do it - because judges are needed

[Torie]

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.

[twntaipan]

What chaps my hide in this entire affair is the false charge that "strong arm tactics" were used first by the pro-lifers among us. It was not Randall Terry or Gary Bauer or James Dobson who started the day Wednesday by saying there needed to be a litmus test.

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).

[holyscroller]

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.

[woodb01]

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!

[Jeff Blogworthy]

Institutions that are destabilized for expediency's sake do not regain stability after a convenient alteration.

Interesting take. Speaking of "expediency" - isn't that the very reason the Einhorn defending Specter is still there in the first place? (Throat clear: think Toomey)

[GeronL]

I totally disagree with hugh Hewitt. A person should not be ENTITLED to certain positions just because.

[Keith]

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.

[GeronL]

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.

[PianoMan]

This isn't just about abortion. It's about sacrificing our greatest opportunity to have a Supreme Court that actually respects the Constitution, to placate the power trip of an ingrate liberal spineless RINO. And if it happens it will make me sick.

Everyone keep up the onslaught.

[My2Cents]

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.

[montag813]

Senator Specter has supported every judicial nominee sent forward by President Bush.

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.

[ambrose]

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.

[mac_truck]

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.

All this can be accomplished without Arlen Spector as chair of the committee.

[goldstategop]

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.

[ApesForEvolution]

"Bouncing Specter would be counterproductive."

I've seen all the arguments and I'm not buying... g'night all.

[goldstategop]

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.

[woodb01]

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.