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.
No, here is why Hugh is wrong. Specter is deliberately ignoring the will of the people to impose his own opinion on the committee. The election was very clearly a mandate for Pres Bush. On the VERY 1st day Specter came out and opposed the President. Fine, Specter can oppose the Pres but we can ALSO oppose Specter. Since he finds it impossible to support the Pres, the Party has every right to limit his power he ONLY achieves on the bases of the party's electoral victory. With out the party Specter is just one Senator, since he refuses to support the party position, the party has ever right to marginalize his role in the party.</p>
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.
Except we now have the votes to change the rules to simple majority so Specter is irrelevent.
We got rid of one pain in the a$$ obstructionist 4 days ago. To ask that we might chair the Judiciary Committee with someone who has similar views as the opposition party, when it comes to selecting judges, is asking too much.
Hugh speaks the truth.
To come across as thugs at a time like this historic time would be a mistake. Let the dims be seen as the thugs.
Kind of courious why certain Repbs are more worried about US getting along with the Leftists then they are in the Leftist getting along with us. In case you all missed it, WE WON. We have the votes. THEY need to get along with US, not vice versa.
I think we are being played as fools by running headlong in to a leftie ambush.
No, Specter went out and was Specter. Now that the Party has bitch slapped Specter he is trying to back track and claim it was all a Leftist plot.
It may well be that sending abortion to the public square will hurt the GOP, and splinter it. But the public square is the place to hash out tough issues, and putting the health of a party aabove that sort of has it backwards. Moreover, allowing these issues to fester, just makes the disease more virulent when it breaks out, because the public square has not had the time to reach a synthesis and compromise, and modulate the debate, and at least leave folks with a sense they had their say. In any event, over time, as compromises are reached and enacted into law, the salience of the issue will fade. That is my prediction, if and when the passing on of Roe unfolds.
He only supported Thomas because he himself was coming up for election in six months.
If you read his statement you will see what he thinks of Thomas and the present court.
Specter has to be taken down not only for his liberal views, but also for causing this firestorm the day after a great victory.
How stupid can you get.
He just slapped the face of millions of Conservatives the very first day after election.
The Republican party has been quick to sacrifice their own like Newt, Bob Livingston, Trent Lott and to step on people like Don Nickles and Tom Delay all good men most Christians when the left screams for blood at the slightest slip.
Well this is one we want.
Tell Specter to go set in a corner of the Senate and give us someone who fights not accommodates the Kennedys the Schumers and the Fiensteins on the Judiciary committee.
Hastert's choice not to give Crane a committee chair is that of the discretion of the Speaker of the House. That's the way the House operates.
The Senate GOP is different. They place a high emphasis on seniority. They place such a high emphasis on seniority that if two freshmen senators come in at the same time and one of them is a former governor, that senator will get a leg-up on seniority.
I am fine with allowing Specter to remain as committee chair...as long as there are a sufficient numbers of GOP senators to over-ride him if he tries to obstruct a vote.
Arlen's own words, spoken the day after the election, should keep him from gaining the chairmanship, IMHO. He speaks in code to his liberal supporters, and cannot be trusted with the important task of shepherding the President's judicial nominees through the Judiciary Committee. Keep the pressure on.
Interesting assessment. Shall we ask the 40 million Americans who were deprived of life without due process of law? There is a reason that President Bush got 58 million votes and it wasn't so that he would have to kiss the butt of a recalcitrant committee chairman. No convincing evidence has ever been presented that unborn Americans are less worthy of Constitutional protection than any of the Supreme Court Justices who deprived them of that protection. We are supposed to be more civilized than the savages who cut off people's heads, aren't we? Why, then, do we allow for the slaughter of the most innocent?
Hewitt seems to have forgotten that human lives are at stake and Arlen Specter has demonstrated that, for him, a woman's convenience supercedes the right to life of the unborn child. How many more must die, before God decides He's seen enough?
Right on! It was that kind of thinking that got us Bob Dole as a candidate in '96. Dole is a good man, but it was obvious he was no match for Clinton. But because "it was his turn," the party fell in line.
Let's not make the same mistake here.
Pete Sessions? I thought it was Jeff?
Magic Bullet!
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.