Hugh Hewitt's Take on Arlen Specter

Hugh Hewitt ^

[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.

[goldstategop]

He defended Clarence Thomas. Arlen's not my dream Republican but I'll take a RINO any day over a Democrat.

[Rocky]

Rubbish. When Senate tradition goes against the interests of America, chuck the Senate traditions.

Specter promised the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that he would block right-to-life (code word "extremist") judges if Bush nominated them. That's the promise he made in order to get the paper's endorsement. The Post-Gazette did us all the favor of putting this in print in their editorial when they endorsed Specter. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272109/posts)

So either he was lying to them or he's lying to us. Based on past performance, I think it's the latter. Specter must go.

[goldstategop]

Are you saying on the basis of a newspaper report, he won't give President Bush's judicial candidates a fair hearing? I think he'd keep an open mind. You won't see that from a Democratic Judiciary chairman.

[mac_truck]

We live in a world in which we don't get everything we want.

This is exactly what Bill Frist should say to Arlen as he informs him he won't be heading up the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Steel and Fire and Stone]

Hewitt makes good points, even valid points. Here's the contrarian view:

1. The Democrats ignore Senate rules whenever it is to their advantage. I am old enough to recall when they had Majorities in the Senate and House, and at one point, they conducted House Business in their cloakroom, only appearing in committee for the vote, once the verdict was decided (i.e. because the Dems outnumbered the GOP, and voted en-block). The Democrats ruled an 'Imperial' Congress. The latest obstruction of Bush's judicial nominees, imposing extra-Constitutional requirements, is just the lastest in a long line of outrages. How can the GOP pay by the "Marquis of Queensberry" rules, when the Dems use street-fighting rules, or often, no rules at all? That cedes the battle to the Democrats before the first shot is fired!

2. Can Spector be trusted? The GOP can stack the Judiciary committee with 2-3 extra GOP Senators, and invalidate or change rules to guarantee every nominee gets an up or down, simple majority vote, and to exclude filibusters in Presidential nominations (i.e. to be consistent with the Constitution). However, if Spector decides that it's his obligation to prevent "extreme" nominees, i.e. any that fail his Kerry-like litmus test, he can simply prevent those nominees from ever coming to a vote. Once Spector is the Chair, there is little or nothing that the GOP can do to stop him FOR SIX YEARS!?!!

Can Spector to be trusted to conduct Senate business in a non-idealogical manner, consistent with the U.S. Constitution. I highly doubt it.

SFS

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

How does a Dem senator have a call on the chairmanship when their the minority party? Does it have something to do with that deal that was struck after the 2000 election?

[Brimack34]

Why must we always bow down do moderates or liberals. We Won, Now let us get the spoils. And I will take Laura Ingraham over Hugh, She worked for Judge Thomas. In Hughs book he told us to stand down, Now we win and he tells us to stand down again. What up with that.

[TheDon]

"Strong arm tactics"? How about Roe v Wade? Legislation from the bench.

[UpToHere]

Bush nominated Bork?

Al

[radicalamericannationalist]

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

He's also not been chairman.

[TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl]

"Why must we always bow down do moderates or liberals. We Won, Now let us get the spoils. And I will take Laura Ingraham over Hugh, She worked for Judge Thomas. In Hughs book he told us to stand down, Now we win and he tells us to stand down again. What up with that."

Cause he's a Rockefeller Republican?

[radicalamericannationalist]

The choice is not Specter or a Democrat. It's Specter or another Republican.

[Rocky]

It's multiple newspaper reports at different times.

I think I know what we can expect from him, and it won't be good. We'll be getting more "centrist" judges. He'll give Bush a conservative appointment for two "centrist" appointments. A compromise. Then, when the Democrats get back in power (they will), they will put radical leftists in place. So, we will once again have a left-leaning judiciary with all the nutty decisions which have so outraged us in the past thirty years.

Why defend him? You just want peace in the party at any cost?

[mrpipesmkr]

Thanks for this post! I am pro life but have had similar thoughts myself.I have often disagreed with the senator but I believe two other points should be remembered. First: the senator did retain A senate seat for us in A state that went to Kerry. Second: we should never forget that the weakness of the democratic party has largely been brought about by their leaders refusal to allow any dissenting voice within the party, this shuts off internal debate and leads to poor decisions by the leadership.Some of the senators opinions would never sell down here in Texas, but the south is not the whole Republican party, nor should it be, if we wish to remain succsesfull.

[LiteKeeper]

There is the possibility that the fluff up over his comments will put him on notice that he sits in a very precarious position. Phone calls from the White Housemay give him pause about carrying through with his threats, as evidenced by his back-pedaling yesterday. Sadly, I could be all wrong.

[Tripoli]

You are correct. We are the majority. The 50-50 deal is over.

Specter cannot be trusted! Go back and look at legislation he has supported. He is a lib.

Don't appoint him. Do it now, don't put him in and later try to remove him. Fewer problems to do it now rather than wait.

[MplsSteve]

The thing we need to consider here is that the Republicans in the Senate (whether they have 30 or 55 members) place a huge priority on seniority.

They have elaborate rules for determining what Senator will get what committe assignments, committe chairmanships, etc.

For most conservative activists, they think that sucks. They believe it should all be issue-based...in this case, the abortion issue.

In terms of seniority, Specter has earned the right to be Judiciary Committe chairman.

I don't particularly like it either but if the Judiciary committe can be properly stacked with the right Republicans, Specter's chairing of the committee shouldn't be a terrible issue.

[VaBthang4]

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.

Special@foxnews.com,
rush@eibnet.com,
hannity@foxnews.com,
editor@weeklystandard.com,
beltwayboys@foxnews.com,
tblankley@washingtontimes.com,
jmccaslin@washingtontimes.com,
gpierce@washingtontimes.com,
jseper@washingtontimes.com,
Templar119@aol.com,
malkin@comcast.net,
letters@charleskrauthammer.com,
ben@cspc.org,
adams_mike@hotmail.com,
ballen@t3energy.com,
greg@therightbalance.org,
VAlpher@aol.com,
friends@atr.org,
ruddy@spectator.org,
editor@spectator.org,
rjbacak@sbcglobal.net,
online.editors@barrons.com,
me@glennbeck.com,
carol@carolbernhard.com,
jennifer.biddison@heritage.org,
kotta@foxnews.com,
briankbodine@yahoo.com,
jimbohannon@1050wevd.com,
JeffBolton@woai.com,
wackerma@bowdoin.edu,
chrisb@unt.edu,
erniebrown@americaatnight.com,
bucc@bucknellconservatives.org,
calpundit@cox.net,
chairman@cyr.org,
joshcampbell@mail.utexas.edu,
info@capitolhillblue.com,
castellanopj@earthlink.net,
charles@littlegreenfootballs.com,
bobcole@clearchannel.com,
cn@isi.org,
letters@commentarymagazine.com,
lauren.conner@bba02.bus.utexas.edu,
dj@flipsideshow.com,
copleyd@wharton.upenn.edu,
tom@anncoulter.org,
info@collegegop.org,
cugop@colorado.edu,
crider@mail.utexas.edu,
hill2@cp.chemeketa.edu,
j0annaz@yahoo.com,
rcuster@yaf.org,
pundit@dailypundit.com,
lukerval@hotmail.com,
davidson@collegegop.org,
txtau@yahoo.com,
holiday.dmitri@foxnews.com,
sara@studentsforacademicfreedom.org,
larry@larryelder.com,
tpelia@yahoo.com,
elizabeth@cspc.org,
cfennell@ucsd.edu,
mfinch@cspc.org,
sarahfloerke@mail.com,
rforest@ev1.net,
rachelzfriedman@yahoo.com,
mike@mikeonline.com,
cdganske@yahoo.com,
bubbgarcia@yahoo.com,
ggermany@austin.rr.com,
presACG@aol.com,
lynn.gibson@heritage.org,
giselarm@san.rr.com,
jglazov@rogers.com,
fgonzalez@isi.org,
opeds@gopusa.com,
redshift_7@yahoo.com,
MJGriffing@hotmail.com,
frn@freeper.org,
bac@compuserve.com,
michaelh@ductape.net,
Hannity@aol.com,
khart@crnc.org,
johnhawkins@rightwingnews.com,
roger@rogerhedgecock.com,
jchenry_628@mail.utexas.edu,
hhewitt@hughhewitt.com,
holco004@mailhost1.csusm.edu,
suggestions@lauraingraham.com,
pundit@instapundit.com,
feedback@intellectualconservative.com,
Rollye@rollye.net,
calidawl217@yahoo.com,
niucrchair@yahoo.com,
amw@judgemendozawaterhouse.com,
rdj@mail.utexas.edu,
gk3385@yahoo.com,
kfir@protestwarrior.com,
kinghorn1836@yahoo.com,
becky@becky4congress.com,
pklinkne@hamilton.edu,
dks@wava.com,
comments.kurtz@nationalreview.com,
JCL159522@yahoo.com,
lars@larslarson.com,
mark@marklarson.com,
jleo@usnews.com,
binghamtonreview@yahoo.com

[GeronL]

If its all about seniority instead of getting the job done, then we conservatives and christians should just stay home next time because nothing will be done. Specter is not entitled to any position except prostrate in front of President Bush.

[AlienCrossfirePlayer]

I object to Hewitt's use of the word putsch. I have written to my Senators (Bond and Talent) suggesting that because of Specter's abortion rights views, they not support his chairmanship of Judiciary. Is that a putch? I suppose that Hewitt believes that it's Specter's turn or something.

I remember Sen. Maria Cantwell arguing for the preservation of Roe v Wade because of the legal doctrine of stare decisis. Ideas of seniority and stare decisis are probably good ideas in some cases, but not here. The lives of unborn children are more important. The situation is a national disgrace that does not bear further procrastinations.