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.
He IS a Democrat. Would you take Hillary if she had an (R) after her name too ?
STOP SPECTER!
Senate Judiciary Committee GOP Members
Bush has no Mandate?
Just say "NO" To Specter's Games!
Contact Senator Orrin Hatch
202-224-5251
Contact Senator Charles Grassley
202-224-3744
Contact Senator Jon Kyl
202-224-4521
Contact Senator Mike DeWine
202-224-2315
Contact Senator Jeff Sessions
202-224-4124
Contact Senator Lindsey Graham
-202-224-5972
Contact Senator Larry Craig
202-224-2752
Contact Senator Saxby Chambliss
202-224-3521
Contact Senator John Cornyn
202-224-2934
ROTFLOL ! Well put !
You obviously have not followed Arlen's "career"
And we took the beating ! Those days are over-that is why we now have the majority. I guess you wanted us to go to Bahdad then pull out.
Hav, shouldn't everyone contact THEIR senator too ? Don't they ALL elect him ?
The vote count is important but why start with one vote against from the outset ?
I can disagree also. He forgets that "not proven" arlen helped keep clintoon in office, the man that refused to take into custody Osama Bin Laden. I hold arlen and the others responsible for allowing 9/11/01.
"So, fellow pro-life conservatives, we should keep our focus on the key issues..." THE key issue is a chairman who will be an obstructionists to any nominee with conservative credentials. Hugh is wrong and it is a shame that he would take such a namby pamby stand on Specter. Arlon is quite transparent regarding his embrace of the pro-choice side. Time for him to go ...
Thank you, Hugh... well done.
I don't like Specter but I think the entire controversy was deliberately stirred up by a liberal journalist who is giggling like mad watching us now eat our own. I read Specter's remarks and they didn't come across as a personal "warning" to me. Specter was talking about President Bush remembering that the Democrats filibustered his nominees... Specter on the other hand voted for every single one.
I think we are being played as fools by running headlong in to a leftie ambush.
No, Specter doesn't deserve the chairmanship of the Senate's Committee on the Judiciary. We don't need a social liberal whose voting record agrees more with the Democrats than with the Republicans. Specter is for abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. He is against school vouchers, and doesn't like tax cuts either.
I do disagree with HH. It's high time the Republicans quit being self defeating-the GOP is in power so use it. If it takes someone other than Specter as chair to get W's judicial picks through, so be it. We can't afford to give Arlen a chance to maneuver and use God knows what sort of Senate procedural trick to block W's nominees-don't let Arlen be Arlen.
His "job" is not to spread propaganda to unwitting Republican that Specter has supported "all of Bush's nominees" after his disgraceful actions on Bork and Pete Sessions, nominees of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
If you want the support of the party then support the party on it's core issues. Specter refuses to support the party in its efforts to rid this country of abortion and he should not have the power to stand in the way. Bush won a mandate and the last thing he needs is a member of his own party blocking his efforts.
With all due respect for Hewitt, however, as I understand, Specter was facing reelection when he was helping Thomas. Had he "Borked" Thomas chances were he would had to write a new job resume!!!
Non-sequitor horse-hockey. It's Specter with the power of the chairmanship that is being opposed -- he would still be on the Judiciary Committee. This is hardly something that "shuts off internal debate".
To quote Captain Jack Sparrow, "They aren't rules really...more like guidelines."
We are running this place. We have already told Senator Frist what to do! Done deal.
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.