[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[radicalamericannationalist]

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

He's also not been chairman.

[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.