I think what you are hearing is that Specter gets the chairmanship with the understanding that he doesn't impede Bush judges.
That is how I read that.
Hopefully this won't block Justice Ashcroft!
That's how I understood it, that one person wasn't going to block President Bush.
I had considered that there might well have been a deal cut and so posted - before he made his comments which in my view disqualified him:
Arlen Specter's Win Could Impact Supreme Court
Posted by nathanbedford to Tallguy
On News/Activism 11/03/2004 1:52:24 PM EST · 34 of 41
Specter certainly poses an interesting dilemma, the consequences of which could rob us of much of the fruits of one of the most significant political victories in American history.
If Bush gets to nominate up to 4 justices will Specter play a constructive role as chairman or act as spoiler? We do not know if a deal has been cut designed either to keep him off the chair or to get him to play for the home team. At the time of Toomey's primary challenge, Bush, much to great consternation here - which I shared, supported the RINO over the conservative. The conventional wisdom concluded that Rove had calculated that Specter would help but Toomey would hurt Bush's chances in this key(stone) swing state. There might have been more to the deal than that: Bush might have extracted a promise either to quit the Judiciary committee or to act act as Chairman but to fully support the President's nominees. We cannot entire discount the possibility that Specter extracted a "no litmus test" pledge from Bush, a pledge which we heard to our consternation in the debates. One can only pray that my cynicism is misplaced.
With or without a deal, how will Specter behave as chairman when called to fight on behalf of a beleaguered anti-abortion nominee? Will he stand tall as he did with Thomas or tank as he did with Bork? Surely he knows in his heart that this is clearly his last tour of duty in the Senate so he has no reason to trim for reelection as he had to do after the reaction to his support for Thomas.
Maybe Specter will want to go out in grand style in his last hurrah but will he want his legacy be written to please academic historians or will he want his legacy to be the Constitution itself?
The dilemma is complicated by the fact that there is very little leverage which can be applied to a six term Senator who needs no $ for his next campaign. So, contrary to suggestions here that he be threatened by Frist or other powerful Senators, there is virtually nothing which can be done to him. Lyndon engineered a shunning of Hubert Humphrey and brought him to heel but that was a different day. Today, the Majority Leader has precious little power except the power of persuasion.
So the idea of threatening Specter is fraught with danger and could likely lead to a real backlash resulting in the loss of his vote if he were to lose his chairmanship and becomes a renegade. Even to broach the matter of his withdrawing from the chairmanship might force him off the reservation.
We know that Specter is an insufferable egoist and he must be handled very carefully. I think he should be approached by a peer who can feel him out without generating offense, and who can cut a deal. Perhaps such a deal has already been cut during the primary. Let's hope the price is not too high for the unborn.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1268833/posts
Hopefully this won't block Justice Ashcroft!
and Justices Moore and Coulter. ;-)
I can't imagine much of a worse choice.
A guy who ignores major crimes to bust bong dealers and porno movie makers has the wrong priorities.
The US is not safer because Tommy Chong did time.
It would be safer if some of Klintoon's cronies, or the 'toon or the witch were behind bars.