Posted on 11/05/2004 7:41:13 PM PST by guitarist
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.
This guy is full of it. Specter would have been toast without Bush. Toomey was kicking his ass. The jerk should step aside voluntarily. Let him play golf with his colleagues. But get him out of the way of returning the courts to their constitutional role.
Puh-leaze. What could be more democratic than petitioning lawmakers in the immediate wake of an election and pointing out the value of the mandate?
A putsch is overthrow by threat of violence, and I have trouble accepting Hewitt's pro-life credentials if he refers to us in this ugly, insulting way.
But a chairman has the power to keep an issue from being voted on in the committee, regardless of the majority opinion.
I am totally opposed to Specter and his Scottish Law he used during impeachment on top of everything else. OU President and former Senator David Boren (D-OK) led the fight as much as anyone to confirm Justice Thomas for Pres Bush #41. Since Hewitt decided to go back to the Thomas nomination for justification for Specter, I would much rather have Pres Boren head of Judiciary then Specter and David Boren is a Democrat who no longer is in the Senate.
Hewitt obviously does not share the same opinion of Specter that most of us do including my two Senators from OK.
Wow, I think this is the first time I hhave ever disagreed with Hugh. Spector should not chair that committee.
Specter is the one using "strong arm tactics".
Hugh is a very samrt man. I trust his judgement.
...no "commitments" from liars. Bork Specter.
Stop Arlen Specter - ON-LINE PETITION (From gopusa.com)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1272062/posts
Sorry, Hugh, but now is the perfect time to oust Specter from this position. His clear lack of respect for those who put him in office shows poor judgement. His cockiness towards the President was despicable.
Specter is a RINO. Everyone in Pennsylvania knows this. There are better candidates at this crucial time in our history for this position.
I frankly don't believe in Specter's 'firm commitments,' past or future. Look at Novak's column from April about the Specter contributors. Look at the blue counties Specter calls his political base. Look at the friggin' Scottish Law debacle or the absurd 'Magic Bullet Theory.'
"That was the lesson of the Roman Revolution"
Anyone who has to make a case for Spectre by citing the "Roman Revolution" needs to get a life!
Hugh, please don't be a one-hit wonder...please.
OK. Let's assume that Chief Justice Rehnquist steps down due to his health. Rehnquist has consistently opposed Roe v. Wade.
What happens when Bush nominates a candidate to fill the slot who also opposes Roe v. Wade?
Would nominating that candidate consistute "strong arm tactics"?
Roe v. Wade was the *result* of a putsch--it was never constitutional and it was never the result of popular opinion.
IMO this is not about Bork or the right to life. This is about a vain senator warning a re-elected president to be careful whom he would nominate for Supreme Court Justice.
Bad form. Something the dixie chicks might have done.
you are WAY OFF on this one....hugh....specter is a RAT
u gotta point there
There is a petition at www.onemilliondads.org to try to keep Specter from chairing the judiciary committee. AQnything we can do we should do. Who would of thought after the amazing victories of 11/2 for the GOP that one of our own would get power hungry and block President Bush.
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.