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 article is spot-on. We lose more nominees in the end if we take the chair away from Specter. The Democrats will have an easy time at obstructionism sans Specter and will have a strong talking point to prop themselves up with ("the Republicans are too extreme to allow even a moderate Republican to chair the comittee, how can we rubber stamp their nominees?"). It's not ideal, that's for sure, but it's the way it is.
I don't disagree that Specter is bad as chairman. But I also don't disagree with Hugh that removing him has the possibility of being much worse. Unintented consequences, backlash. The media would have an absolute field day, and taht can only hurt us in the eyes of the ignorant in the battleground states. Democrats would use "poor Arlen Specter" as a noose around our necks. We have them at the gallows now; no need to give them ammunition.
I'll just hope and pray that Bush and Santorum secured his obedience in return for their support, and that a pass from Chairman Specter will make a nominee seem more moderate and more capable of escaping a filibuster. I won't hold my breath, but I'll hope.
Shove and get prepared to get shoved back.
What kind of jerk gets the President to help him with reelection, and before THE MAN even has time to savor his victory, WARNS him not to submit nominees the jerk doesn't approve of?
Who does Specter think he is? Michael Moore?
A hard choice in a messed up Senate -
Someone has to start sticking with the principles of the nation - The people let the Reps. know how they felt -
I understand the distrust of Specter, but the fact is the majority still does not have sufficient control over the Senate & it would be unwise to alienate one of its most powerful members, particularly one with little to lose. Better to buy him off than create a powerful enemy by taking away what he has earned by tradition of the Senate. With the ability to filibuster and block nominations still in the minority's hands, our side needs someone who can speak to that side of the aisle and reason with them. Specter is not likely to run for re-election, so he has less reason to pander to the lliberals. He is free to show his loyalty and dance with the ones that brung him. Remember, as far as the liberals are concerned, he has betrayed them as often as he has betrayed us -- they hated him for what he did in the Thomas hearings, and he nearly lost that time around. He's a guy nobody loves, and with the stronger GOP majority, he needs his caucus more than his caucus needs him.
He knows the game, he'll play ball. And if he doesn't, he can always be taken out later.
On another site the proposal has been adopted that Specter now be called "Sphincter."
I like it!
On another site the proposal has been adopted that Specter now be called "Sphincter."
I like it!
If Hillary Clinton was a Republican, but maintained her current beliefs, I think Hugh would support her. He seems more a party supporter than an issue supporter. Hugh's book "If it isn't Close, They Can't Cheat" pretty much calls gun rights a loser issue. I don't recommend the book and my copy is gradually being used to light my fireplace here in Colorado.
The worst thing that can happen is *nothing*. We should keep the pressure on to remove Specter. But if the other guys (Frist, Kyl, Grassley, etc.) can make a deal with him--you join us in opposing each and every filibuster, or we will deal severely with you later (taking the chairmanship then?)--then that might be the best of both worlds...
That's a pretty good assessment of Hugh. I went to law school with him.
Dump Specter. McCain too, while the trash is being removed.
Specter needs to make a firm, public commitment to the President of the United States, who brought the full power of his office, the influence of the Jr. Senator from PA, and the party he leads to bear on behalf of Specter in a difficult renomination fight, and over the objections of a conservative base who worked very hard for Mr. Bush in a losing effort here in Pennsylvania.
The President has the prerogative of making judicial appointments subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. This is what the Constitution demands; not the advice and consent of one Senate chairman, not two Senators with blue slips, not 7 or 8 Senators on a committee, and not even 40 Senators in the opposition.
Specter needs to make that his official position, he needs to make it public, and he needs to make it now.
This is all that matters. I don't count on Specter's support on the floor, I simply don't want him using his position as Chairman to obstruct.
Play your outraged cards carefully. It is because Specter is thought of as a moderate that he would be a good voice in defending a controversial nominee's right to a vote. We don't need to empower the Democrats.
Hmm, let me get this straight: we punish the people who work against our ends by supporting them. Something wrong with that picture. . . .
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.