Specter

HughHewitt.com ^ | 11/5/04 | Hugh Hewitt

[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.

[Ruth C]

I have to disagree. For me it's ethics. We have complained for decades about the 'ethics' of the Democrats: refusing to allow nominees to come to the floor even if they would be voted out of committee; the manipulation to make a '60' vote requirement by use of the filibuster etc.

So, what do we become, the same party as the Democrats? The party where those who don't agree get shoved in a closet, like Zell Miller and others were treated, we change the rules in mid-stream? That's not the my party, that's the Democrats. I'm sure there are other other ways to handle the situation which the party leaders are studying. I don't want my party become one of ethics are only OK when things go my way!

[Always Right]

Senator Specter is very outspoken on his views of the court and they are the complete opposite of Bush's. In fact, Specter's view is identical to Kerry's. Defending Roe v. Wade is Specter's top priority. Specter shooting off is mouth the other day was simply Specter bragging to his buddies on how much power he is gonna have over Bush. Specter would have made a great Chairman of the Judiciary, if Kerry were president.

[Dienekes]

No, I disagree. I'm as big a pro-lifer as you're likely ever to find. But I recognize, as does Hugh, that you have to unwarp minds a step at a time. This is what the left does not realize in their attempts to warp the minds of America - they are trying to go whole-hog, and that is why they are losing. It's painfully slow and frustrating, but it is the best, and maybe only, hope of ever reversing this gravest travesty in our nation.

[lawdog]

No, even the "Huge one" isn't always right. Arlen is a RINO when it suits his purpose.."Scottish Law"= Impeachment trial cop- out, "Bork coward" etc.

[guitarist]

In the end, it's not up to us. It's up to the other 54 pubbies, many of whom are not weenies: Inhofe, Kyl, Frist, etc. They shouldn't make a deal with Specter that requires them to "trust" him. They just make a deal with him that he can keep the chairmanship as long as he puts each and every nominee through the committee and onto the floor, and then he--Specter--will oppose the filibusters. If on the final vote Specter opposes the nominee--well, a promise to support each and every nominee in advance is something a Senator can't give. But they should agree in advance with Specter that if he joins the filibuster it costs him his chairmanship.

[lawdog]

From anotehr FR Post...

In 1998, on the eve of impeachment, Clinton named Joan Specter to a paid position on the National Endowment of the Arts. Specter then voted the impeachment charges "not proven."

[delacoert]

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.

Overstated, pseudo-intellectual bull5hit. Other than that it's great.

[FredZarguna]

Good grief. This is ridiculous. Please see this post for just a little background. Specter is a jerk, but he's not Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, or Chuck Hagel. He has a number of solid Republican positions. I'd love to see him go. I've worked to see him go. But can we PLEASE get the facts straight.

[Salvation]

Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it says about those who support abortion

What does this say about Senator Specter?

[Nick Danger]

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

But is that really the issue? I think the issue is that we just had an election, and Arlen Specter is behaving as though nothing has changed.

Conservatives are up-to-here with assisting the Republican Party with electoral success, only to get nothing in return. The phosphors hadn't even faded on the touch screens before the first RINO popped up to "warn" us not to expect anything for our efforts.

Specter is only one of several RINOs. We need to buy them all a vowel. If that means that Arlen Specter doesn't get his traditional turn at the wheel, that may be the price we have to pay to send the rest of them — and Bill Frist — the message that with success comes responsibility.

We're not voting all these GOP Senators in so that some misnamed Democrat from Pennsylvania can set the agenda. If we get two more years of "go along, get along" RINO-ism for our trouble, we'll be more angry than a little bit.

[MohawkDrums]

He now says he was misquoted or something; he won't apply a litmus test. But even so, he's giving a fair assessment of where the Senate stands right now. Republicans don't have the votes to shut down a filibuster. But as a practical matter, it's the rare judicial nominee on either side who explicitly states a view on abortion, making it harder to sustain a filibuster -- senators all have things they want and if they can plausibly claim later that they were fooled, they will horse-trade. I think what Arlen is saying here is, put up conservative and presumably pro-life nominees who can make it through the nomination process. I know Bush's father apparently got burned by Souter, but he was such a wild card, very little could be discerned from his writings;
they need to do better vetting of the nominees.

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Yep, that is Hugh. A change in the judiciary will take years and years and that is the smart way according to Hugh. Everything that takes forever seems to be the smart move for Hugh. In four years, Hugh will have taught the Christians that voting is for suckers.

[rj45mis]

"I think letting Specter serve as Chairman would be a huge political miscalculation on the part of Republicans."

Hewitt's book, If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat, is a very well written piece, but he is not going to easily convince me that there is an overriding reason to back off opposing the Specter judicial chairmanship.

[demkicker]

I'm sorry, but given Arlen Spector's Senate record and his comment/gaffe about judges, he doesn't deserve the privledge of chairing the judiciary.... No matter how you slice it, he doesn't deserve that honorable and most trusted, powerful job.

[1stFreedom]

>>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 may be the best compromise. Sepcter gets the chair, but is powerless to hold ANY nominee in comittee.

Solves the problem IMO.

[Digger]

I have replied here dozens of times here that we will never get a conservative SC. The elites will not let it happen - period. So watch this complete lib screw around with nominees, then when it's figured out that his agenda is winning it will be too late to do anything about it. This is just too predictable. I would hope to be wrong so let's get him ousted.

[streetpreacher]

Hugh is a very samrt man. I trust his judgement.

The Judiciary Committee is much too crucial to the future of our Republic to simply entrust to the judgement of one man or, in Spector's case, to the arbitrariness of another.

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” - Thomas Jefferson 1798

[ernie pantuso]

Hewitt is right. Spector is only one of one hundred. The main thing is getting the nominee out of committee to the floor. If he is committed to that, even if he opposes the nominee on the floor vote, then he should receive the chair.

[bowzer313]

"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."

I've read much and considered everything mentioned in these "Dump Sphincter" or "Keep Specter" postings over the past few days. I find your line of reasoning, and Hewitt's, such as "I understand the distrust of Specter, but..." and your posting above to be indicative of the key reason for allowing Specter to assume the Chairmanship. To me, arguments such as yours are unadulterated bulls**t. I maintain that ANY rationale for rewarding a two-faced traitorous coward like Specter are completely bogus, even dangerous. Anyone who advocates cutting a deal with an idiot like Specter is truly blind. Have you forgotten the Lott-Jeffords fiasco? Lott cut Jeffords nothing but slack and gave him everything under the sun trying to keep that SOB in the Republican ranks. In the end, Jeffords kicked Lott in the ass and became a turncoat anyway. Lott himself looked like a stupid fool. Next, consider the many concessions that Bush has made to Democrats, like his NCLB initiative, particularly for Kennedy. What did that vile POS do to return Bush's favor? We all know the answer to that one.

I believe that Bush's mandate requires that Bush keep the faith with those who have made his success possible. Turncoats and RINOS, like Specter, do not deserve special consideration or accommodation. Bush needs to pursue his own agenda without compromise. Any person that jeopardizes that success must be removed and replaced at this juncture, regardless of outdated practice or procedure. Specter can find some other function to perform. And, by the way, if the guy had any brains or good judgment, he never would have jeopardized his position by flying off the handle the way he did. He has made himself immediately suspect and must be disqualified as the Committee Chair.

[Bitwhacker]

'Hugh is a very smart man. I trust his judgement.'

Oh really? Who the hell talks about 'putschs' in the context of American elections? He obviously thinks that there is something owed to someone who has survived several elections, yet I hear nothing about how Spector should honor or even consider his constituaency (i.e. ALL or freakin' Pennsylvania for a Senator).

OK, let's give Hugh Hewitt the benefit of the doubt, and assume that a seasoned Senator from PA would eventually come around...but, NO!!!! Ol' Arlen hauls off and fires a bow shot over USS Bush: Don't nominate any pro-life judges...and he did this several times , on talk radio, so his non-denials ring hollow....

I am waiting to hear how Arlen is going to repay George W. for campaigning for Ol' Arlen during the primaries...