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.
OK. We have to prepare for the worst.
This is Spector's last stand. It's the highest point in his career -- to get a chair. In the event that the public pressure won't stop the pubbies from giving him the chair, then we have to be ready to have his chair effectively neutered. He get's his chair, and we get our judges. We won't be 100% happy that this RINO is heading the chair, but we'll get EVERY SINGLE nominee through.
I think no matter who gets the chair, the following rules must be put in place for the next Congress. Please excuse typos and logical errors -- it's late and I'm just trying to float that we need airtight, loop proof rules to effectively neuter Specter.
Aside from the issue of the threshold for fillibusters (which threshold the Democrats will likely be above for a very long time), we want a loyal Chair in that Committee--one who will serve our Platform with regards to judicial issues.
It's bad enough that we're having to put up with the consolidation of two powers between the judicial and legislative. Our judicial branch lawmakers compromised with feminazis in several administrations to fill their pockets with our children's inheritances, but that practice stops here. The divorce/cohabitation industry is through.
Okay Hugh--now that you've voted for Bush--you goin back to being a Democrat again?? heLLo!
That's what I think makes Hewitt wrong. I don't care about Specter, per se. I think we need to stage a public hanging, purely for the purpose of shaking the place up and reminding Frist & Co. that they didn't get all those new GOP Senators for free. Specter conveniently stuck his neck in the noose, so let's do him.
Specter should be opposed with vigor. He is way too "high maintenance." Force him to fight hard for anything good that he gets, and make deals that sting him. He is beneath contempt, despite consistently earning it.
too little, too late... we need Senator Kyl in that position... Sen. Specter only wanted to seem like one of us when Toomey was closing in on him... remember when he was on Rush? what a phoney... i don't want to take chances with Specter when it comes to judges... judicial appointments really do have the greatest, lasting impact on American society--and i surely do not want Arlen Specter's hands in this area...
Just who do you think will implement any of these rules that you suggest simply to save us from the disaster of a Specter screw-up? The Tooth Fairy?
Better to head the whole thing off by not letting Specter get the Chairmanship in the first place!
I have contacted the appropriate members of the Senate to urge the leadership to carefully consider the effects of making the Senator from PA the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
That said, I am familiar enough with the traditions and rules of the Senate to know that it will be very difficult for the Majority Leader to prevent it. Without a very convincing argument to the other Republican Senators, and lacking a voluntary withdrawal of Senator Specter, the entire operation of the Senate could be thrown into confusion.
There are ways, agreements, compromises that can be used without taking away the chairmanship. His seniority in the Senate gives him great power and as the senior Senator of the majority on the committee he must be the chairman. He would have to voluntarily agree not to be on the Judiciary Committee to take the chair away. According to the traditions of the Senate it will be impossible for Frist to prevent his chairmanship unless Specter asks to be assigned to another committee. That is not going to happen.
Reading the comments from many on this thread, and others dealing with similar subjects, I have come to the conclusion that many do not understand the politics of Congress and the Senate in particular. It is an "old boys" club.
The founding fathers took particular pains to make the Senate very independent and insulated from popular opinion. Two of the major duties of the Senate, the ratification of treaties and the advise and consent of federal judges, were outlined for the Senate alone.
The call for Specter's removal as Chairman today is similar in nature, though not nearly as controversial, as FDR's attempt to pack the Supreme Court with those who agreed with his philosphies. The Senate, led by his own VP (Garner) refused to even discuss it. Garner went home to Texas and could not be located.
I personally believe that the litmus test proposed by Senator Specter is wrong, unconstitutional in and of itself. Many judicial candidates in the past have refused to answer questions concerning their proposed ruling on specific case or law because it would amount to a litmus test.
By virtue of his position the President is entitled to nominate the person of his choosing and that person is entitled to an "up or down" vote in the Senate. I have to believe that President Bush has obtained some sort of commitment from Senator Specter that, though he may disagree with a nomination he will allow nominess to get the opportunity to be voted upon by the entire Senate... and, participating in a filibuster after reporting the nomination out of committee might actually be the tool that would allow the majority leader to remove him as chairman.
Plain and simple: Hugh is wrong.
More than half a million Pennsylvanians foresaw the current major crisis that is facing us regarding the potential appointment of Arlen Specter as chair of the senate Judiciary Committee. That’s why, despite big money/strong-arm tactics/profligate lies/temporary democrat primary registration crossovers (all committed by the Specter forces alone), Pat Toomey, a virtual unknown, came within 1.5% of winning the Pennsylvania Republican senate nomination in April. The four-term incumbent Specter won by a mere 16,000 votes, with more than one million votes cast. And Toomey would have won by a comfortable margin, had the President and our junior senator placed principle before political protocol and endorsed him rather than his unworthy opponent, who sports a long history of deceit and betrayal.
I am also certain that Toomey would have won the senate seat handily on Tuesday, and not only would we not be faced with the specter of a Specter chairmanship of Judiciary, but we would have a junior senator with major Reagan-esque leanings sitting in one of Pennsylvania’s senate seats. But, as they say, that’s water under the bridge. I simply hope that President Bush now has a new, and exquisitely personal, understanding of the phrase biting the hand that feeds you. Arlen Specter has one mean and powerful bite.
To those Pennsylvanians who have followed Specter’s infamous four-term career, it reads like an immutable script: (1) enter, stage right, having counted on moderates and conservatives to return you to the stage to begin with; (2) spend about five and a half years moving consistently stage left, while arrogantly defending yourself against those who, dutifully and sincerely, remind you that you are not playing the role you were cast to play; and then (3) half-heartedly meander back toward the right for the six months preceding your next re-election bid, hoping that the move right will eclipse the previous five and a half years of leftist role-playing. It always worked … until Pat Toomey shined a spotlight on the shenanigans. We’re wise to you now, Arlen. And it’s a good thing for you this is most likely your last term. Toomey would defeat you resoundingly in 2010.
Specter’s duplicity dates back to the mid-1960s, when he sat on the Warren Commission and formulated the ‘single-bullet theory’ to explain Oswald’s assassination of JFK. There are many right-minded people who believe he is responsible for a major cover-up of that crime, and its ramifications.
Around twenty years later, when Ronald Reagan nominated Jeff Sessions (who now providentially/coincidentally sits on the Judiciary Committee with Arlen) for a federal judgeship, Specter betrayed his constituents by voting with the democrats in killing the nomination. This betrayal marked the beginning of the now-common act of killing the nominations of those with whom you don’t share a political ideology … and the Constitution be damned. Before Sessions’ defeat, a federal judicial nominee had only been turned down once in the four decades since the Roosevelt administration. So Arlen Specter effectively set the stage for politicized judicial confirmations – a mighty arrogant, and toxic, unconstitutional precedent that laid the groundwork for the awarding of judgeships based on leftist political ideology.
And Arlen continued wielding his leftist-agenda-driven power the following year, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork to sit on the Supreme Court. Bork had a sterling resume as a judge, and a Yale law professor (one needs only read his Slouching Towards Gomorrah to comprehend the sheer genius, judicial purity, and uncompromising allegiance to the Constitution that this giant of a man represents). Specter played a major role in Bork’s defeat, and I, for one, will never forgive him for his vicious character assassination of a man whose shoes he isn’t fit to shine.
Some believe that Specter regained his principles (although it’s difficult to regain that which one never possessed to begin with) when he defended Clarence Thomas against the left’s attacks in 1991. But one only needs to look at the timing of the Thomas hearings to understand Specter’s newfound fairness. The hearings occurred less than a year before Specter’s next re-election bid. Too little time to erase from the memory of conservative Pennsylvanians yet another betrayal. So he was forced to do what was right … simply because of the timing of the hearings.
Specter’s final betrayal occurred during the Clinton senate impeachment trial in 1998, during which he could have played a major role in ridding us of the most immoral, treasonous, criminal President we have ever known. Instead, he effectively ignored the US Constitution, and instead relied on (purported) ‘Scottish Law’ to allow the President to continue his reign of horror. He asserted that under the venerable ‘Scottish Law’ (which appears to trump the American Constitution), there are three possible verdicts in an impeachment trial: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. Voting ‘not proven’ (and enjoying the dubious distinction of being the only senator to do so) allowed him a cowardly retreat from alienating either his genuine leftist base, or the conservative/moderate supporters he needed to fool, yet again.
Chief Justice Rehnquist was so taken aback by the stupidity of Specter’s argument that he ordered Specter’s verdict to be recorded as ‘not guilty’.
Arlen Specter’s crimes against our republic have been many. But I believe the four above are the most grievous. He should not even be sitting in the US Senate, much less chairing the committee that will have enormous impact on the seating of federal judges, in an era in which activist judges have assumed the arrogant role of declaring the Constitution irrelevant when it comes to matters of leftist societal engineering.
As I see it, the two most uplifting results of Tuesday’s election are (1) that we can now hope to enjoy four more years of effective national leadership, where the war on terror -- the most important issue of our, or any, time -- is concerned, and (2) that we also have a President in office who will nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court, so that the court will take a much needed turn to the right, and place the Constitution back on the lofty pedestal where it rightly belongs.
I urge every American to call (letters, petitions, and e-mails are not as effective) your own state senators, Majority Leader Frist, and the President, and share your gnawing concerns about the long-term disastrous effect that a Specter chairmanship would have on the moral/societal fabric of our republic – during a time when we should be rebuilding, not further dismantling.
~ joanie
159 posted on 11/05/2004 7:44:45 PM PST by joanie-f
Thanks for posting that great reply by joanie.
Are our Repub. Senators so shallow that they will ignore this and follow "tradition"?
That really is offensive, Hugh, and coming from the man who used strong-armed tactics on Tom McClintock, a bit condescending.
Indeed. With Specter we have a history of putting self above honor, power above principle...Specter was instrumental in making a mockery of the House Managers during impeachment. He treated his "oath of impartial justice" like a cheap whore. This transgression against the Republican party, but most importantly the Constitution, vindicated a sitting President who was unequivocally guilty as charged.
Have we not learned to disarm Brutus before the cry, "et tu Brutea."
Bump.
There is no basis for trusting Specter to do the right thing after he's safely ensconsed in the chairmanship. All we have to do is look at how some of the S. Ct. justices have acted compared to who nominated them and why. Specter's going to be the MSM's new Favorite Republican. Move over Hagel, move over McLame.
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.