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.
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.