What about if Specter is left on the Committee, but just not given the Chairmanship due to "it's best for the party"?
I agree that that would be the most 'amicable, politically (man, do I hate even typing that word!) feasible' solution. But I don't think that would sit well with Specter, since he has had his eye on the chairmanship of that particular committee for decades.
We have to take seriously TakeChargeBob’s assertions earlier on this thread that Specter is capable of merciless vindictiveness (he wasn’t dubbed the cruelest man in the senate – by his fellow senators, his staff, and even members of the sympathetic mainstream, media -- for nothing). When it comes to critical votes, and filibuster threats, he could easily mean the difference between victory or defeat.
At the same time, we cannot, under any circumstances, allow him the chairmanship of Judiciary – no matter the promises he makes in order to obtain it. His promises aren’t worth the breath it takes to voice them. So I believe your suggestion (keep him on the committee) is the only viable solution – and let the chips fall where they may. If he chooses vindictiveness over graciousness (and who in his right mind would better on the latter?), so be it.
~ joanie