Replies

You: "The issue is huge, and not going away, but merely increasing in its adherents. For the GOP to build a history of burnning bridges with Pro-lifer's on this, especially when they have a very real shot of at least mitigating it, would be very ill advised."

That's it. That hits the nail on the head.

Fortunately, the GOP hasn't actually made any mistakes yet. President Bush and Vice President Cheney have clearly and strongly stated the pro-life position of the party. The Republican Party holds itself out as a pro-life party, and as far as we know, it IS a pro-life party.

Arlen Specter put his foot in it. He made the mistake. The party can correct that mistake by preventing him from getting a powerful post where he will have the ability to frustrate the pro-life agenda of the party.
That's why he should be blocked by the party.

If the party does NOT block that nomination, it will be alarming. Why would the party alienate a core constituency over a guy who was clearly out of line, but who clearly will use his power against the policies of the party?
Are we pro-lifers just chumps? Are we dopes who've been roped?

If Specter doesn't get the job, the answer will clearly be no, the party is pro-life. Things are as they seem. If Specter does get the job, everyone will be on his guard and watching to see what happens. If then the pro-life strict constructionist judges are not forthcoming, that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that maybe we're the Republicans' "Black Bloc" will be the dawning of truth.

As of right now, with Specter still not holding the gavel, there's no reason to expect the Republican Party to do the wrong thing. Trust them. Trust Bush and Cheney, Frist and the rest of the Republican leadership to not cut the ground out from under us and betray us. Why would they?

If then the pro-life strict constructionist judges are not forthcoming, that sick feeling in the pit of your stomach that maybe we're the Republicans' "Black Bloc" will be the dawning of truth.

There is a bigger picture here to consider for the pro-life movement. While justices may retire during the next 4 years, they may not all be in the first two years. After the 2006 elections, the make up of the senate may look quite different and the democrats may have the majority. Most of the democrats are in safe blue states while there are several republicans that are in real danger in blue states.

The best course of action seems to be to downplay the pro-choice/pro-life litmus test and just focus on appointing strict constitutionalists. Preferably they would have no presided over no abortion cases during their career. This would allow the party to not be hypocritical because we have always wanted judges the follow the law - not make it. This would allow republicans to save enough political capital to maintain control of the senate.

A short sighted approach would be to endlessly parade outwardly obvious pro-life judges and force them through. While one may get if it is replacing an existing pro-lifer, but if not many of the moderates in blue states will be forced to change parties. That would mean that no judges get through and the fiscal conservatives that make up much more of a base than pro-lifers realize would leave the party. The party would then be in the minority whether the rabid pro-lifers left or not.

I believe that Specter is totally on the same page with this. He may be pro-life, but he is not opposed to strict constitutionalist. His only objection is to outwardly apparent pro-life judges. In fact, I believe Specter did us a favor by pointing out that even with a majority, its important to appoint palatable judges. No one will lose their jobs by confirming a strict constitutionalist that has no previous pro-life/pro-choice record.