Weapons of Mass Discussion: Specter

Monday, November 08, 2004

Specter

By Matt for the TIB Network:

It's time to weigh in on this issue... There are two camps: one supporting Sen. Arlen Specter (RINO-PA) and one that believes Specter would be a disaster as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

What's at Stake

The Chairman has tremendous influence over the committee. With Chief Justice Rehnquist in poor health, it is quite likely that he will retire soon. The President will quite likely nominate two other Justices in his second term as well.

National Review's editors lay out what is at stake pretty well:

Specter isn't just one vote in one hundred, or even just one vote among 19 senators on the Judiciary Committee. According to the current rules of seniority, he is next in line to chair the committee that soon may have a chance to hold the first Supreme Court nomination hearings in more than a decade. But also under the current rules, he won't accede to this position without the consent of the committee's other Republican members.

Against Specter

The folks over at National Review have laid out the case against the Senator. Not only is Specter a wishy-washy conservative, he is also not a fan of tort reform. Tort reform is a key part of the domestic agenda that President Bush's re-election was centered.

Specter caused the term "Borked" to be created by destroying Judge Bork. What is to prevent him from "borking" more conservative nominees?

The main issue seems to be comments that Specter made over the weekend in which it appears that Specter would impose a litmus test against pro-life nominees. He has "clarified" his position since then, but I have found him to not be very convincing. He was on the Sean Hannity show today:

When Hannity asks if Specter will be a champion for the Bush Administration and its judicial nominees, Specter couldn’t give the obvious answer: "Of course! He’s my president. I’ll make suggestions and give input, but once the president acts, I’ll fight for his nominees."

Instead, Specter said, essentially, "It depends. We’ll see. I can’t answer that question on the radio."

That sure didn't convince me.

For Specter

Hugh Hewitt makes the political argument for Specter.

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.

Matt's Chat

Now, Hugh is a guy I have come to respect in a very short time, but I find it curious that he would choose "Republican" over "conservative." Hugh, what's the point in winning, if you play it safe with the agenda?

Hugh seems to think that removing Specter as Chairman would cause other "moderate" Republicans to go off the reservation. He fails to account for the pro-life Democrats and moderates.

"Majorities require compromise," Hugh is fond of saying. I suppose there are issues in which you can get away with that sort of relativism. I'm sure glad he didn't think that way about the war.

Hugh asks some questions of us who oppose Specter that I'll take a crack at...

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that he would vote for Bush nominees to move from the committee to the floor?

If Specter is a man of honor and conviction, this question answers itself. If he isn't, we don't want him in the position anyway.

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to end filibusters on the floor?

Same answer. See above.

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to confirm nominees once they had made it to the floor and once a filibuster had been broken?

So far, we're three for three here, Hugh. See above.

What would the effect of blocking Specter have on the conduct of his colleagues from the GOP's "center-left" wing, especially Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine and Chafee of Rhode Island? Would blocking Specter increase the likelihood of their opposition to Bush nominees? Can opponents of Specter guarantee that they can have their cake and eat it to, or might these four (and perhaps Hagel of Nebraska) respond by returning fire on nominees?

I refer you to this map showing the breakdown of how the country voted by county. This isn't a country that is just dying to vote Democrat. Now, I'm not saying that we shouldn't consider the politics, but really this is too important to let politics get in the way.

Hugh tries to assert that Specter will have to make assurances, but I just don't believe Specter. Throughout the presidential race, Hugh was one of those who was touting John Kerry's record. Now all of a sudden, we shouldn't be looking at Specters record? We shouldn't take Specter's words and actions in to account?

And don't forget that there is a converse to pro-death Republicans...there are pro-life Democrats.

For me, the issue breaks down to a choice between Republicanism and conservatism. I will choose conservatism every time. My values mean more to me than my party.

11/9 Update - 10:00AM

Hugh posts this:

Senator Specter needs to make those commitments to Senator Frist and his colleagues, and those commitments need to be enforced. BTW: It would not be appropriate to demand a "yes vote" from Specter on nominees in committee or on the floor, only that he would blast through every obstruction thrown up by Democrats to assure that the nominees get their votes, both in committee and on the floor.

While I agree that we can't demand a "yeah" vote from Specter, I think it is appropriate to "ask" for one. The problem that I see with Hugh's assertion here is that if Specter is elevated to Chairman and then fails to come through with his commitments, IT IS TOO LATE. Hugh has yet to convince me whether or not he thinks that is worth the risk. The Supreme Court specifically, and judicial nominations in general, were the second most important issue in the campaign. Does Hugh think Republicans failed to get a mandate from the American electorate?

This is why I get burned out on politics after awhile. Nobody seems willing to do what they have to do in order to make things better. They are always concerned with the next election... It is exactly this kind of mentality that turns voters off.