Please go and read Hugh Hewitts Friday night post on this topic. He's a lawyer, worked in the White House and is the smartest political observer around. He's saying the composition of the court 12-7 or 11-8 is more important than the Chairman. He says that to set aside the ascendency rules for political expediency will do more harm than good. Read his post and reconsider. I was as fired up as anyone and did call several Senator's offices, but I'm pretty sure we've made our point by now with Speckieboy and it may be time to change the arguement to composition of the committee rather than the chair. hughhewitt.com is the address.
Hewitt's problem is he does not realize Specter's resolve to beat conservative judges. It is Specter's purpose in life.
Hewitt is wrong, and the effort to derail Specter is misguided. More important that either Specter or the composition of the committee is forcing a rule change in the Senate to eliminate the use of the filibuster in the case of nomination confirmations.
If THAT isn't done, NOTHING CHANGES, no matter whether Specter is in charge of the committee or not.
Please go and read Hugh Hewitt's Friday night post on this topic...That would be THIS thread:
Hugh Hewitt's Take on Arlen Specter
Hugh Hewitt ^
Posted on 11/05/2004 10:22:33 PM PST by MplsSteve
Friday, November 5, 2004
Posted at 10:30 PM, EST
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?
CLICK HERE for the rest of that thread
Dear Wardawg,
I disagree with Mr. Hewitt. Contained within his own comments is its contradiction. He says that it is more important to make sure that the committee have a pro-life majority. Yet, with a committee that is split 12 - 7 or 11 - 8, one or two pro-murder Republicans make the ratio dangerously close. Mr. Specter is clearly a pro-murder Republican. Thus, the better solution would be to throw him off the committee entirely. However, that is unlikely.
But considering that the committee will not have an overwhelming pro-life membership, it is important that at least the committee should have a strong pro-life chairman.
Defeat to Specter.
sitetest
The ascendency rules in the Senate are a farce. The Democrats will toss them the minute they regain a one seat majority! Why is it that the Democrats can break "tradition" with impunity and yet the Republicans always have to leave their balls at home and play by the rules?
Yes, we need to address the composition of the committee, and ensure the rules are changed to disallow filibuster. However, we don't need "moderate support" such as Specter. If his support for Bush's appointees was so great, why does the blood of good men stain the chamber floor?
Specter is not only opposed to pro-life issues; he is opposed to any constructionist jurist. We are not seeking the simple overturn of one or two flawed cases though right-winged judicial activism; we want a return to Constitutional jurisprudence. Specter will consistently prove a stumbling block to that aim, and that is why he needs to be dumped.