Specter blunders on Roe vs. Wade

Sen. Arlen Specter, the canny old fox of Pennsylvania politics, got carried away last Wednesday in the flush of an easy fifth-term victory and revealed too much of what he really thinks. He clearly imposed a litmus test requiring support of the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision for Supreme Court nominees at a time when Chief Justice William Rehnquist is gravely ill. Specter committed a rare political blunder that endangers his lifetime goal of becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

To correct Specter's monumental mistake, his staff put out a news release trying to contradict the senator's undeniable advocacy of a litmus test. Actually, the brief statement repeated his warning of filibusters against President Bush's judges and did not pledge unqualified support for any nominee sent down by the White House. Furthermore, the sincerity of Specter's retreat was undermined when he said he had issued the statement at the urging of the conservative senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum.

Assuming that Specter cannot and will not make a flat commitment of support, the prospect of his imminent chairmanship poses tests for two ambitious Republicans. Will Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, eyeing the White House, marshal his power to block Specter's ascension? Will Senate Republican Conference Chairman Santorum, after alienating his base by backing Specter against serious conservative opposition in this year's Pennsylvania primary, turn against his colleague?

That challenge from Rep. Pat Toomey threatened to end Specter's long political dance in which he has worn the GOP label while wooing left-wing pressure groups. Specter survived because of aggressive support from Bush as well as Santorum. No sooner had Specter been narrowly nominated than he turned leftward, declaring his independence from Bush and refusing to help two GOP congressional challengers in Pennsylvania who had a chance to win but went down to defeat.

His easy victory Tuesday, while Bush was losing the state, apparently was too sweet for Specter, 74, to contain himself. In his post-election press conference, he declared: ''When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe vs. Wade, that is unlikely.'' He warned Bush of facing filibusters, apparently without help from Chairman Specter. That was enough to inspire thousands of e-mails and telephone calls protesting Specter as chairman.

The Republican base would have been even more infuriated to read the full press conference transcript confirming Specter's litmus test: ''I have said that bluntly during the course of the campaign and before. When the Philadelphia Inquirer endorsed me, they quoted my statement that Roe vs. Wade was inviolate.'' He suggested that ''nobody can be confirmed'' who does not accept abortion rights.

Specter is in line to become chairman because Republican chairman term limits are forcing out Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa conservative and a rare non-lawyer on Judiciary, is ahead of Specter in seniority but wants to keep his Finance Committee chairmanship. That puts Frist, who has been criticized for his management of the judicial confirmation debacle, on the spot. He is considering asking the full Republican Conference to waive term limits for Hatch. The majority leader also may let Hatch keep his chairmanship temporarily to handle any immediate Supreme Court vacancy. Frist could mobilize a majority of the Judiciary Committee's expected 11 Republicans in the new Congress to breach seniority and bump Specter.

Santorum's situation is sensitive. With a potentially difficult re-election looming in 2006 against Democratic state Treasurer Barbara Hafer (a former Specter Republican), he does not want to alienate Specter. That explains Santorum's effort to get Specter to back down from his litmus test in Thursday's statement.

In truth, Specter cannot really repudiate what he said. His modified stand only pledged to guarantee ''prompt action'' by the committee, not to actively support any Bush nominee. The test is whether the Republican establishment will tolerate a Judiciary chairman who opposes the will of voters who gave Bush a second term and continued GOP control of Congress based on him favoring traditional values.

In an attempt to reason with Arlen Specter concerning his inadvertent revelation, I sent his office the following e-mail:

"To the Honorable Senator Arlen Specter:

I am distressed, sir, that you have chosen to claim that our newly re-elected President, George W. Bush, does not have what you consider to be a "mandate" to maintain and expand his vision of America. A popular and electoral majority is the very definition of a mandate, if only to say, "Keep on doing what you are already doing."

The majority of US voters LIKE our President Bush. That said, almost none of those who willingly and freely support President Bush would choose to question his choice when it comes to nominations for judgeships on the Federal bench, at all levels. There are really two views of what judges are supposed to do, when they consider any specific case.

In one view, the controlling factor, is whether the case at hand is in conformity with the existing law, and is decided accordingly, or the case does not meet the criteria of existing law. The basis of all law here in the US is built up of historical precedent, as in case law, and on the foundations outlined in the US Constitution. All this should be plain and simple.

But another view has crept in, seemingly on little cat feet, that the law may be interpreted pretty much any way that is seen fit by the judge on the bench. Upon reading the Constitution, and if the Constitution is mute in terms of specific language, then the judge finds for the new interpretation, if not being specifically prohibited, as taken to mean that the law MUST follow that ruling. Viewed from the outside, by a non-lawyer, this would seem to be pretty dogmatic, and lacking in any flexibility altogether, as no further review is possible. This would amount to nothing less than re-writing the Constitution altogether, without consulting the will of the people, or the various States, or their elected legislatures.

I find this dogmatic interpretation of the law, and of the Constitution, disturbing. VERY disturbing. If a law is so complex it cannot be made clear and explicit to the non-lawyer, then the law should be repealed forthwith, and either never imposed, or written in such way that intent and expected outcome of application of the law are understood easily without mysterious interpretations that are unknown to the people to whom the law applies."

Apparently, however, Sen. Specter's inbox is VERY full, and the message was returned as "undeliverable". One may only conclude, that a LOT of people have already attempted to contact the Senator. I would be curious about the ratio of messages calling him to task, versus those supporting his position.

We may never know. But I suspect a wide majority of unfavorable opinion.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.