Posted on 11/10/2004 10:33:12 PM PST by kattracks
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter has often justified his voting for or against judicial nominees on grounds that he supports those nominees whose views are in the "mainstream," as distinguished from those whose views are "extremist."Now that he is in line to become chairman of that committee in January, because of seniority, the meaning of these two elusive -- and elastic -- terms becomes crucial.
Senator Specter voted against the confirmation of Judge Robert Bork and for the confirmation of Judge Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, even though their voting records on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia were virtually identical. On a couple of decisions where they differed, Judge Scalia took a more conservative position than Judge Bork did.
Why then was Judge Bork considered to be so conservative as to be "out of the mainstream" while Judge Scalia was not? It had nothing to do with their records.
It had to do with the fact that Antonin Scalia's nomination, which preceded Bork's, created no political firestorm because Scalia was replacing another conservative Justice and so would not have changed the lineup on the Supreme Court.
Robert Bork, on the other hand, would have been replacing a more liberal Justice and therefore would have shifted the balance of power on the High Court. Liberal and left-wing organizations across the country mobilized to prevent that from happening at all costs and launched a massive smear campaign that created a new verb, "to Bork" a nominee.
Those Senators who buckled under these pressures -- including Senator Arlen Specter -- could justify voting against Judge Bork on grounds that he was an "extremist." The term is very elastic and politically convenient.
If "mainstream" becomes the litmus test for judicial nominees, then that means continuing the trends of the past half-century toward judges who take policy decisions out of the hands of the voters and their elected representatives, and impose their own notions as the law of the land.
"Mainstream" is not even a fixed position. The more judges get away with overstepping the boundaries between the courts' jurisdictions and the areas reserved by the Constitution for democratically elected officials, the further into those reserved areas judges go.
Within living memory, it would once have been considered unthinkable for a judge to order a state legislature to raise taxes to finance the judge's pet project. But that has now happened.
Issues like gay marriage or abortion may stir up controversy in the media but most of that controversy is about which policy is desirable. The more fundamental question is: Who is to decide?
Those who say that voters, not judges, should decide are not in the "mainstream." They are considered to be "extremists."
The easy way out for any President is to nominate people who can be easily confirmed by the Senate. Even conservative Republican Presidents have put liberal zealots on the Supreme Court or have nominated people who carried the "moderate" or "conservative" label, but who lacked the intellectual depth or the backbone to resist fashionable trends toward judicial activism.
To President Bush's credit, he has tried to stop the steady drift toward arbitrary judicial rule by nominating people like California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown who have a track record of opposing judicial activism.
A President who is trying to make a fundamental change in the federal judiciary and a chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who wants to continue the "mainstream" trends are in a fundamental contradiction, no matter how much each side tries to paper over the difference with nice words.
With so many federal court vacancies, and with several Supreme Court vacancies almost certain to occur during the next four years, this may be the last chance in our lifetime to reverse the trend toward government by unelected judges.
That is infinitely more important than putting Senator Arlen Specter in charge of the Senate Judiciary Committee because of his seniority.
I'm going to be seriously pissed if Specter gets the Chairmanship.
Never mind what the Constitution says, it's all about what he considers "mainstream."
Interesting...This is the same rationale Hugh Hewitt is using in his current apologia for Specter. Just today Mr. Hewitt tried to conflate a parallel between Zell Miller's comments regarding his Democrat party, with what the Republican party will do to itself if it decides to not elevate Specter to Judiciary Committee chairmanship.
Unfortunately I am beginning to lose faith in Mr. Hewitt.
Specter must go and Hugh's fear-tactics, passing responsibility to the Republican party for his (Specter's) transgressions, is only giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Keep the Pressure up, this gets voted on in January. The Republican leadership in theSenate is hoping this will quiet daown and go away -- it will not.
Senator Frist and Senator Santorum have visions of the White House dancing in their Dreams -- NOt if they go thru with this appointment of Specter to the Chair of the Judiciary COmmittee. Mention that in your E-mails, Phone Calls and Faxes. Make them PROVE to us that they will keep their word to the people who have placed them in office.
They have seen in the past week what our power is. We may have to go to Washington in January to make them hear our voices, so be it!!
The Liberals have made it a point to scream and cry about there position being the right position, this past election showed the direction the majority of the people want to go. We ahve alot of work to do in correcting the course the Socialist have placed this country on, we will not stand for TREACHERY!
They are VOTING on this in a few days. In January it will take effect. Don't wait till January to voice your opinion. Do it now!
Oh I already have, Thanks for the correction, I really did think they were voting on this in Jan. Thanks, I'll get out some more e-mails !!
The last thing we need is another liberal judge or weak judge that will not take back the ground lost to the attacks of 'social engineering' activism of the 'mainstream' judges.
Specter is wanting to choose more judges who will arbitrarily ignore any meaning the constitution has that does not agree with the ACLU extremists.
Imagine how pompous, arrogant and tyranical Specter must be to only support judges who ignore the real constitution and go along with the elitist-revisionists in the 'mainstream of modern legal thought" who have no reverence for the constitution. They despise the real constitution.
I will send more emails and make more calls tomorrow.
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.