Replies

We are a big tent party, right? We would not want to apply a litmus test to anyone for a committee chairmanship,right?

Quite the opposite. No judge who does not feel bound by the Constitution, as written, should be allowed to serve on a court. As such, those that would oppose judges because they would in fact be bound by the Constitution, as Specter has claimed*, should be on the Senate Judicial Committee.

The party does not, or at least should not, include those who rejected the basic notion of representative government. And what do we gain by putting such a person on the SJC? Let alone as its chair???

The best case scenario here is that Bush and co are taking a gamble on Specter. I do feel obliged to give Bush the benefit of the doubt...but there is to much at stake to gamble that Specter, as he in facthas every reason to do, will not use his position to save the imperial judiciary.

If Specter wins, I will be forced to hope that Bush does have some control over him and the gamble pans out. But Bush had better make sure it does pay off.

*I am well aware Specter now claims he will not stop strict constructionist justices. I am also well aware he has also promised a number of people on the Left he would. He is lying to someone. I don't see how we can feel confident he is lying to his friends and allies and not us.