You state that "Specter will get the job done for the President." Examining his long record, and what he says now and in the past, I believe that Specter is committed to the pro-abortion position, and sincerely wants to do what he can to block judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade. This opposition can take lots of forms. He can leak information about judges he doesn't like, he can berate them in hearings, he can schedule witnesses that are unfavorable and give them a forum, even if they are lying weasels, he can delay the hearings for a long time to allow the NY Times to pound them for weeks on end until the President is willing to give up on a nominee--in short, he can torpedo nominees without actually coming out against the president. I think Arlen will do this as much as he can.
You are right to note that the committee numbers will change to give the GOP a majority of 2, so this factor makes it conceivable that Specter could be on or even chair the committee and not be able all by his lonesome to keep nominees from reaching the floor. A vote against a nominee by Specter will send a signal of blood in the water to the lib media, but they could still get to the floor. So, if you were to let Specter have the chairmanship, the only way to do it is to call him in to a serious meeting of the Senate leadership and judiciary committee members, maybe in the Oval Office with the President. In that meeting, you lay down the law to Arlen. You tell him that the President's standards for judicial nominees are well known. They must be extraordinarily well qualified. They must NOT be judicial activists, but the types who understand that judges interpret the law. The President believes that the Constitution should be interpreted in accord with the original intent of the founders, and that changes should come through amendment. "Do you disagree Arlen? If so, run for President, but don't be chairman. You will be expected to support and push hard for nominees who share the President's values. That's who he will send up. And you can be sure that they will all be vetted for qualifications and background."
Arlen must be told that if he is not willing to take the chairmanship under those terms, then don't take it. If he says he will support the President's nominees, but it turns out he doesn't, he should be assured by all the other members of the committee that he will lose his chairmanship but quick.
Do that to Arlen, and I will go along with letting him be chair, reluctantly. But I'd feel safer if they just took it away from him, gave him something else to soothe his fragile ego and kept the most important post in someone like John Kyl's hands.
Regarding the filibuster, you are very mistaken about the nature of the rats. I guarantee you, and feel free to bookmark this, the first time that President Bush sends a Scalia type nominee for a Supreme Court position, the Rats will do everything in their power to block him/her, including filibuster. The court is their whole ball of wax, the keys to the kingdom, and as soon as they feel it is threatened, they will go nuclear, to use a phrase. That includes filibuster. They can do no less, NOW and NARAL and Emily's List and the ACLU will demand it.
We might have a few Dims who don't go along with the filibuster, but we might have a few Pubbies, including Arlen, who support it. They can lose 5 Dems and still succeed in a filibuster, and so they will let Dorgan and Baucus and Hegel and a few others opt out, but keep the others disciplined and in line. Bank on it.
Therefore, it is vital that the Senate rules on filibuster be changed, in the organizing resolution, to limit filibusters on judicial nominees. Otherwise, we will have gained nothing on this issue in this election, and the conservatives will punish the GOP in 2 and 4 years.
One more point for you to consider. The Massachusetts Supreme court cemented in the publics eye what judicial activism meant and what strict construction is all about. The Massachusetts Supreme court did us a huge favor. The public was watching and they didn't like it one bit. This directly works against the dems trying to filibuster judges that are presented to the public properly, that is they interpret the law not make it up. What Bush was saying is he saw this and is going to use it to build off of. We would be wise to follow his lead.