I don't like the "Specter" of Specter. And this type of problem points up the error of the "Judicial Fiat" decision on "Row V Wade." We would not have this constant Judicial war if abortion had been settled legislatively.
CAMPAIGN 2004
Stop This Man
A specter haunts the Senate Judiciary Committee. His name is Arlen.
BY TIMOTHY P. CARNEY - WSJ.com
Sunday, September 7, 2003 12:01 a.m.
For all the troubles Senate Democrats have given President Bush and his judicial nominees, things may get worse if he wins a second term. Arlen Specter, a prickly moderate Republican with an independent streak, will become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the 2004 elections--unless the GOP leadership or Pennsylvania's voters do something about it.
Sen. Specter, a perpetual irritant to Washington conservatives, is consistently one of the most liberal votes in the GOP. His demeanor has earned him the name "Snarlin' Arlen," and his record has led to a primary challenge from conservative Pat Toomey. But with the Judiciary Committee's gavel within Mr. Specter's reach, his treatment of Republican judicial nominees--past and present--is most alarming.
Because of GOP term limits on committee chairmen, Orrin Hatch will give up the Judiciary chairmanship after the elections. Mr. Specter will be next in seniority--assuming he's re-elected. The current case of conservative judicial nominee J. Leon Holmes, together with Mr. Specter's past record, ought to make the GOP buck seniority and skip Mr. Specter.
Mr. Specter voted for Mr. Holmes in committee, and has given no indication he might oppose the nomination on the Senate floor. Instead, Mr. Specter has privately approached GOP senators, telling them to vote down Judge Holmes when his nomination hits the floor. Maine's Susan Collins has received Mr. Specter's plea to sink Judge Holmes, and Senate staffers say Mr. Specter is whipping other moderate Republicans behind the scenes against President Bush's nominee--remarkable behavior for the potential future point-man on judicial confirmations.
Opposing Republican nominees is nothing new for Mr. Specter. Most notably, he played a critical role in killing the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork, President Reagan's nominee. Tom Korologos, Judge Bork's shepherd in 1987, credits Mr. Specter with the "game-winning RBI" in the fight to keep Judge Bork off the bench.
Mr. Specter played central roles in the Judiciary Committee rejections of Reagan nominees Jeff Sessions (now a senator from Alabama) and William Bradford Reynolds, whose rejection to a Justice Department position the Washington Post called "a stinging political slap at President Reagan." Currently, Mr. Specter has made it public that he may oppose Alabama's attorney general, William Pryor, and Los Angeles County Judge Carolyn Kuhl--both conservative Bush nominees to the federal bench--on the Senate floor. With Judge Holmes, he is far less honest but even more staunch in his opposition.
The Judiciary chairman is counted on (assuming a Republican White House and Senate) to serve as a nominee's champion in committee hearings and before the full Senate. With Mr. Specter as chairman, the White House would have no such champion. Mr. Specter's articulated constitutional principles are dramatically at odds with those of the White House.
In his book about himself, "Passion for Truth," Mr. Specter proudly takes credit for the Bork sinking, explaining, "Bork's narrow approach is dangerous for constitutional government." Yet the judge's "narrow approach"--strict contructionism--is also President Bush's cherished view of constitutional interpretation. If the president is to deliver on his promise--essential to motivating his conservative base--to place strict constructionist judges on the court, Mr. Specter must not be allowed to pilot the nominating process. |
