So it should be obvious from my previous post - I am among those who feel that Arlen Specter should be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. I think he has some good qualities, but not the sort of qualities that should allow him anywhere near the Judiciary Committee.
He might allow Bush's judicial picks to come to a full vote on the floor. He might support them if he does allow such a vote. But then again, he might not. We don't know. And quite frankly, not knowing is a problem.
Specter insists that he voted to confirm many of federal judges with "pro-life" views. Of course he did. But that is irrelevant since he knows full well that such judges would be beholden to Supreme Court precedent. He had nothing to lose in voting on behalf of lower judges who are hamstrung by decisions from the higher court.
Having to vote for a Supreme Court nominee is an entirely different matter - and Specter knows it.
For the record,
I am in that (seemingly) smallest of political minorities on the underlying issue here: I am solidly pro-choice legislatively, and pro-federalism, but also rabidly anti-Roe v. Wade and anti-judicial activism. Let the states decide. Let's let political compromise be possible. Let's stand up for larger Constitutional principles regardless of our personal views on issues not found in the Constitution's text.
Roe v. Wade (or, more accurately, Casey v. Planned Parenthood) has constricted the debate on this issue in such a way as to make me an oddity: Someone who is generally pro-choice but who consistently sides with pro-life forces because the political debate on this issue currently does not exist outside of the veil of judicial activism which I hold to be a larger issue and principle.
So let's address the common game of semantics that comes up in the Specter debate regarding "litmus tests" -
I am against litmus tests on single issues. But I insist on litmus tests regarding overall interpretive methodologies when reading the Constitution. I want a textualist, a la Antonin Scalia.
That is why this discussion of "litmus tests" almost always boils down to a childish game - for the methodology will end up limiting the results of many decisions such that you will have a de facto litmus test on specific issues. (i.e., No self-respecting textualist could find a right to abortion in the Constitution, thus they would be obligated to vote against the notion of abortion being enshrined as a Constitutional right.)
I find nothing wrong with this. Debates over "litmus tests" are almost always red herrings.
The only murky area becomes to what extent a judges interpretive methodology should override principles of precident and stare decisis that created earlier decisions based on different methodologies.
Is it "activist" to overturn non-textual abortion rights because they have been decreed for the past 30-years? What of non-textual rights that have been decreed for far longer than 30-years?
On the other hand, is it "activist" to uphold previous precedent when such precedent has absolutely no foundation within the text of the Constitution itself?
People can respectfully disagree on these questions. But there are those who are intellectually dishonest enough to hide behind stare decisis principles only to advance result-oriented ends in certain cases and then jettison such principles in other cases when the end results would not be to their liking. It is easy for such charlatans to skip between non-textual stare decisis reasoning and textualist reasoning only as a means to be certain that their personal issue-by-issue preferences prevail.
This is ultimately my fear with what Specter will do.
I think all nominees should give detailed answers as to these questions (They can discuss it abstractly enough such won't be able to hide behind the canard that they wish to decline speaking about "specific issues that might come before the court".).
So back to Specter -
I think he will do whatever it takes to preserve his non-textualist litmus test on single issues that he holds dear (regardless of the larger debate over stare decisis, and even if it means deep-sixing every textualist nominee that comes his way).
Again, maybe I am wrong about what Specter will do. But if so many people are even questioning it, why bother take the chance? Who needs the headaches of constantly wondering?
What is so important about Senate "traditions" of having senior members sit on committees? Why not be sure that we put the right people on committees? (Or at least be as sure as we can be under the circumstances.) What does Specter's personal pride have to do with what the Republican base has clearly been clamoring for over many years now?
After hearing him back Congressman David Dreier all the way (including tacit support for the FEC complaint against John & Ken), it doesn't surprise me at all that Hugh Hewitt supports Specter. He supports traditional Washington country-club guidelines under virtually all circumstances. He is increasingly refusing to let principle get in the way of maintaining cordial relations within the Republican establishment.