Let me start off by reiterating that I think Senator Specter is a good man. I count the number of times on one hand when I actually wrote a Senator a letter thanking him for supporting certain positions or programs – Specter was one of them in regards to a matter concerning Israel.
With that said, I still maintain that Senator Specter shouldn’t be let within a mile of the Judiciary Committee, let alone its chairmanship.
The more Hugh Hewitt tries to insist that Arlen Specter should be given the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee as a matter of right (or for the sake of "prudence"), the more surprised I am that he has gathered some of the support that he has across the blogosphere.
Let’s take his latest Weekly Standard article for example:
"Fast forward four years. The Democrats have convened in late summer in Cleveland to nominate former Virginia governor Mark Warner and Senator Barack Obama. It is the third night of the convention, and the Democrats have chosen as their keynote speaker . . . Arlen Specter. Or Olympia Snowe. Or Chuck Hagel."
This has been a common occurrence by both parties throughout the years. Disgruntled members of party will often give comfort to other side in order to “stick it” to their party. But what conclusions does Hewitt draw from that? Is he suggesting that we provide a “heckler’s veto” to every dissenter and throw away any semblance of a coherent philosophy in order to prevent a political speech at a convention held every 4 years?
Let’s remind ourselves of one thing - Zell Miller’s speech at the Republican convention isn’t remembered because Miller is a Democrat. It is remembered because it was one of the most forceful speeches made from pure conviction in recent political memory. Everybody knows full well that Specter would be incapable of giving a speech of similar forcefulness. So why then should we be ultimately afraid of such a scenario? The press would cover it using the “novelty” angle of a Republican giving a speech supporting Democratic “tolerance” and the virtues of the “big tent” in politics. But the speech won’t be remembered the next week and will do little to actually move voters in an election (unlike Miller’s speech).
Does Hewitt think that Arnold Schwarzenegger is currently in danger of going over to the Democrats? If not, why do you suppose that is? Why is it that Schwarzenegger can still energize the entire Republican base while Specter is causing rifts in it even though neither of them necessarily align themselves with the conservatives? Two reasons primarily – 1) Schwarzenegger isn’t poised to block vital nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court. 2) Despite his own beliefs, Schwarzenegger does not go out of his way to castigate conservatives as a means of pandering to a certain audience built around a single social issue. Justified or not – it sometimes seems that Specter does just that.
"The prevention of just this sort of scenario is at the core of the debate over Senator Arlen Specter's rise to the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee. A national party would welcome the visibility of a member whose views are not always--or even often--in step with the majority's ideology. A national party intent on a generation of authority would avoid the mistake Democrats made when they drove every pro-life official from its leadership ranks."
Hewitt mischaracterizes (or perhaps genuinely misunderstands) the core of the debate over Specter. This is not about one issue such as abortion. This is about instituting broad reforms into an entire branch of government (the Judiciary) in order to reinstitute representative governance. This sweeping reform would necessarily encompass the abortion issue as a broader matter of Constitutional interpretation. And it is because of that single-issue fixation that Specter has previously indicated that he is willing to jettison the entire reform necessary in our judiciary. Even this view should not be enough to ex-communicate him from the GOP. It simply means that he shouldn’t be the chairman of the one committee that has the power to help ensure that these reforms are put into effect. Why is this such a radical proposal in Hewitt’s eyes?
For instance, if Specter broke with party ranks and voted for Barbara Boxer to be the Senate majority leader despite the fact that Republicans hold a majority of seats, would Hewitt maintain that this is simply good natured dissent within the GOP that the party ought to tolerate? Voting for Boxer to achieve a leadership position over the entire Senate would be a disagreement on “one issue” as Hewitt seems to imply. It would be a decision that endangers the entire broad agenda and identity of the Republican party.
Hewitt knows recent California political history. Does he maintain that Republicans Paul Horcher and Doris Allen were just offering reasonable dissents when they actually voted to prevent Republicans from controlling the entire California State Assembly despite their majority status?
Let’s remember Horcher’s quote, "I just wouldn't toe the party line," when he crossed party lines in December 1994 to join all the Assembly Democrats to re-elect liberal Democrat Willie Brown as speaker.
Tell me Mr. Hewitt, was Horcher’s recall by Republicans simply a show of party intolerance for disagreement on that “single issue”?
What Hewitt and his supporters don’t understand is that Specter can deliver the very same situation if he is chairman of the Judiciary Committee – only this time it is being played out in the current 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court instead of the equally split California Assembly of 1994.
"Parties do have to agree on some non-negotiables. For Republicans that list includes a commitment to battle obstructionism in the judicial confirmation process, but it ought not to include a loyalty oath on every nominee."
This statement is a complete contradiction within the context of the Specter flap – further proof that Hewitt fails to understand the true battle that is going on here. If battling “obstructionism in the judicial confirmation process” is really “non-negotiable” in Hewitt’s eyes (as it should be), then he too must demand a “loyalty oath” from Specter if he is to be the Judiciary Committee chairman. Hewitt must know full well how much power the chairman of a committee holds, so his position is rather confusing.
A chairman often has the power to prevent the full Senate from even voting on a nominee who has majority support among its 100 members. That is the issue. That is why Specter shouldn’t hold this power. Nobody is demanding a loyalty oath from Specter that he vote for every nominee. What they are demanding is that he not prevent any nominee from reaching a full vote in the Senate.
Specter is now going through a number of hoops to ensure us that he wouldn’t do that. But with so much at stake here – why take the chance? What is the up-side exactly?
After all, if someone has to spend much of their time trying to convince the world that they really support X, doesn’t that ultimately point to some insecurity on the issue of X? If so, isn’t perfectly natural to suspect that there is a legitimate reason for their insecurity? Wouldn’t it just be easier to have someone in the committee chair where this no longer becomes an issue on either side?
Remember Trent Lott’s sudden suggestions that he would take a good look at every affirmative action proposal that came his way when he was struggling to hold on to his leadership position in the Senate after uttering arguably racist remarks? Do you think that this was healthy environment for party leadership to flourish? Of course not. It was better to have Lott step aside (regardless of how strong the merits might, or might not, have been in the case against him).
Other Republican Senators thought Lott should step down because his continued presence in the leadership position threatened to derail key parts of the Republican agenda. So what was more important? Lott's pride in holding on to his position? Or the larger issues of the agenda that were at stake?
I wonder - Did Hewitt ever fear that Lott might one day give a speech at the Democratic National Convention over this perceived slight? Let’s get real.
Specter is free to disagree on single issues all he wants and still be in good GOP graces, just as long as he isn’t given disproportionate power on an important committee where his disagreements can derail an agenda supported by the majority (not an "abortion" agenda mind you, but an agenda to put Constitutional textualists on the federal courts).
"There is another great role for minority voices within a national party--as a check on excess. The voices of any party's counter-majoritarian caucus are an alarm that sounds whenever ideological excess rears up."
Once again, Hewitt misses the entire point of the debate and ends up turning the argument on its head. The debate is indeed about a “check on excess”. But it the excess of the judiciary that is at stake – not the legislature.
It is vital that such excess be curbed, but we are living at a time of 5-4 divisions where there is no margin of error in administering a solution to the problem.
In order to preserve the very foundations of the democratic rule of law, there must be a strengthened commitment to textualism in Constitutional interpretations by the judicial branch. This means instituting a litmus test on judges – not on single issues mind you, but on interpretive approaches (which in turn would require certain outcomes as to some issues). Is it “ideological excess” to insist on that? Hewitt certainly seems to imply as such.
Hewitt and his defenders might argue that Specter might behave himself and not abuse his power as chairman in blocking votes on judicial nominees. But the salient question is: why should we take the chance when we don’t have to? One miscalculation as to what a chairman might do could potentially doom the best opportunity to correct the direction of the court for well over a generation. Even then, it might be too late with large segments of conservatives valuing “court precedent” over all else.
Why should we force ourselves to look over Specter’s shoulder the entire time when the stakes are so high? Simply for the sake of “tradition” and the fear that we might bruise Specter’s ego?? That seems like a pretty weak argument from my viewpoint.
This brings me to another critical point: Hewitt seems to suggest that Specter and other “moderates” would vote against a perfectly qualified judicial nominee out of spite if they happen to feel slighted. If that is the case, is that the sort of person we want in a committee chair in any event? Don’t we want someone who will vote for or against a nominee out of pure conviction because they think it would be good for the country and the rule of law regardless of any perceived personal insults from fellow party members??
"Finally, conservatives should pause before overthrowing a system that celebrates seniority in the Senate. Where will it stop? Some conservatives are particularly annoyed with Specter, but it isn't as though he's the only moderate Republican who has offended GOP majoritarian beliefs in the past."
I have never understood this. Why exactly should we celebrate seniority in the Senate? What benefits does this system give us?? It seems to me that each Senator should have equal power regardless of their length of tenure. In fact, that notion is so obviously tied to fair governance that I am surprised that even Scalia-style textualists with narrow views of the Equal Protection Clause haven’t questioned the Constitutional problems associated with such a system.
If the people of California decide that a newcomer candidate can better represent them in this day and age than a 30 year veteran of the Senate, why should they be punished for having a Senator with diminished power in relation to more “senior” Senators? Why should voters have to make that choice?
Hewitt asks, “Where will it stop?”
Quite simple Mr. Hewitt. It will stop when we have a Senate system based on one-Senator one-vote and when we have a Court whose entire membership bases their decisions on reasonable interpretations of the actual text of the document known as the Constitution. Why is that so hard to digest? Why is that so radical in your view?
Specter’s appointment to the Judiciary chair could potentially threaten that. It might not. But then again, it might. And as I asked previously – why take that chance when we don’t have to?
Any individual Senator can feel free to disagree from the party line on any issue they want to. I do the same on many issues myself. But when it comes to committee chairmanships, it is both fair and appropriate to insist on certain litmus tests to make sure that the issues the party are interested in get a fair hearing followed by a full vote on the Senate floor.
You can have a dissenting Republican agree with John Kerry’s foreign policy, but you don’t want them as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
You can have dissenting Republicans be in favor unilateral nuclear disarmament in the U.S. while also being in favor of placing U.S. forces entirely under U.N. command – just don’t have them be Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Let them chair the Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee instead. Is that too much to ask? Or does the respect for “seniority” trump all such common sense?
All the anti-Spector forces in this debate are asking is that we don’t allow Republicans with dissenting views on single issues be placed in specific positions where they are allowed to potentially jeopardize important movement on a much broader agenda that transcends the single issue (or issues) in question.
Whether Hewitt chooses to admit it or not, that is what this debate is really about…
"Beginning a new era with a purge is simply the worst possible politics, a self-inflicted wound, and one the consequences of which could be far reaching and awful.
Prudence. Prudence. Prudence.
Jeffords. Jeffords. Jeffords."
Up until now, I have had admittedly rather spirited but still entirely respectful disagreements with Hewitt.
However, it is the last six words of Hewitt’s column that makes me believe that he is either suffering from a current lobotomy, or is in desperate need of one.
The only rational interpretation of the meaning of Hewitt's last six words is that the GOP somehow forced Senator Jim Jeffords to leave the Republican party because it wasn’t prudent enough and was far too stringent on dissenters within its own ranks such as him.
Is Hewitt serious??? He can’t possibly be…
Let’s review the actual details of the Jeffords switch:
First off, it wasn’t a single issue or two that Jeffords disagreed with. It was the entire Bush agenda. Even CNN admits to that.
(Read Jeffords’ own statements two years after the switch. Now you tell me - does this sound like a man who is disappointed by the intolerance in the Republican party over a few issues? Or does it sound like a full fledged Democrat? If it’s the former, do you hear him criticizing the Democrats over his disagreements with them? Didn’t think so…)
But apart from the breadth of Jeffords’ disagreements with the Bush agenda, you also have to remember the circumstances of the 50-50 Senate split at the time. Jeffords was clearly trying to blackmail the GOP into potentially derailing its entire agenda unless it gave him everything he wanted. And even if it did, that would only embolden Jeffords and other “dissenters” to ask for more. The end result would have been a complete capitulation – not an accommodation on one or two issues.
Hewitt sets a standard for accommodating dissenters that is impossibly high – failing to distinguish between accommodation and wholesale surrender.
And let’s also remember what it is that finally convinced Jeffords to jump ship as an Independent – the promise of a committee chairmanship by the Democrats. It is astounding that Hewitt doesn’t see the ironies in his own arguments...
This is a perfect example of what happens when a single Senator is given inordinately more power over his colleagues in his ability to set the agenda. Jeffords found himself in that position. And in the end, does anyone (besides Hewitt) really believe that Jeffords leaving the party was bad for the Republicans in the long term??
And who can forget the trial balloon that Jeffords offered, suggesting that he might be willing to switch back to the Republicans after they re-took power in the next elections? For Jeffords, maintaining the power of a committee chairmanship always trumped principle. Sound familiar in this debate that we are now having??
Rationality. Rationality. Rationality.
Hewitt. Hewitt. Hewitt...
Posted by Justin Levine at November 12, 2004 02:23 PM | TrackBack