Specter thin chance of blocking nominations
One of our great readers, Conservative in VA, emailed us a letter received from Senator George Allen of VA in response to concern about Arlen Specter's impending appointment to Chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee and his veiled threats to block judicial nominations that he perceives to be too conservative. While Allen's overall response is somewhat evasive in nature, it does give us some hope that Senate Republicans plan to hold Specter's feet to the fire on this:
We must end the impasse on judicial nominations. This nation has
many issues that need the attention of our lawmakers and our President,
such as improving education, healthcare and economic and job growth. No
Senator should feel forced to vote for a nominee to the bench but they
should at least allow a fair vote. I have every expectation that my fellow
Republicans will honor their commitment to allow the President's nominees
to be fairly considered for an appointment to the federal courts.
While I'm not a Specter fan (though I once was after watching him demolish Anita Hill), I tend to break with the calmer heads on this one. I believe Hugh Hewitt has the best take on this. The gist of his argument is that preventing Specter from being Chairman would only serve to rile the other moderate/ left Republicans on the committee (Snowe, Collins, Chafee) into voting against conservative judges to redress what they would perceive to be an injustice to Specter. The argument for keeping Specter as Chairman is that the effect would be a now chastened Arlen Specter who would be less prone to oppose judges and a more amenable contingent of moderate Republicans to whomever Bush would nominate. Read Hugh's argument. It makes sense.
We must end the impasse on judicial nominations. This nation has
many issues that need the attention of our lawmakers and our President,
such as improving education, healthcare and economic and job growth. No
Senator should feel forced to vote for a nominee to the bench but they
should at least allow a fair vote. I have every expectation that my fellow
Republicans will honor their commitment to allow the President's nominees
to be fairly considered for an appointment to the federal courts.
While I'm not a Specter fan (though I once was after watching him demolish Anita Hill), I tend to break with the calmer heads on this one. I believe Hugh Hewitt has the best take on this. The gist of his argument is that preventing Specter from being Chairman would only serve to rile the other moderate/ left Republicans on the committee (Snowe, Collins, Chafee) into voting against conservative judges to redress what they would perceive to be an injustice to Specter. The argument for keeping Specter as Chairman is that the effect would be a now chastened Arlen Specter who would be less prone to oppose judges and a more amenable contingent of moderate Republicans to whomever Bush would nominate. Read Hugh's argument. It makes sense.
posted by Wonderdog | 12:01 PM | Permalink
|
1 comments
1 Comments:
Specter has been very busy defending himself. He has an opinion column in today's Wall Street Journal. It says, in part:
To resolve any concern that I would block pro-life judicial nominees, take a look at my record. I have consistently opposed any litmus test. I have backed that up by voting to confirm pro-life nominees including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice
Antonin Scalia, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Justice Anthony Kennedy. I led the fight to confirm Justice Clarence Thomas, which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.
I have voted for all of President Bush's judicial nominees in committee and on the floor.
The current controversy was artificially created by incorrect reporting. I never "warned" the president on anything -- and especially not that I'd block pro-life nominees.
But, this part's logic gives me pause:
As the only pro-choice Republican on the Judiciary Committee, I come from a different philosophical position on the political spectrum and can be helpful in dealing with the Democrats to get the president's nominees confirmed. I proved that in shepherding through confirmations on two controversial conservative nominees for the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, D. Brooks Smith and Michael Fisher.
Post a Comment
<< Home