Every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee would make a fine committee chairman except one. And that one is slated to become chairman in January because of seniority rules. This man rescued the unconstitutional and anti-life Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade (1973) by stridently opposing the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, though Bork was a highly qualified jurist appointed by a president from this man’s own party. He threatened to vote against two of President Bush’s current pro-life Catholic judicial nominees. He consistently criticizes judicial decisions that are based on law instead of elite liberal opinion on everything from abortion to tuition vouchers for parochial schools. He favors “gay rights.” Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania should not be chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committees.
Specter Shows True Colors
Specter didn’t waste any time sticking it rhetorically to President Bush and to the pro-lifers who were essential to the President’s re-election and to the expansion of the GOP’s Senate majority by four. The Associated Press reported November 4 concerning Specter and future Supreme Court nominees,
“When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlike1y,” Specter said, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. “The President is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,” Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats’ success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush’s conservative judicial picks. “…And I would expect the President to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.”
Perhaps realizing that he’s not chairman yet, Specter issued a clarification of his remarks the next day but withdrew nothing.
Specter Campaigning
Specter’s stab at Bush and the pro-life movement came despite the tremendous help he received from Bush and his fellow Pennsylvania GOP senator, pro-life champion Rick Santorum, in getting re-elected this year. He barely fended off a primary challenge from pro-life Rep. Pat Toomey (R.-Pa.), relying on crucial endorsements and campaigning from Bush and Santorum. In the general election, Specter didn’t seem to care much about helping Bush win the state, refusing to appear with Vice President Cheney at a campaign event a week before the election. And, wrote Tim Carney on National Review Online this week, “Most striking were the ‘Kerry and Specter for Working Families’ signs posted around southeastern Pennsylvania. Was the culprit some particularly ambitious free-lance ticket-splitter? The signs were created, paid for, and posted by a 527 created by Roger Stone, chairman of Specter’s 1996 presidential campaign.”
Bush likes to say that he favors judges who hold to “strict interpretation of the law.” He and anyone else who favors the rule of law rather than steadily increasing judicial tyranny, not to mention party unity in supporting the President, should be opposed to making Specter the Senate’s chief judge of Bush’s judicial nominees. Specter’s judicial philosophy is so activist, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D.-N.Y.), one of the most aggressively liberal and pro-abortion opponents of Bush’ s judges, recommended Specter for a seat on the Supreme Court: He put Specter at the head of a list he offered Bush in a June 10, 2003, letter.
Specter Faces the Media
Specter has been feeling the heat. On November 9, he went on CNN and did the commonplace I’m-personally-opposed-to-abortion-but routine. However, he also promised not to block anti-Roe v. Wade nominees. When Judy Woodruff asked, “And you’re not going to stand in the way of an appointee who would vote to overturn Roe v, Wade?”, Specter replied, “Absolutely not.” But given his record, can he be trusted?
It’s true that Specter has voted for anti-Roe justices before, when it was clear that those nominees wouldn’t be enough to overturn the decision. He voted against Bork because Bork could have tipped the court against Roe — exactly the opportunity pro-life Americans hope will arise in the next four years.
Specter, 74, was just re-elected and will probably never have to face the voters again. He is free to follow his conscience, which he likely will. Republican senators, if they are truly concerned about protecting life and the rule of law, should do the same and keep Specter out of the chairman’s chair.
