After reading this very public promise by Senator Specter to support President Bush's nominees, I'm entirely comfortable allowing him to take the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
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'll call up Messrs. Bush and Frist right now to withdraw my objection.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.
Brian Wilson, a reporter for Fox News, said: "I looked at the tape very closely. . . . Senator Specter was the victim of some spin on the part of some reporters who took some comments and were looking for a kind of a good headline out of it."
Similarly, Rush Limbaugh refused to join the critics, saying: "This Specter story . . . may be a story about the media again . . . apparently, just from the looks of this, it may be that some words were put in his mouth that he didn't say."
The Rev. Pat Robertson has also seen through the media spin, stating on Nov. 8 that "I am not worried about Arlen Specter, and I think he'll be fine."
Specter may be right about having been misquoted following the election, but his statements about his past record leave something to be desired. Examples:
I don't know why anyone listens to Pat Robertson anymore about anything.
X: Well, I just don't know what to think anymore. Are you saying that you don't want Specter to chair the committee? Aren't you pro-choice anyway?
If there were an easiy, relatively painless way to get Specter off the judiciary committee - e.g., offering him some other key position that he would actually want, but where his influence on the court would be sharply limited - I'd favor it. As it is, I'm not sure what the wisest approach is. I don't want him there, but I also don't want to see the Repubs do anything that will seriously piss off not only him, but also the other RINOs in the Senate, who currently vote like Democrats but at least don't act like them.
I am pro-choice, but I'm against the judicial activists who constitutionalize that view. My copy of the Constitution doesn't say anything about abortion, one way or the other, so from a jurisprudential standpoint, that puts me in the "pro-life" column, right there with Justices Rehnquist, Thomas and Scalia. Also, Specter's liberalism does not appear to be limited to abortion; check out the front page of Spoons's blog for other examples.