Specter At It Again
H/T: Sam. Sen. Arlen Specter is up to his old antics. He now says that he will take a look at the rulings of Justices Roberts and Alito to see how well they comport with their statements before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unless he plans on accusing them of perjury, Specter’s inquest will be largely academic.
Some Democrats are making the case that Specter’s eventual findings could mean that they would have to ask more probing questions of nominees. How that is possible is anyone’s guess. Senate Democrats all but asked both nominees to commit to upholding precedent - well, at least precedent that suited their political agenda - which would have been a blatent violation of their duties. On issue after issue, Democrats sought commitments that the nominees would vote on their side of vital matters that would impaction national policy. On question after question, both Roberts and Alito pointed out that they could not commit to ruling a certain way until the facts of the individual cases came before them. Democrats would do well to adhere to the same on matters of policy.
Nobody can question whether Specter has the right to go back to the hearing transcripts and compare them with the rulings and writings of the two newest members of the Court. Not all rights, though, need be exercised, especially publicly. If Senator Specter thought that he had been deceived, he should have done his homework and made his case before going public with the notion of engaging in such a study. His lame attempt to score political points by giving Democrats cover on the issue of Supreme Court nominees should not be forgotten. As Democrats did with Conrad Burns, Specter has muddied the waters surrounding the Justices by making suggestions about their conduct without actually putting forth a case. The former prosecutor should know better than that.
There is a lesson to be learned here. The White House defended Specter back in 2004 and this is its thank you. Those whose agendas clash directly with the agenda of the conservative base should be replaced at every opportunity. That is not to say that every GOP nominee has to agree on every issue, but those who go out of their way to coyly obstruct the conservative agenda should be replaced when a viable alternative presents himself in a primary. (Hear that Sen. Graham?) In 2004, Republicans were going to control the Senate with or without Specter. Pat Toomey never would have said this, and nobody would’ve noticed if Joe Hoeffel did. Learn the lesson.