Ingratitude
By Tara Ross
Imagine that you are an incumbent Senator facing a strong challenge during your party's primary. The chances of defeat are real. Perhaps your opponent's views fall more in line with the party platform than your own do. Moreover, you have never been very good at supporting Presidents of your party. You undermine their judicial candidates. You take public stances against their legislative agendas. You like to look upon yourself as a bit of a maverick.
In the face of all these disincentives, and despite the fact that your opponent would make a better ally for them in Congress, your President and other Senators in your party decide to go to bat for you, endorsing you during the party primary. With their help, you defeat the challenger, a much-liked and well-respected Congressman--but only by a hair. You go on to win the November general election. All in all, it was a close call.
Out of gratitude, you realize that you must work harder to support your party--right? Wrong. If you are Arlen Specter, the liberal Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, you are more likely to return to your renegade ways.
Specter, you see, talks a good game when he is up for re-election. He recognizes his inability to win an election without the support of conservative Republicans, so he tends to run toward the middle during senatorial election years. Once re-election is safely behind him, he spends the next four to five years acting precisely as he wants, without regard to what the voters or others in his party may or may not want from him.
Such an attitude caused him, for example, to undermine the nomination of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court during Ronald Reagan's years in office. He later supported Justice Clarence Thomas because--you guessed it--an election year was approaching.
Specter has done much damage during his tenure in the Senate, but this year, the consequences of his actions may be even more disastrous than usual. When the 109th Congress convenes in January, Senator Orrin Hatch will be term limited from resuming the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Specter is next in line for this position unless Chuck Grassley of Iowa relinquishes his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, thus freeing himself to lead the Judiciary Committee instead.
Specter's record of undermining Republican judicial candidates in the Senate should provide ample evidence of what type of Judiciary Chairman he would make. But in case anyone should remain in doubt, he reminded everyone late last week. In his post-election news conference, Specter sent a warning shot to the President, implying that pro-life judges will not make it past a Judiciary Committee under his control.
"When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely," Specter stated. "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning."
Specter is wrong to impose a pro-choice litmus test on judges. To the contrary, the only appropriate litmus test for a judge is that stated by the President repeatedly throughout the campaign: Judges should strictly interpret the Constitution and the laws of this nation. Political preferences--whether on abortion or another issue--should not be taken into consideration when evaluating judicial nominees.
Bush gets this. Arlen Specter does not. Let's hope the rest of the Republican delegation gets it for him. With at least one and as many as four Supreme Court nominations approaching during the next four years, the stakes could not be higher.
Senator Bill Frist, as Majority Leader, can and should encourage procedural maneuvers to prevent Specter from assuming chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee. Rumor has it that Frist wants to run for President in 2008. He should show the conservative base in his party that a fair and impartial judiciary is important to him.
Moreover, Chuck Grassley can and should voluntarily forgo his chairmanship of the Finance Committee, instead assuming control of the Judiciary Committee. Such an act would admittedly be a step backwards for Grassley career wise, as the Finance Committee chairmanship is generally considered to be more powerful than the Judiciary Committee chairmanship. Forgive me for such an idyllic and naive sentiment, but isn't the first and foremost duty of elected officials to serve their country, rather than their own personal ambitions? Grassley should make this sacrifice for his country.
A fair and impartial judiciary is of critical importance. Republican Senators should act now to ensure that Arlen Specter is not the gatekeeper of the Judiciary Committee, determining which judges do or don't make it to the bench.
Specter has proven--repeatedly--that he is not up to the task.
Tara Ross is a writer and an attorney residing in Dallas, Texas, a regular contributor to TAEmag.com, and author of the recently published Enlightened Democracy: The Case for the Electoral College.
