A POLITICICAL WEREWEASEL - ARLEN SPECTER

??? What world are you in?

For over 100 yrs no SC nominee appointed by a Dem president has failed to be confirmed...there have been four Republican appointees rejected.

The kicker is going to be how Specter votes on Souter's replacement and any future SC replacements. In the past, he's faithfully voted to confirm pro-life judges despite his own pro-choice views. Now that he's joined the Dem hordes, I would expect him to vote in accordance with his new party and own beliefs. Therefore, republican filibuster of supreme court nominees could be now considerably more difficult....

Of course, its always been the Dems that have held for a litmus test for SC judges...and enjoyed periodic success at sabotaging a president's nominees. The usual (and very frustrating for me) position of Republicans is to honor the wishes of the sitting president and basically confirm them with little opposition.

To me, this is the most troublesome aspect of Specter changing parties.

But ironically, Specter’s defection may give Republicans the ability to filibuster judicial nominees at the Judiciary Committee level, so the nominees never get out of committee.

Huh, you say. Here’s the explanation, from Professor Michael Dorf of Cornell Law School at his excellent blog, Dorf on Law, written two days ago before Souter’s retirement was in play:

Does Arlen Specter’s defection from R to D strengthen the President’s hand in Congress? Perhaps overall but not on judicial appointments because breaking (the equivalent of) a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Before today, Specter was likely to be that one Republican. Now what?

The link in Dorf’s post is to Congress Matters, which has the Senate Judiciary Committee rule:
IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTEThe Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.

Now this is interesting. Specter could allow a nominee out of committee if Specter was a member of the Republican minority, but as part of the majority, he’s just another vote. Here are the other Republicans: Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn, and Tom Coburn.

The weak link is Lindsey Graham, who was a member of the Gang of 14. If Graham says the course, the Republicans may not be able to stop runaway spending, military retrenchment, and an interrogation witch hunt. But Specter may have handed Republicans a gift.

Abe Fortas was on the Supreme Court, you idiot.

Cyclo, I'm afraid you may be right...but a guy can hope...hypocrisy among politicians is not exactly unknown (see Specter's remarks of a month ago for case in point).

yes, the speed of your stupidity is far greater than mine

Sticks and stones...

I'm glad to see that Obama doesn't cornered the market on immature and stupid people from Chicago.

I don't think a lot of you Republicans understand what is happening right now...

I think many conservatives know precisely what is happening right now. The recent corrupt idiots in the GOP as well as the fruits of Wall Street greed run rampant have combined to damage the Republican brand.

As you should remember, something similar happened to the Democrat brand (or more precisely the Liberal brand) not that long ago. Obviously some of you Libs didn't give up on your brand, and yet you now suggest conservatives should give up on theirs. I can appreciate why you would want conservatives to go off and hide in a corner, but spare me this shite about how the world has changed forever.

Better yet, don't. The more cock-sure you are of ideological dominance, the sooner we can expect a correction.

Maybe Liberals, this time, can restrain themselves and adhere to their actual principles, but I'm doubting it. They couldn't in the past but neither could the Conservatives, which is why these cycles are assured.

Please, please, please...assume that either conservatism is dead or that you can kill it. The more arrogant you are, the less time in power you will have. Please don't heed the recent lesson of the GOP.

Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.

He has to curry favor with the Dems. They're not going to support him as a Party just because he may have stopped currying the favor of Republicans.

If anything since his defection to the democrat party; he has been going out of his way to appear more republican than he was when he was a republican. I guess in an effort to distinguish himself from democrats

By Paul Kane
The Senate dealt a blow tonight to Sen. Arlen Specter's hold on seniority in several key committees, a week after the Pennsylvanian's party switch placed Democrats on the precipice of a 60-seat majority.

In a unanimous voice vote, the Senate approved a resolution that added Specter to the Democratic side of the dais on the five committees on which he serves, an expected move that gives Democrats larger margins on key panels such as Judiciary and Appropriations.

But Democrats placed Specter in one of the two most junior slots on each of the five committees for the remainder of this Congress, which goes through December 2010. Democrats have suggested that they will consider revisiting Specter's seniority claim at the committee level only after the midterm elections next year.