Monday, November 08, 2004


National Review is all over Arlen Specter here, here, here, and here. The basic argument of these pieces is that Specter is a liberal when it comes to judicial appointments and should not be chosen as chairman of the judiciary committee.

Victory last week gives the GOP the authority to assert itself as the party of constitutionalism by appointing judges who adhere to the Constitution. This is also a unique opportunity to have a larger discussion about constitutionalism and the function of the court in the larger scheme of separation of powers. The GOP, at its best, is the party of constitutionalism and respect for the rule of law. It has the better case, the constitutional case, on the question of judicial review; and it should present this case incessantly.

Hugh Hewitt, however, disagrees with the tactic of denying Specter the chairmanship. Specter's vote against Bork was fifteen years ago, and Specter has supported every Republican nominee since then, according to Hewitt. Denying Specter the chairmanship would be an imprudent tactic that would potentially vex him.


Post a Comment

<< Home