We now have the first issue I will take with Republicans regarding the Bush Mandate: Senator Arlen Specter.
I’ll tell you right now that I have already written to my Senators and asked them to not support his ascension to the chair of the Senate Judicial Committee. But my opposition to him is not based in the same reasoning as those who promote this petition.
I have written several times, most recently here, that I don’t want any kind of “litmus test” applied to nominees for judicial appointments. (Does anyone younger than me even know what limus paper is?) We need Sumpreme Court Justices without agendas. In either direction. The Court is there to be sure our laws do not conflict with the Constitution. For that, they need to be better versed in the Constitution than in law. And no, the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land. It is not law at all, but a mandate for operation of the Federal Government.
Senator Specter has already violated that mandate. For that reason, I don’t want to see him in charge of the deliberations of the committee which conducts interviews of potential justices.
I too wrote my working senator (Dole) and the soon to be senator from NC. I agree on no litmus test but rather Supremes and Federal Judges who interpret the Constitution as written and not based on personal agendas.
Comment by Pat in NC — November 8, 2004 @ 9:01 am
Litmus what? Just kidding — anyone in my generation (HS grad ’92 for the benefit of other readers) would know that too, at least. Unless there’s some other cheap method of testing pH, I don’t think it’ll ever disappear from the average science classroom’s supply closet.
It’s not clear from the post what specifically is the basis of your disapproval of Specter, if it’s different from the basis of the folks at the conservative petitions site. I know nothing of this guy or any related controversy yet; kindly fill me in with some links or more details of your take on it if you get a chance.
Comment by Bogey — November 8, 2004 @ 4:18 pm
Specter stated he would not support any nominee who didn’t support Roe v. Wade.
I thought schools all went to pH strips.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 4:39 pm
As I mentioned elsewhere Specter has taken to speaking out of both sides of his mouth. To the “moderates” he says one thing. To the fundie crowd he points to “voting to support this president 88-89% of the time”.
Comment by Bubba Bo Bob Brain — November 8, 2004 @ 7:21 pm
He must bring the bacon home to Pennsylvania, though. He is the type I would never trust with anything important. Voters must see something there, and it can’t be integrity.
Comment by Bunker — November 8, 2004 @ 7:52 pm
I agree that we should keep political agendas off the Supreme Court. I am not a fan of Specter, but he did do a pretty good job on Anita Hill during the Thomas nomination. My impression when the President and Santorum supported him over Toomey was that Specter promised him approval of at least one Supreme Court nominee (call me cynical)in a second term. My guess is that Specter gets the appointment, but I would be happy if he didn’t.
Comment by John Adams at The Commons — November 8, 2004 @ 10:22 pm