Sen. Arlen Specter promises to help confirm Pres. Bush's judicial nominees

On November 18, the current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee collectively said that they would support Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) for chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when the 109th Congress convenes in early January. This essentially guarantees that Specter will be assume the chairmanship.

The committee has jurisdiction over nominations to the federal judiciary and some key pro-life legislation, among other things. Because of Specter's history of pro-abortion activism and his role in defeating the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, among other reasons, NRLC and other pro-life groups had urged Republican senators to pick another member of the committee as chairman. Many Republican senators received great numbers of calls and e-mails opposing Specter's elevation.

However, Specter spent about two weeks calling and meeting with other Republican senators to address their concerns about how he would handle the chairmanship. On November 18, Specter also issued a written public statement, which is reproduced in total below. The other Republican committee members then collectively said that they would support Specter for the chairmanship. A number of the committee members expressed confidence that Specter would not disappoint them.

Specter stressed that over the past four years he has supported all of President Bush's judicial nominees. In his written statement he said, "I have no reason to believe that I'll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination." He also wrote, "I believe I can help the President get his nominees approved . . ."

According to Congressional Quarterly, "Specter said his duty as committee chairman would require him to tame his maverick streak and, as a member of the Republican team, work to move the party's policy initiatives."

Specter also pledged to work with his colleagues to curb the use of filibusters by the Democratic minority to prevent up-and-down votes on judicial confirmations.

Pro-life Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who said that his office received more phone calls about Specter than any issue except the impeachment of President Clinton, expressed confidence that Specter would help confirm President Bush's nominees. "Time will come when the president sends over a nominee, maybe for the Supreme Court, and our committee will support our president, and we will do everything we can to make sure that nominee is fairly treated," Graham said.

"We certainly hope that Senator Specter does not betray the commitments that he has made to his fellow Republican senators, and that the confidence that they have placed in his words will prove to be justified," commented NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. "If not, the Republican senators collectively continue to possess the authority to change chairmen at any time."

If a majority of the Republican senators on the committee had voted to select a chairman other than Specter, the issue would then have been voted on by the entire Senate Republican Conference, which is the caucus of all of the Republican senators. (There will be 55 Republican senators in the new Congress.) However, since the Republicans on the committee are now in agreement that Specter should be chairmen, ratification by the Republican Conference is expected to be automatic.

Specter has the most seniority among the Republican committee members who are currently eligible to chair the committee. Although the rules explicitly permit the selection of a chairman other than the most senior member, this apparently has not been done since the 1920s. Over the past two weeks, a number of Republican senators have told reporters that they believe it is important to preserve the seniority system.

The newsletter Congress Daily quoted Senator Thad Cochran (R-Ms.), who is in line to take over the chairmanship of the powerful Appropriations Committee, as saying, "The longer I've been here, the better I've liked the seniority system."

Senator Specter's November 18 press release is reproduced below.

November 18th, 2004

SENATOR SPECTER'S STATEMENT ON THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Washington, D.C. - Senator Specter gave the following statement today on the Senate Judiciary Committee:

I have not and would not use a litmus test to deny confirmation to pro-life nominees. I voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist after he had voted against Roe v. Wade. Similarly, I voted to confirm pro-life nominees, Justice Scalia, Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy. I lead the successful fight to confirm Justice Thomas which almost cost me my Senate seat in 1992.

I have assured the President that I would give his nominees quick Committee hearings and early Committee votes so floor action could be promptly scheduled. I have voted for all of President Bush’s judicial nominees in Committee and on the floor, and I have no reason to believe that I’ll be unable to support any individual President Bush finds worthy of nomination. I believe I can help the President get his nominees approved just as I did on confirmation of two controversial Pennsylvania Circuit nominees when other, similarly situated Circuit nominees, were being filibustered.

I have already registered my opposition to the Democrats’ filibusters with 17 floor statements and will use my best efforts to stop any future filibusters. It is my hope and expectation that we can avoid future filibusters and judicial gridlock with a 55-45 Republican majority and election results demonstrating voter dissatisfaction with Democratic filibusters. If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes.

I intend to consult with my colleagues on the Committee’s legislative agenda, including tort reform, and will have balanced hearings with all viewpoints represented. I have long objected to the tactic used of bottling up civil rights legislation in the Judiciary Committee when it should have gone to the floor for an up or down vote. Accordingly, I would not support Committee action to bottle up legislation or a constitutional amendment, even one which I personally opposed, reserving my own position for the floor.

###