JCecil3 Called It Early On

| | Comments (5)

Whatever one might conclude from Mr. JCecil3s varius arguments about Kerry, he hit the nail right on the head so far as the dedication to pro-life of the present administration. It strikes me as window-dressing. If they stand idly by and allow Arlen Specter to chair the judiciary committee, we are very close to "all is for nought." Specter, as you know, has as much as promised that there will be a pro-abortion litmus test for Supreme Court Judges. Under those circumstances, doesn't much matter what the rhetoric was all about. It appears that the republican dedication to the pro-life cause is a public face. It ends once the family begins its conversation.

Bookmark and Share


What it actually means is that the Republican Party particularly, and the Senate in general, is "too loyal" to the exent that is possible. It is like a family there, or has traditionally been so, which is why former Senators are so often chosen for cabinent positions - they are so easily confirmed.

Republicans tend to respect hierarchy and seniority more. Bob Dole was widely seen as not the best candidate in '96 but it was "his turn". Given Specter's seniority, it would've been huge for Specter to have been drop-kicked. The real proof will come in the judges that get appointed. The litmus test, as it were, for the Republican Party is not Specter's chairmanship but the judges that ultimately get appointed.

I don't much like Arlen Specter, but I'm not sure his appointment as chairman means the Bush administration's pro-life dedication is window dressing. Time will tell.

In any case, I am in the happy position of not considering the current administration as a pro-life force for good so much as by far preferable to the alternative. I can always say, "Yes, but it would have been worse under Kerry."

Dear TSO,

I certainly hope you are right. But if they allow tradition to rule here, they are basically putting a man in a position where he can effectively never bring to the floor anything he doesn't care for. This was the tack Senator Leahy took, and I don't put it past Arlen Specter to never consider anyone who is ideologically against Roe v. Wade.

As you say, time will tell.

Dear Tom,

Unfortunately, I haven't that luxury. As far as I was concerned in the matter Bush had only a very, very tiny moral advantage over Kerry and if we get a Supreme Court packed with RvW adherents, that moral advantage disintegrates entirely. As I see, you are either pro-life and make a point of it, or you talk a story and let the judiciary continue their present practice of legislating from the bench. With Specter in charge, I anticipate the approval only of activist judges.

But again, I hope I'm wrong.



My opinion, from watching Mr. Specter grovel yesterday, is that he has realized that if he wants to be the chair of the Judiciary committee, he cannot play the same political shenanigans he has in the passed. My impression is that he knows he's had a close call with irrelevance, and he has been humbled by it.

Dear Jack,

Thank you, that is heartening.





About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Steven Riddle published on November 19, 2004 10:13 AM.

A Pro-Life Democrat was the previous entry in this blog.

Prayers for one of St. Blogs's Founders is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

My Blogroll