Common Sense Political Thought

In 2004, Representative Pat Toomey (R-PA) challenged Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in the Republican primary. Mr Toomey, now out of Congress and President of the Club for Growth, is a solid conservative, while Mr Specter could most charitably be described as a RINO: Republican in name only.

Even though I was somewhat concerned about Mr Toomey’s ability to defeat Representative Joe Hoeffel, the very liberal Democratic senatorial candidate, I voted fro Mr Toomey in the primary; Senator Specter won renomination, though by a somewhat narrow margin.

Come the general election, the polls indicated that Senator Specter was going to defeat Representative Hoeffel quite easily, and thus I felt it safe to vote for Jim Clymer, the nominee of the Constitution Party and a real conservative. Naturally, Senator Specter won.

Senator Specter had his important allies, of course: Pennsylvania’s othe Republican senator, and a real conservative, Rick Santorum, stood behind Mr. Specter, and President Bush supported Mr Specter’s renomination. In a primary Mr Specter won only 53% to 47%, the assistance of those men might have made the difference.

Of course, Senator Specter’s RINO reputation caused a lot of conservative heartache after the election, because Mr Specter was slated to become the new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr Specter’s liberal ways, and his vote against the confirmation of Robert Bork in 1987, both worried and rankled conservatives, and Mr Specter had to get on his knees (figuratively speaking, of course) and promise to back all of the President’s judicial nominees to placate conservatives.

Well, he was as good as his word when it came to judicial nominees, I’ll give him that. But we can also see how he has repaid President Bush for his support in the 2004 primary:

Sen. Specter preparing bill to sue Bush
Republican committee chairman fighting against ‘signing statements’

Washington (AP) – A powerful Republican committee chairman who has led the fight against President Bush’s signing statements said Monday he would have a bill ready by the end of the week allowing Congress to sue him in federal court.

“We will submit legislation to the United States Senate which will…authorize the Congress to undertake judicial review of those signing statements with the view to having the president’s acts declared unconstitutional,” Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the Senate floor.

Specter’s announcement came the same day that an American Bar Association task force concluded that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.

Not every piece of legislation is so clear that every situation that might be covered is laid down specifically in the law. When applicability or even constitutionality are challenged in the courts, and the law isn’t completely clear, the courts examine the intent of the legislature, through examination of legislative debates and extensions of remarks in the journal. With signing statements, the President is putting in his 2¢ into the debate: what was the intention of the president, and what did he believe the bill mkeant when he signed it. It is perfectly reasonable for the courts to consider the president’s intentions if they can consider the legislature’s intent.

Some congressmen disagree, and the Democrats certainly disagree — even though Democratic presidents have issued signing statements as well. (President Bush has used signing statements more frequently than any of his predecessors, in fact more frequently than all of his predecessors combined.)

I would not have been surprised had a Democrat sponsored such a bill. That Senator Specter has done so is a huge betrayal, and one which should have his Republican colleagues strip him of his committee chairmanship.

The early word is that Senator Specter plans to run again in 2010; I don’t care if he’s running against Jane Fonda or Chris Satullo (the editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer) or Teresa Heinz or Ed Rendell: I will not vote for him in 2010, I will campaign for his primary opponent in 2010, and, if he wins the nomination again, I will vote for and campaign for a reasonable third party candidate.

The man is just scum.