Saturday, November 06, 2004
Why stop Specter?
Why is Specter unacceptable as Chairman? He is unacceptable for reasons of both temperament and judicial philosophy.
Specter had the swing vote that destroyed Judge Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court in the 1980s. Bork, who single-handedly brought sanity to our anti-trust laws, was a Yale Professor and Judge who had never had an opinion overturned by the Supreme Court. Although his opinions were very similar to Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s, he was personally attacked as a racist and a bigot. Agree or disagree with Bork, his rejection was vicious, personal, and destructive to our civic culture. Specter’s vote legitimized this process.
As for judicial philosophy, there are different ways to look at it. The animating idea on the Right is one of original intent, whereby a judge’s opinion should conform to the intention of the law as it was written. Most people who agree with this idea see Roe V. Wade as a horrendous example of judicial overreach. The issue is not abortion. The issue is that somehow the constitution guarantees abortion. And to get to that opinion the court had to have 20 years of decisions based on a specious “Living Constitution” doctrine.
Specter seems to agree that “rights” such as abortion must be protected judicially, regardless of the Constitution. I disagree. Whether we have legal abortions or not, is a matter for deliberative democracy, not a matter to be decided by the personal opinions of nine lawyers. And rights created by judicial fiat are not only arbitrary but they weaken society’s faith in the strength of our Constitution. The health of our civic society depends on nominating judges who Specter will oppose. He has to go.
Specter had the swing vote that destroyed Judge Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court in the 1980s. Bork, who single-handedly brought sanity to our anti-trust laws, was a Yale Professor and Judge who had never had an opinion overturned by the Supreme Court. Although his opinions were very similar to Supreme Court Justice Scalia’s, he was personally attacked as a racist and a bigot. Agree or disagree with Bork, his rejection was vicious, personal, and destructive to our civic culture. Specter’s vote legitimized this process.
As for judicial philosophy, there are different ways to look at it. The animating idea on the Right is one of original intent, whereby a judge’s opinion should conform to the intention of the law as it was written. Most people who agree with this idea see Roe V. Wade as a horrendous example of judicial overreach. The issue is not abortion. The issue is that somehow the constitution guarantees abortion. And to get to that opinion the court had to have 20 years of decisions based on a specious “Living Constitution” doctrine.
Specter seems to agree that “rights” such as abortion must be protected judicially, regardless of the Constitution. I disagree. Whether we have legal abortions or not, is a matter for deliberative democracy, not a matter to be decided by the personal opinions of nine lawyers. And rights created by judicial fiat are not only arbitrary but they weaken society’s faith in the strength of our Constitution. The health of our civic society depends on nominating judges who Specter will oppose. He has to go.
