Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Those hoping that Specter might stop short of going nuclear often point to three things: that he likes to consider himself a guardian of the Senate and wouldn't join the cynical end-run around the Senate's rules on how to change rules; that he is pro-choice and wouldn't want to be responsible for the destruction of Roe; and (and this isn't entirely separate from the other two) that he is an ill and aging man who will most likely not run again and is concerned first and foremost about his legacy.

This might very well be wishful thinking.

As Atrios asked, somewhat rhetorically, I think, the other day:

I never had any doubt that Arlen Specter would push through a nominee that would overturn Roe as long as he had some cover. That is, as long as the nominee wasn't clearly on the record as wanting to overturn Roe he could hold his nose and close his eyes and pretend.

However, with his participation in the Pennsylvania Casey decision, Alito's made his views pretty clear. The real question now becomes will Arlen Specter's final legacy be to help orchestrate the overturning of Roe?

Arlen has already made abundandtly clear his support of the nominee, and has gone to great lengths of contortionalist rationalization to suggest that Sam "You gotta tell the husband first" Scalito really does respect the right to privacy.  From a report on his news conference the other day:

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., sent strong signals Monday that he would use all his clout to help federal appeals court judge Samuel Alito win confirmation to the Supreme Court.

Time and again Specter used his Monday afternoon press conference to defend President Bush's nominee to the high court and to justify some of his controversial rulings.

"I think he'll be an excellent witness," Specter predicted. Drawing an implicit contrast with ex-nominee Harriet Miers, who withdrew last week after getting a tepid reception from the Senate, Specter said "he's a real legal scholar beyond any question."

More specifically, concerning Roe:

Specter seemed to go out of his way to try to persuade abortion rights supporters, of whom he is one, that Alito is not beyond the pale.

He said Alito's dissent in a 1991 abortion case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, "does not signify disagreement with Roe v Wade" the 1972 ruling which legalized abortion nationwide. Specter said that nothing in what Alito had written in that case "suggests disagreement with the underlying decision in Roe v. Wade."

Specter called Alito's dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey "a very narrow ruling, very carefully crafted on the basis of Justice O'Connor's decisions in previous cases about what would constitute an undue burden for the woman."

So he has satisfied himself already on Roe, now what about the nuclear option?  Well, Mr. "Not Proven" was typically evasive on what he would do had it come up in the spring, and I don't see any reason he would do otherwise now.  But again:  Specter has made a career out of seeming reasonable, but, as with his explanation for why Alito will respect Roe, this is often the result of his unmatched ability to perform specatcular feats of contortionist logic.  Why wouldn't he be able to pull off a similar trick in explaining why he had no problem breaking the Senate's rules?

Yes, Specter finds the need to make himself seem rational, to explain himself in a way to which most of the GOP Senate cretins pay only the most fleeting of lip service, but this should be taken for what it is:  a concern for appearances.

Specter says, in what I can only take to mean a suggestion that Democrats shouldn't even consider the filibuster:

"I hope we do not come back to the terrible schism we had," Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said. "That just about tore the Senate apart, and it has the potential to do it again, except that the stakes would be bigger. You are talking about the Supreme Court."

Yes, Arlen, we are talking about the Supreme Court.  And, as a wise man has often said:

The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

-- Stu