Hugh Hewitt weighs in against opposing Arlen Specter for the Judiciary Committee Chairmanship:

I see that there is a blog swarm forming around the expected assumption of the chairmanship of the Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary by Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter. The opposition to Specter seems headquartered at The Corner. Many friends post at The Corner, so I paused, considered their arguments, and thought it through. On reflection, it seems to me a very bad idea to try and topple Senator Specter from what in the ordinary course of events would be his Chairmanship. . . .

I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch.

. . . .

The GOP majority ought to insist on a rule that assures that every nominee that gains a majority vote of the Judiciary Committee be brought to the floor. This is a long overdue reform of reactionary practices such as “blue slip” holds and filibusters of judicial nominees. Conservatives are not demanding the right reforms when they aim at Senator Specter. They should be insisting on a rebalancing of the processes employed by the Senate according to constitutional norms.

. . . The prospect that Senator Specter might oppose a Bush nominee is not a happy one, but neither is it inevitable nor, given the appropriate committee make-up, fatal to the nominee’s prospects. Conservatives ought to be focused on demanding the right allocation of seats and the right names for the new members, not on their fears about Senator Specter’s reliability. Recall that Specter did a fine job defending Justice Thomas. Given Senator Specter’s reputation for moderation, his support of future Bush nominees could prove hugely valuable.

So, fellow pro-life conservatives, we should keep our focus on the key issues: The split of the seats, the names of the new members, and reform of the rules governing judicial nominees.

Reaction around the blogosphere is mixed. I don’t pretend to include everyone’s opinion, but here’s a smattering:

Glenn Reynolds says:

I’m not a pro-lifer like Hugh, of course, but I’ve felt that the folks at The Corner have been a bit carried away on this, too. I hope that they’ll listen to Hugh in a way they probably wouldn’t listen to me on this subject.

Beldar respectfully disagrees:

My own opposition to Sen. Specter’s Judiciary chairmanship isn’t based on his pro-choice views. Rather, it’s based on my perception of Sen. Specter as not being a reliable “team player” in general.

Power Line’s Deacon doesn’t trust Specter, but isn’t sure whether there is a compelling enough case to block Specter. “Frankly, I still haven’t made up my mind about this one.”

Captain Ed urges everyone to slow down and think things through, but appears nevertheless to support blocking Specter:

But based on Specter’s performance and lack of political judgement, and because his unfortunate statements have given the Democrats an excuse to filibuster anything coming from Judiciary, I think Specter has to go.

Professor Bainbridge says Hewitt is “taking the Alfred E. Newman (What! Me Worry?) approach.”

And we all know how Spoons feels about it.

I’ve already given you my own take: Specter has to go. But it would be a big move for the Republicans to block him — maybe too big a move. So, if it doesn’t happen, don’t panic. It doesn’t mean that we haven’t been heard. I bet you that Bill Frist will soon have a little sit-down with Sen. Specter explaining the facts of life to him. This may already have happened. Karl Rove said on Fox News Sunday this morning that Specter has pledged to give a floor vote to every Bush judicial nominee. If he’s right, that’s all we need.

If you want to weigh in, leave a comment and/or send a trackback to this post.