Head Strong: Senate needs Specter's pragmatism He has angered me, too.
In my case, it was in 1987, when Arlen Specter was torpedoing the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork. I then believed Bork was qualified. At the time, Specter said he had "substantial doubt as to how [Bork] would apply fundamental principles of constitutional law."
I'm not alone. Over the years, Specter has upset just about everybody at one time or another.
Conservatives have been angry about Specter's treatment of Bork, his "not proven" vote in the Clinton impeachment, and his support for stem cell research. Liberals, particularly women, did not appreciate his aggressive cross-examination of Anita Hill during Clarence Thomas' Supreme Court confirmation hearings. More recently, he bucked organized labor by refusing to support card-check legislation. Even conspiracy theorists have gotten hostile, deriding his single-bullet theory in the JFK assassination.
Which is exactly why we need him in the U.S. Senate.
excerpt from column by Michael Smerconish
Insights & Observations Page
Philadelphia Inquirer
Published Sunday, May 16th, 2010
Closing Arguments - Kagan at home with typical liberal thinking
Real people and fresh ideas aren't the nominee's forte.
click above for Column by John Yoo
Ibid