More reasons to stop Specter

His pro-abortion position is only one reason why Arlen Specter would not make a good chairman. For instance, do we really want, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, someone who is opposed to tort reform? I realize that I am in the minority in my own profession when I say that the time has long come for such reforms. Specter is opposed, though he apparently believes that the judiciary has the power to impose caps of its own volition.

And consider Specter's remarks on the Senate floor on the anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education. They clearly are not those of someone who believes in an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but tend more toward the "living document" philosophy that permits unelected judges to legislate from the bench:

"There are still some who contend that original intent is the only way to interpret the U.S. Constitution. In the first place, it is very hard to divine what the intent was of the Founding Fathers in 1787 when the Constitution was signed, even more difficult to figure out the intent of the ratifiers of the U.S. Constitution; and then when there is the equal protection clause, there is no doubt that the intent of those who spoke to equal protection was not to have integration. When the fundamental values of our society changed in the intervening years, the Supreme Court of the United States recognized that and interpreted the Constitution and equality and equal protection in a very different way." (Hat tip The Corner)

Pick your own reason. Just make the calls.