Specter's response to NRO

Senator Specter has responded directly to National Review's editorial opposing his elevation to Senate Judiciary chairman in a letter posted here. NR's editors offer their response at the conclusion of the Senator's letter, to which I would add the following comments.

Specter says, "I strongly believe that the president's choice of a Supreme Court justice should be respected, absent lack of qualification or judicial temperament." Does this mean that he no longer believes in the "'Senate's right to reject' a nominee solely on the basis of his judicial philosophy"? If so, that's quite a shift in position from sixteen years ago.

Second, he claims, "My prediction that Roe will not be overturned is simply my opinion, based largely on the political fact that Democrats have a history of filibustering nominees. It is not a warning to anyone that I won't support a pro-life nominee," and further states that "the highest judicial seats in this land must be open to people on both sides of the hotly contested abortion issue." Does this mean that he no longer considers Roe "inviolate"? If so, that's quite a shift in position in a week.

Unfortunately, answers to these questions are not likely to be forthcoming, as this response, admirable though it may be, basically repeats the arguments he has been making in favor of being elected chairman since the controversy broke last week, without adding anything new of substance. It also fails to address differing options for dealing with the filibuster, such as eliminating it with regard to judicial nominees or reducing the number of votes required to end debate with each subsequent cloture vote, and assumes that business will go on as usual in the Senate with regard to these nominees. While he claims that he tries to change Senate rules, his proposal did not address these options. I am still not persuaded by the senator.