Specter was closely tied to Americans for Democratic Action, the liberal activist group, in his early campaigns as a Republican. The Philadelphia ADA backed his early campaigns on the Republican line.
Major unions, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and environmental groups, as well as supporters of scientific research have backed him over the years. It was not just that Specter voted right now and again, he maintained amiable relations with these groups, as well as with civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
The fact of those relationships destroyed his prospects as a GOP presidential contender in 1996. But they form the basis for the presumption that Specter will finish his career not as a cautiously moderate senator from Pennsylvania but as a reasonably liberal Democrat. The top issue the senator highlighted in announcing his party switch was his passion for expanding funding of medical research. "NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done," said Specter, indicating a determination to become the chamber's leader in the fight to make real Obama's inaugural promise to restore science to its proper place in policy and funding debates.
Democrats who like to hate Republicans and Republicans who like to hate Democrats will misread Specter's declaration that: "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans." And there will be Pennsylvania Democrats who ponder mounting primary challenges to the incumbent. A challenge would be appropriate, if only to police Specter on EFCA, but it is unlikely to get very far.
Why?
Specter will break from the Democrats now and again.
But don't be surprised if the breaks are to the left rather than the right.
Why the confidence that the senator is returning not just to the Democratic Party but to his liberal roots?
Consider Specter's very good article in the latest issue of The New York Review of Books.
Headlined "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs," the article begins:
In the seven and a half years since September 11, the United States has witnessed one of the greatest expansions of executive authority in its history, at the expense of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. President Obama, as only the third sitting senator to be elected president in American history, and the first since John F. Kennedy, may be more likely to respect the separation of powers than President Bush was. But rather than put my faith in any president to restrain the executive branch, I intend to take several concrete steps, which I hope the new president will support.
First, I intend to introduce legislation that will mandate Supreme Court review of lower court decisions in suits brought by the ACLU and others that challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after September 11. While the Supreme Court generally exercises discretion on whether it will review a case, there are precedents for Congress to direct Supreme Court review on constitutional issues--including the statutes forbidding flag burning and requiring Congress to abide by federal employment laws--and I will follow those.
Second, I will reintroduce legislation to keep the courts open to suits filed against several major telephone companies that allegedly facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Although Congress granted immunity to the telephone companies in July 2008, this issue may yet be successfully revisited since the courts have not yet ruled on the legality of the immunity provision. My legislation would substitute the government as defendant in place of the telephone companies. This would allow the cases to go forward, with the government footing the bill for any damages awarded.
Further, I will reintroduce my legislation from 2006 and 2007 (the "Presidential Signing Statements Act") to prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress. These statements, sometimes issued when the president signs a bill into law, have too often been used to undermine congressional intent. Earlier versions of my legislation went nowhere because of the obvious impossibility of obtaining two-thirds majorities in each house to override an expected veto by President Bush. Nevertheless, in the new Congress, my legislation has a better chance of mustering a majority vote and being signed into law by President Obama.
To understand why these steps are so important, one must appreciate an imbalance in our "checks and balances" that has become increasingly evident in recent years. I witnessed firsthand, during many of the battles over administration policy since September 11, how difficult it can be for Congress and the courts to rally their members against an overzealous executive.
Specter concludes the article by declaring that: "These experiences have crystallized for me the need for Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in our system of checks and balances. The bills I have outlined are important steps in that process. Equally important is vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch. This oversight must extend well beyond the problems of national security, especially as we cede more and more authority over our economy to government officials."
Major unions, pro-choice, pro-gay rights and environmental groups, as well as supporters of scientific research have backed him over the years. It was not just that Specter voted right now and again, he maintained amiable relations with these groups, as well as with civil liberties organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.
The fact of those relationships destroyed his prospects as a GOP presidential contender in 1996. But they form the basis for the presumption that Specter will finish his career not as a cautiously moderate senator from Pennsylvania but as a reasonably liberal Democrat. The top issue the senator highlighted in announcing his party switch was his passion for expanding funding of medical research. "NIH funding has saved or lengthened thousands of lives, including mine, and much more needs to be done," said Specter, indicating a determination to become the chamber's leader in the fight to make real Obama's inaugural promise to restore science to its proper place in policy and funding debates.
Democrats who like to hate Republicans and Republicans who like to hate Democrats will misread Specter's declaration that: "My change in party affiliation does not mean that I will be a party-line voter any more for the Democrats that I have been for the Republicans." And there will be Pennsylvania Democrats who ponder mounting primary challenges to the incumbent. A challenge would be appropriate, if only to police Specter on EFCA, but it is unlikely to get very far.
Specter will break from the Democrats now and again.
But don't be surprised if the breaks are to the left rather than the right.
Why the confidence that the senator is returning not just to the Democratic Party but to his liberal roots?
Consider Specter's very good article in the latest issue of The New York Review of Books.
Headlined "The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs," the article begins:
In the seven and a half years since September 11, the United States has witnessed one of the greatest expansions of executive authority in its history, at the expense of the constitutionally mandated separation of powers. President Obama, as only the third sitting senator to be elected president in American history, and the first since John F. Kennedy, may be more likely to respect the separation of powers than President Bush was. But rather than put my faith in any president to restrain the executive branch, I intend to take several concrete steps, which I hope the new president will support.
First, I intend to introduce legislation that will mandate Supreme Court review of lower court decisions in suits brought by the ACLU and others that challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after September 11. While the Supreme Court generally exercises discretion on whether it will review a case, there are precedents for Congress to direct Supreme Court review on constitutional issues--including the statutes forbidding flag burning and requiring Congress to abide by federal employment laws--and I will follow those.
Second, I will reintroduce legislation to keep the courts open to suits filed against several major telephone companies that allegedly facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Although Congress granted immunity to the telephone companies in July 2008, this issue may yet be successfully revisited since the courts have not yet ruled on the legality of the immunity provision. My legislation would substitute the government as defendant in place of the telephone companies. This would allow the cases to go forward, with the government footing the bill for any damages awarded.
Further, I will reintroduce my legislation from 2006 and 2007 (the "Presidential Signing Statements Act") to prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress. These statements, sometimes issued when the president signs a bill into law, have too often been used to undermine congressional intent. Earlier versions of my legislation went nowhere because of the obvious impossibility of obtaining two-thirds majorities in each house to override an expected veto by President Bush. Nevertheless, in the new Congress, my legislation has a better chance of mustering a majority vote and being signed into law by President Obama.
To understand why these steps are so important, one must appreciate an imbalance in our "checks and balances" that has become increasingly evident in recent years. I witnessed firsthand, during many of the battles over administration policy since September 11, how difficult it can be for Congress and the courts to rally their members against an overzealous executive.
Specter concludes the article by declaring that: "These experiences have crystallized for me the need for Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in our system of checks and balances. The bills I have outlined are important steps in that process. Equally important is vigorous congressional oversight of the executive branch. This oversight must extend well beyond the problems of national security, especially as we cede more and more authority over our economy to government officials."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
