Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Frick & Frack

From the Pennsylvania Progressive comes the latest on Pennsylvania's Dynamic Duo -- Specter and Santorum.

John Morgan notes that Arlen is planning to go for his 6th term in 2010, in The Specter To Seek Re-Election in 2010:

There has been much speculation that his recent health battles would convince him to retire. He had a bout with Hodgkins Disease from which he seems to have recovered. He has been the Senate Republican maverick of late however and there are persistent rumors Pat Toomey is gearing up for another try in 2010. That would be another interesting race. Democrats eyeing the seat include Chuck Pennacchio.
Of course, this may depend on the outcome of the US Attorney scandal. Specter was responsible for the change in the law that permitted the replacement of the US Attorneys without Senate confirmation, see One Down, One to Go. Salon describes, in Alberto Gonzalez's coup d'etat, that Specter now disclaims any knowledge:
To ensure that no U.S. attorney could be fired on a whim and replaced with a malleable hack, the relevant statute required that whenever a vacancy occurred in midterm, the replacement would be appointed by federal circuit judges rather than by the president. Getting rid of irksomely honest and nonpartisan prosecutors was difficult if not impossible.

But that wholesome safeguard was breached in December 2005, when the Senate renewed the Patriot Act. At the behest of the Justice Department, an aide to Sen. Arlen Specter slipped a provision into the bill that permitted the White House to place its own appointees in vacant U.S. attorney positions permanently and without Senate confirmation. So silently was this sleight of hand performed that Specter himself now claims, many months later, to have been completely unaware of the amendment's passage. (Of course, it would be nice if the senators actually read the legislation before they voted, particularly when they claim to be the authors.)

The staffer who reportedly performed this bit of dirty work is Michael O'Neill, a law professor at George Mason University and former clerk for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. As the Washington Times explained when O'Neill was appointed as the Senate Judiciary Committee's chief counsel, many observers believed that Specter had hired him to reassure conservatives of his loyalty to the Bush White House. Right-wing distrust had almost ousted the Pennsylvania moderate from the Judiciary chairmanship, and appointing O'Neill was apparently the price for keeping that post.

Evidently O'Neill rewarded Specter by sneaking through legislation to deprive him and his fellow senators of one of their most important powers, at the behest of an attorney general intent on aggrandizing executive power. The results of this backstage betrayal -- now playing out in a wave of politicized dismissals and hirings -- were perfectly predictable and utterly poisonous.
Somehow, I just can't believe that Arlen Specter was unaware of the provision. Based upon what I've read about his personality over the years, I can't imagine any staffer would act without Arlen's knowledge and approval. As John Fund of the WSJ noted a few years ago, Has He Snarled His Last?, "the worst job on Capitol Hill was 'Specter flunky.'" No way someone like that would ever dare act without the bosses' OK.

For another interesting take on Specter, see Whether he's trashing Anita Hill or habeas corpus, Arlen Specter can always be counted on to do . . . well, what he thinks is best for him from Down With Tyranny! and New Yorker piece, Killing Habeas Corpus.

And for ex-Pennsylvania resident, Rick Santorum continues in is post-Senate quest to amass as much money as possible. He has now landed the ultimate gravy train job -- counsel to a law firm which hopes to make money off his name. John Morgan reports that Santorum Joins Law Firm, noting that he joined the DC office of Pittsburgh firm, Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. See also, the WSJ's Law Blog, Rick Santorum: From the U.S. Senate to CLE Classes.

For those who are interested in horrific speculation, blogger Stevie Z, in AttorneyGate, Here We Come!!, speculates that the latest scandal will lead not only to the departure of Gonzales, but Cheney as well. Then:
With Cheney gone, Bush would appoint a new VP, somebody he could easily blackmail. My money's on Santorum. There's something creepy about him and I bet there's already a dossier with photos in Rove's desk. In exchange for making sure Santorum would pardon Dubya, Rove would make sure the file never ends up on Bob Woodward's desk.
I'm not sure I buy the VP spot (or the rest of his nightmare scenario), but I sure concur with the creepy part.

UPDATE (3/22): As Pa Progressive noted in the Comments, further evidence that Specter knew about the insertion of the change in the US Attorney confirmation process by removing the 120 day limit was discussed in a post by John Morgan in the beginning of March. As the scandal was breaking, he wrote:
A further question comes to my mind as this scandal unravels: Senator Arlen Specter's involvement. When I spoke to his Judiciary Committee press spokesperson she explained his involvement as being a separation of powers issue. Since, under the old law a federal judge could remove an interim U.S. Attorney after 120 days if they hadn't been confirmed, he saw this as an infringement into the executive branch by the judicial branch.
At that time, his staff was well aware of the removal of the 120 day provision and didn't claim lack of knowledge by Specter. It was only later, as the scandal deepened, that it became convenient for Specter to avoid responsibility for being the individual who started the whole mess. Much better to stay on the sidelines on this one. Especially if he is really thinking of running for re-election.

UPDATE #2 (3/27): Santorum is spreading his wings (or, another crude analogy may also be inserted, if you like) yet again. The quest for glory (and money) is endless. The Allentown Morning Call is reporting the latest, Moore, Gore...and now Santorum?:
Less than three months removed from his congressional career, the former Pennsylvania senator said in an interview last week that he is planning two film projects in part to counter what he characterized as the stream of left-wing documentaries coming from Hollywood and independent filmmakers.

The first project, Santorum said, would explore the relationship between radical Islam and the radical leftists in various countries around the world, including Latin America. It would be about an hour in length.

The second would be a longer, broader documentary that he said would aim to ''change the culture of America.'' He declined to go into specifics about the proposal.
Doesn't he realize we are in the process of rejecting this change in the culture of America that he and his cronies have been spewing?

4 comments:

Stevie Z said...

Well thank you for quoting me- I feel all warm and fuzzy.

It's interesting to read what you posted about Specter's role in pushing through that provision of the Patriot Act that allowed for the White House to permanently install its lackeys into vacant US Attorney slots. Utterly fascinating.

I did see that the Senate closed that loophole yesterday, with 2 votes opposed. Was Specter one of the votes?

I definitely need to look into this some more and you've given me a bit of fodder.

As for Santorum... Yes, this is a wild and whimsical scenario and it sounds crazy, yet oddly plausible.

The reason I chose Santorum is that he's enough of a vain whore to sacrifice his personal integrity to serve the Party. I have no doubt he feels Dubya is unfairly put upon and is truly a great American president and will do whatever he can to get Dubya off the hook.

I do also believe there's something weird and sleazy about him and that he does have something weird he's hiding, making him the perfect blackmail subject. And you know that Rove is evil enough and has the resources to find out anything about anyone.

PA progressive said...

I spoke with Specter's press spokeswoman on the Judiciary Committee as this scandal was just breaking, what now seems like eons ago... She was quite aware of the provision and tol dme the Senator did it because he saw this as a separation of powers issue. If the interim appointees (appointed by the Prez) weren't confirmed in 120 days a judge could remove them. Specter's mouthpiece said he saw this as an intrusion by the judiary.

If this staffer inserted this without the Senator's knowledge why did his press person have such a detailed explanation for me? I wrote all about this on my blog at the time so it's documented.

JudiPhilly said...

To Stevie Z:

I couldn't resist your speculation about Santorum, since you captured his essence so well. I've been a long time follower of his illustrious career (he & I worked at the same law firm, although we didn't quite overlap) and agree with your view of his persona. With these guys in control -- anything is possible.

Specter was not a nay vote -- no need to, since it was overwhelmingly going to pass.

To PA Progressive:

I do recall reading your post about Specter at the time. Yes, that does support the position that he knew about the provision. Typical Arlen response. Make a lot of noise, then zig or zag, as the case may be.

PA progressive said...

I see you found the article. His staff knew quite well what was going on so I was surprised to see their disingenuousness. This woman even agreed my position that this was a checks and balances issue rather than a separation of powers one was a valid argument.

Specter is backtracking on his huge mistake as fast as he can but the trail won't disappear.