There's this movement to suspend a Republican rule for how they govern themselves within the Senate to prevent Senator Arlen Specter from getting the judiciary committe chair. He isn't the next in line, but the next in line is expected not to take it due to not wanting to give up being chair of another committee, and the rules state that no senator can be chair of two committees. The only thing I keep seeing is that, because Specter is pro-choice, he won't be able to be fair in pushing Bush's nominees through. In other words, his view on abortion will make him unable to do his job, which shouldn't be affected by his views. What does this remind you of?
Beware, for you shall be judged according to the standard by which you judge. It wasn't too long ago that roughly the same group of people was complaining that Democrats were saying they couldn't trust John Ashcroft to do his job. Why? He's pro-life. Not too long after that, they kept saying the same things about any judge nominee who was pro-life who got blockaded by Democrats in the Senate. Now the Republicans are doing it to one of their own in an exactly parallel situation. It's because of his views on abortion that they're saying he can't do his job.
I just can't figure out what Specter said that was so bad. Sure, he's pro-choice, and he Borked Bork, but he also voted for Scalia and even fought for Thomas, both stalwarts for resisting the revisionism that allowed Roe v. Wade and has furthered its cause with subsequent decisions that they voted against. Specter himself disagrees strongly with Scalia and Thomas on abortion, and I doubt he didn't at least suspect that during their confirmation process. What he said recently that everyone is up in arms about was in response to whether thought Roe would be overturned, and he said it wasn't likely. He didn't think Bush nominees who are too pro-life would get through. He didn't say he wouldn't vote for them. He didn't say he'd join the Democrats in obstructionist techniques. He did remind people that the Democratic filibuster prevented such nominees from getting to the bench, which makes it likely it would prevent them from getting to the Supreme Court. Did I miss something he said, or are people just going way beyond what he's said to do the same thing to Specter that they complained about Democrats doing to judicial nominees? I say the latter until I see a broader context to the quote that shows it's not the most obvious way to take it given what I've seen of his actual words.