I thought one of the major reasons there's been so much activity on this is because the conservatives can't take Specter "at his word" to be conservative, as seen in the Bork episode and various other times. To put it another way, if a confirmed conservative had said something like what Specter said, the overall opinion would've been, "Nah, he didn't mean that, he actually meant to say this..." With Specter, the response has been, "Yep, that's what he meant, get the pitchfork."

Did Specter make any promises about Bork that he then broke?

As Hugh Hewitt wrote, it is far more important to get the Judiciary Committee line-up correct than it is to "punish" Arlen Specter.

Don't give the Democrats any talking points; just make sure the committee opens at 11-9 or 12-8. Bush can deal with Specter himself.

OJ:
Point taken -- I not aware of Sen. Specter making such a promise. The problem is that Specter holds many positions counter to the President's agenda (open opposition to tax cuts and tort reform, support of the ICC, deference to Scottish and International Law, &c.) and only seems to support conservative issues immediately before his re-election, in an apparent attempt to mollify his Republican support (rather like a Republican Tom Daschle).

One of the issues in the election was the appointment of conservative, constructionist judges. In order to deliver on this issue, the Republicans will need a committed, aggressive Chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Specter's promises are perhaps less than they appear; a prompt hearing does not promise a favorable outcome (he has even intimated he would vote against any that are "too conservative"), and the Senator is in no position to force a vote in the full Senate.

The question is should the Republicans risk entrusting this vital Chairmanship to an individual who has demonstrated only sporatic support of important party issues?

Jim:
A Specter vote against a nominee, though approved by the remainder of the Republicans, would give the Democrats just such a talking point. Do you honestly believe he wouldn't do such a thing? The Chairman also has great power in selecting the staff of the committee.

OJ:
Though he made no promise concerning Bork, actions do have consequences, and we ended up with Anthony Kennedy instead.

Would you like to place a little side bet that, if selected as Chairman, Specter doesn't muckup the appointment of a conservative judge you support?

I wouldn't panic about it. Specter knows which side his bread is buttered on, and that he's on fairly thin ice. He's not going to jeopardize his long-sought Judiciary Committee chairmanship. The real key, as Hewitt said, is to make sure the rest of the Committee lineup is solidly conservative and for the Senate leadership to make dead sure Specter toes the line.

jd:

Yes. I bet he lets them come to a vote.

I would expect Specter to get his chairmanship position, but he'll have Bush's former Texas AG, and now junior senator, John Cornyn as his shadow on the committee to make sure he stays on the straight and narrow (a lot easier to do with an 11-9 split, which is what I also expect the committee to wind up with).