Your One-Stop Specter Shopping Headquarters

I haven't said anything yet regarding Arlen Specter and whether or not he should be elevated to Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. For those interested in the subject, there's plenty of opinion in the blogosphere already, and Rick at Stones Cry Out has collected links to all of them. (Okay, probably not all of them, but a heckuva lot.) So there's your starting point right there.

I come down on the side of letting him have the position for reasons outlined quite ably by Hugh Hewitt.

Opponents of Specter have to ask themselves a few questions. In fact, I'd like to seem them answer these questions in text:

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that he would vote for Bush nominees to move from the committee to the floor?

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to end filibusters on the floor?

Would stopping Specter make it more or less likely that Specter would vote to confirm nominees once they had made it to the floor and once a filibuster had been broken?

What would the effect of blocking Specter have on the conduct of his colleagues from the GOP's "center-left" wing, especially Senators Snowe and Collins of Maine and Chafee of Rhode Island? Would blocking Specter increase the likelihood of their opposition to Bush nominees? Can opponents of Specter guarantee that they can have their cake and eat it to, or might these four (and perhaps Hagel of Nebraska) respond by returning fire on nominees?

Specter's opposition to Bork in 1987 was 15 years ago. Specter supported Clarence Thomas and every Bush nominee since W's election in 2000. On what basis do opponents of Specter base their belief that he will oppose Bush nominees in the second term?

Okay, those aren't reasons so much as rhetorical questions, but I think the answers are quite clear.