From this statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee: “If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rule changes with 51 votes.”
This is going to be the key question to watch once a Supreme Court opening emerges. This is troubling for those, like me, who saw Specter as the potential source of compromise on procedures between Democrats and Republicans. I think the statement by Specter is a signal that he has been defanged, and can’t really serve as an honest broker to move beyond the parties’ stalemate. It is too bad, too, because he is someone who I think was in the right ideological and party position to pull something off.