Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) may have been needlessly easy on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, but when it comes to Bush’s warrantless-search program, Pennsylvania’s senior senator has said all the right things. Now, the test will be to see if he means it.<\/p>\n
After several weeks in which Specter has been as critical of warrantless NSA surveillance as anyone in the Senate, he took matters one step further this morning on ABC’s This Week by introducing the “I-word”<\/a> to his discussion. (C&L has video<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Specter: Well, I started off by saying that he didn’t have the authority under the resolution authorizing the use of force. The president has to follow the Constitution. Where you have a law which is constitutional, like Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, there still may be collateral different powers in the president under wartime circumstances.<\/p>\n That’s a very knotty question that I’m not prepared to answer on a Sunday soundbite. But I do believe that it ought to be thoroughly examined. And when we were on the Patriot Act and found the disclosure of the surveillance, I immediately said the Judiciary Committee would hold hearings, and I talked to the attorney general, and we’re going to explore it in depth, George. You can count on that.<\/p>\n Stephanopoulos: You know, if the president did break the law or circumvent the law, what’s the remedy?<\/p>\n Specter: Well, the remedy could be a variety of things. A president — and I’m not suggesting remotely that there’s any basis, but you’re asking, really, theory, what’s the remedy? Impeachment is a remedy<\/strong>. After impeachment, you could have a criminal prosecution, but the principal remedy, George, under our society is to pay a political price. (emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I’m afraid these remarks aren’t quite as encouraging as they sound at first glance, at least to my ear. Indeed, according to the AP account<\/a>, Specter added: “I don’t see any talk about impeachment here. I don’t think anyone doubts the president is making a good-faith effort. He’s acting in a way that he feels he must.”<\/p>\n It seems Specter is following a similar pattern to what he did in the weeks leading up to the Alito hearings. To hear him tell it, Specter had “concerns” about Alito’s record, which he was anxious to explore through “tough questions.” It sounded vaguely encouraging, right up until the hearings actually happened. It’s likely Specter will follow a similar course on warrantless searches — talking tough in advance, and giving the administration a pass when it matters.<\/p>\n