The May 14 issue of the New York Review of Books published  an exposition by Arlen Specter on The Need to Roll Back Presidential Power Grabs.   According to Specter,  the  Gang of Eight, were the only members of Congress who were briefed on some of the more nefarious acts committed by the Bush administration.  The rest of the people's representatives found out about the illegal surveillance  and the torture, presumably, only when the New York Times and the Washington Post published expose's . 

Specter leaves the impression that he almost single-handedly tried to correct the wrongs once he read about them, but was thwarted at every turn not least by the "disadvantage Congress faces in resisting expansions of executive power".  After eight years of overlooking  abuses he now says it is imperative for  "Congress and the courts to reassert themselves in our system of checks and balances".  "His last sentence: I will continue the fight whatever happens." (Really, Arlen?)

If you can overlook the self-serving whiny tone  of the article, you will  find ideas every Democrat can love.  Specter proposes the following:

First, I intend to introduce legislation that will mandate Supreme Court review of lower court decisions in suits brought by the ACLU and others that challenge the constitutionality of the warrantless wiretapping program authorized by President Bush after September 11. While the Supreme Court generally exercises discretion on whether it will review a case, there are precedents for Congress to direct Supreme Court review on constitutional issues--including the statutes forbidding flag burning and requiring Congress to abide by federal employment laws--and I will follow those.

Second, I will reintroduce legislation to keep the courts open to suits filed against several major telephone companies that allegedly facilitated the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program. Although Congress granted immunity to the telephone companies in July 2008, this issue may yet be successfully revisited since the courts have not yet ruled on the legality of the immunity provision. My legislation would substitute the government as defendant in place of the telephone companies. This would allow the cases to go forward, with the government footing the bill for any damages awarded.

 

Further, I will reintroduce my legislation from 2006 and 2007 (the "Presidential Signing Statements Act") to prohibit courts from relying on, or deferring to, presidential signing statements when determining the meaning of any Act of Congress. These statements, sometimes issued when the president signs a bill into law, have too often been used to undermine congressional intent. Earlier versions of my legislation went nowhere because of the obvious impossibility of obtaining two-thirds majorities in each house to override an expected veto by President Bush. Nevertheless, in the new Congress, my legislation has a better chance of mustering a majority vote and being signed into law by President Obama.

So... is this just 2010 campaign rhetoric, or will he carry through and actually get something done?  Could he be angling for a seat on the judiciary committee with these proposals?  Might he be sincere?  Time will tell, but I propose that Democrats, especially PA Democrats,  make sure he knows we're watching him and will judge him by his actions rather than his words.