In a bizarre manner, Arlen Specter actually did an enormous favor to conservatives and pro—Constitution forces last week. Essentially stating that pro—life court nominees need not apply, he brought to the forefront a subject about which conservatives have given up far too much ground over the years.

Specter's not—so—subtle threat unequivocally confirmed a truth that naive conservatives have long been unwilling to face. The demonization of a pro—life litmus test for judicial nominees at the hand of the pro—abort forces some years back, effectively constituted the establishment of a pro—abortion litmus test in its place.

It is altogether unfortunate that so many pro—Constitution conservatives bought into the notion that the abandonment of their 'litmus test' yielded some sort of 'neutrality' among judges who were subsequently appointed. The bulk of evidence proves instead the consistent appointment of judges who are nothing less than advocates of abortion. But the overall damage to American jurisprudence, and thus to the entire fabric of society, didn't stop there.

A Pandora's box was opened by these activist social reformers who, hiding behind the awesome power of the federal bench, derive their decisions not from the true meaning and intent of the Constitution, but from imaginary 'emanations' and 'penumbras' they can concoct from it. Ultimately, they have been empowered to make war on traditional America from a wholly unaccountable position, with virtually no recourse by the people.

Blatantly extra—Constitutional decisions have since been handed down by the courts, reaching every aspect of American life, from the forced legitimization of sodomy in last year's 'Lawrence v. Texas' decision, to the banning of the Ten Commandments and of God from the Pledge of Allegiance. This they do, not for the sake of liberty and justice, but in service to the counterculture and its twisted precepts of morality.

Any effort whatsoever by pro—Constitution forces to seek textual accountability on the part of would—be judges has been summarily rejected by the left, on the grounds that doing so is a 'litmus test.' In light of this, just what sort of individuals can be expected to qualify for the federal and Supreme Courts?

Are all standards of ethics or reason, other than legal credentials, too onerous a requirement for individuals who could well end up in a position to determine the future of American society? Is honesty itself too restrictive a standard to be considered essential to a nominee's fitness for office? How about the nominee's past record of honesty as to what the Constitution actually says and means?

Not surprisingly, recent history has proven that the failure to pass such a 'litmus test' as this (and many recent appointees to this nation's high courts could not pass such a test) clearly correlates to a judge's subsequent refusal to abide by Constitutional law in any respect.

Hence, the only presently viable manner of ridding the country of the scourge of judicial activism is to confirm only those individuals who are willing to abide by the Constitution as written, and not arrogantly usurp it or subordinate it to their overly inflated regard for their own opinions and preferences.

The left realizes that it is in a life—and—death struggle for survival. Somehow, it must neutralize the impact of last week's election. It is unfortunate that the chairmanship of Arlen Specter, ostensibly a 'Republican,' on the Senate Judiciary Committee, could go a long way towards that goal.

True reform on the part of the left, other than possible changes in 'marketing and packaging' is not an option. And the installation of Specter, in such a key position, would completely undermine every effort by Republicans to build on their present momentum, if he hews to the values which caused him to vote against the confirmation of Robert Bork.

The furious reaction to Senator Specter's recent comments to a reporter indicates that many conservatives are sick and tired of Republican enablers of left wing judicial activism. Senator Specter's elevation to chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee will require the assent of a majority of the Republican caucus. Pennsylvania's senior senator is going to have to convince his GOP colleagues that he will never again stand in the way of judicial nominees faithful to the actual text of the Constitution. His faithful support of the president's first term judicial nominees is a hopeful sign, but the burden of proof  is on his shoulders.

Even as the shock of this year's election barely begins to wear off, liberals in the media and on Capitol Hill are already reasserting their presumed moral superiority, a necessary status to enable them to define and dictate the socio—political agenda, despite their lack of majority status. An imperial judiciary, unaccountable to the people, is their chosen instrument.

As is always the case, none of their goals can be accomplished without the assistance, whether willing or otherwise, of witless Republicans who might accommodate them in the appointments process. The battle for the judiciary, in which it is crucial that conservatives hold key positions in the Senate, may well define the outcome of the 2006 and 2008 elections.