U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) is likely to be the primary gatekeeper through which the president's Supreme Court appointees will have to gain passage.

President George W. Bush may have the potential to appoint four Supreme Court justices, and with the majority of the Senate being Republican, these appointees may not have to go through much scrutiny. Even though the government is overwhelmingly Republican, Specter's centrist policies possess the rare potential to please more than just a razor-thin majority of people. And after the ideological wedge the presidential election drove between the American people, this is a welcomed change to the political landscape. Here at Penn State, the continual ideological battle between abortion rights advocates and abortion rights opponents continues. Both advocates and opponents of abortion want a candidate that will fight for its ideological position in the abortion argument -- the 30-year continuing debate since Roe v. Wade. Much of the discussion about Specter's possible appointment as the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee focuses on this aspect, yet there should be concern regarding other constitutional rights that the court would decide.

Yes, the discussion over abortion dominates news coverage, because it is such a dividing issue. But solely concentrating public discourse on one issue, unfairly blinds the public's eye to other issues, such as racial discrimination and racial profiling on the part of Justice department officials within the scope of the war on terrorism. Accordingly, "litmus tests" of court appointees based on the abortion issue bear no fruit. The notion that an appointee must pass a test that reveals his or her position on abortion is unacceptable for such a powerful office as Supreme Court Justice.

An appointee who is worthy of the bench is one whose career reveals a prudent jurist who applies the law within the parameters set out in the Constitution and interprets laws within the same context. It is important to note that after the election Specter enunciated his opposition to an anti-abortion appointee, then backpedaled, and said he would not block an anti-abortion appointee if he or she were qualified.

This is significant because it reveals the partisan nature of court appointment politics. President Bush, who is an abortion rights opponent, heavily campaigned for Specter throughout the closely contested primary and general elections.

Specter has shown himself above partisanship, and if he becomes the committee head it is at least a shimmer of hope to help end the bleak divisiveness that characterized this past election.