When Elena Kagan came before the Senate to be confirmed as Solicitor General, Sen. Arlen Specter — then the senior Republican on the Judiciary Committee — voted against her, saying he didn’t know enough about her “approach to the law and approach to the job of Solicitor General.” Today, however, Specter put out a statement saying that he has an “open mind” about Kagan for the Supreme Court:

There is no doubt that Elena Kagan has exemplary academic and professional credentials. And she has been a pioneer for women, serving as the country’s first female Solicitor General and as the first woman to be Dean of Harvard Law School. I applaud the President for nominating someone who has a varied and diverse background outside the circuit court of appeals.

I voted against her for Solicitor General because she wouldn’t answer basic questions about her standards for handling that job. It is a distinctly different position than that of a Supreme Court Justice.

I have an open mind about her nomination and hope she will address important questions related to her position on matters such as executive power, warrantless wiretapping, a woman’s right to choose, voting rights and congressional power.

The likely reason for Specter’s change of heart is that not only is he now a Democrat, but he’s stuck in a tough primary against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), who has picked up significant progressive support and has a slight lead in the polls. Sestak is already hitting Specter for his original vote against Kagan. “I expect Sen. Specter may backtrack from his earlier vote on Ms. Kagan this week in order to help himself in the upcoming primary election, but the people of Pennsylvania have no way of knowing where he will stand after May 18,” said Sestak.

As the National Review explains, “But the political realities for Specter have changed. As Obama campaigns for him and helps him in his fight in an upcoming Democratic primary, it appears to be a safe bet that, in the end, whether a nominee is responsive or not, the Pennsylvania senator will vote ‘aye’ to confirm the president’s choice to fill Stevens’ seat.”

However, some of the seven Republicans who backed Kagan for Solicitor General are now leaning the other way, leaving themselves open to possibly voting against her confirmation. From a statement by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT):

Now that the President has nominated Elena Kagan to replace Justice Stevens, the Senate must thoroughly and fairly evaluate her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Judicial qualifications go beyond legal experience; any Supreme Court nominee should have an impressive resume. The more important qualification is judicial philosophy and a nominee’s understanding of the power and proper role of a Justice in our system of government.

I will examine Ms. Kagan’s entire record to understand her judicial philosophy. My conclusion will be based on evidence, not blind faith. Her previous confirmation, and my support for her in that position, do not by themselves establish either her qualifications for the Supreme Court or my obligation to support her. I have an open mind and look forward to actively participating in the confirmation process.

Hatch previously called Kagan “brilliant,” but as the Salt Lake Tribune points out, he appears to now be trying to downplay that remark. Sen. Jon Kyl similarly said that “a temporary political appointment is far different than a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.” Maine Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, who also both voted for Kagan, have both put out statements simply stating that they look forward to questioning Kagan. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-OK), Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Judd Gregg (R-NH) have not yet put out statements.

With President Obama indicating “that he intends to use the Senate bill as the framework” for the final health care reform legislation, House Democrats are venting “their frustration with the direction of the debate.” House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) told reporters yesterday that there is “a problem on both sides of the Capitol. A serious problem.” An anonymous senior House Democrat, however, placed particular blame on the Senate:

With all of these issues at a standstill, tensions are growing between the two chambers. Several House lawmakers have voiced frustration with Sens. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) over concessions and special deals they cut in the Senate version.

“The Senate is just a pain in the ass to everybody in the world as far as I can tell. I’m so angry that I just wish from now on that we’d just find out what it is that Lieberman and Nelson will let us have,” the senior lawmaker said. “But we’re not giving up on anything in the House.”

“We keep hearing them squeal like pigs in the Senate that they had a tough time getting to 60,” Weiner said. “Well, it wasn’t particularly a picnic for us to get to 218. Generally speaking, the Senate kabuki dance has lost its magic on those of us in the House.”

Last month, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) harshly criticized the gridlock of the Senate. “This body prides itself on being the world’s greatest deliberative body,” Specter said. “That designation has been destroyed with what has occurred here the past few days.” Matt Yglesias argued at the time that “the Senate has always been problematic” because it began as “a special house of the legislature designed to undermine democratic accountability.”

Last year, President Obama nominated Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel, which, during the Bush administration, sanctioned torture. Johnsen, however, was an outspoken critic of the so-called “torture memos.” Conservatives blocked her nomination, and the White House has said that it plans to renominate her when the Senate officially reconvenes later this month. Even after he became a Democrat, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter said that he opposed Johnsen’s nomination. However, today his office released a statement in which Specter says that he will now support her:

After voting ‘pass’ (which means no position) in the Judiciary Committee, I had a second extensive meeting with Ms. Johnsen and have been prepared to support her nomination when it reaches the Senate floor.

Spencer Ackerman notes that Republican Sen. Dick Lugar (IN) has also said he is standing by his support for Johnsen, meaning she has the 60 votes necessary to be confirmed.

Earlier this week, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele surprised his fellow Republicans by releasing a new book, Right Now: A 12-Step Program For Defeating The Obama Agenda. The book, and Steele’s efforts to promote it, have angered congressional Republicans and GOP operatives, who feel he is putting them “in tremendously difficult situations.” In an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show today, Steele tried to deflect criticism of the book by saying that he wrote it before he became the chairman of the RNC:

STEELE: So, all the talk and chatter right now means nothing because my job is determined by whether I do those two things. And I’m happy to do it and I’m around the country. You know, I’ve got this period — I wrote this book before I became chairman and as, because of the clock and the calender, I wind up doing it now. But when you read the book, it is a blueprint for how we move forward. I really believe that. It touches on those things that we lost track of. We can get them back. And we can go forward in a principled way and stand on those conservative principles and win again. We saw that in New Jersey and Virginia.

Listen here:

Steele’s claim that he wrote the book before he was elected to head the RNC on Jan. 30, 2009 is a bit odd considering that it contains many references to events that have happened after his election. For instance, Steele’s book talks about the NY-23 special election, an Obama administration cost estimate that was made public in September 2009 and Sen. Arlen Specter’s (D-PA) April 2009 party switch.

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that he would consider joining a GOP filibuster of the Senate’s health care reform bill if it contains a public option. “If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage,” Lieberman said.

Later, during a conference call with progressive bloggers, Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) was asked if, given Lieberman’s position, he would support using the reconciliation process to pass health care reform with a public option, which would require a mere simple majority for passage. Specter said that he might eventually but added that he thinks the Democratic caucus will get 60 votes:

SPECTER: Well as I have said I would consider that as a last, last, last, resort. I think that the institutional safeguard of 60 votes is a very important one. … [M]oving away from that institutional 60 votes is something I think would be a last, last, last resort. You might have to fight fire with fire when there are so many filibusters. The number is now 81. And a lot of nominations are being blocked and action is being blocked. …

On the issue of fighting fire with fire, maybe so, but I think that we are not going to come to this. I think we can muster the 60 votes and not have to face the reconciliation.

Q: Senator if I have this correctly, as a last resort, you would not oppose using reconciliation…

SPECTER: As a last, last, last, resort I would consider it, yeah.

Specter later said that Lieberman is “not going to want to see reconciliation used,” adding, “I think it’s gonna work out.” Listen here:

In fact, the top two Democrats in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), have not taken reconciliation off the table in order to pass health care reform. “Sure, it’s always an option,” Reid said on Monday. “The failsafe on this is reconciliation,” Durbin said, but added, “I hope we don’t reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation.”