Sen. Arlen Specter plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

The very pro-choice Republican Senator is clearly unhappy that Roberts and Alito skated through the Senate but then doing what they…gasp…believe is the right thing to do according to our Constitution.

Remember, Specter is the legal genius behind the “super-duper precedent” of Roe V. Wade.

Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, who served as chairman during the hearings, said he wants to examine whether Roberts and Alito have “lived up” to their assurances that they would respect legal precedents.

“They are off to a very disturbing start, these two new justices,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a Judiciary Committee member who voted against both nominees. “I am afraid before long they will call into question some of the most established laws and precedents in our nation.” Hooray! We can only hope.

Did they complain when the Supreme Court reversed itself on segregation? Of course not. They just want what they want.

Those decisions that have earned the most criticism from liberals were rulings that struck down desegregation programs, (which they don’t really care about) and weakened restrictions on broadcast ads during campaigns. (which they also don’t really care about). Here’s the real reason for all the animosity. The Roberts Court reupheld a federal law prohibiting late-term abortions. That’s it. Ding Ding. Liberals want to kill babies and Justice Roberts and Alito might stop them. Gasp! They must be stopped.

But this brilliant idea of checking into Robert’s and Alito’s testimony didn’t just come from out of the blue to Specter. The idea for a review came when Specter said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado.

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed. This means essentially that Breyer’s running around talking smack about the other justices. Remember, Breyer’s the genius who decided it’s just fine to use decisions from other countries to make law here.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Clearly, Breyer who is a strong believer in the separation of church and state, doesn’t really understand the whole separation of powers things. The funny thing here is that it doesn’t matter if Specter, Durbin and Breyer believe that Roberts and Alito lied to them. They’re appointed for life. Now at least they know how we feel about Souter.