Conservatives unhappy with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter over comments the senator made in the aftermath of his re-election should be a bit less angry after Specter's comments over the weekend.

Specter, who by virtue of seniority is in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, triggered a furor Wednesday with his statement that President George W. Bush should not put forth Supreme Court nominees who would seek to overturn abortion rights or are otherwise too conservative to win confirmation.

In subsequent clarification of his statement, including on Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," Specter said his comment merely reflected the reality within the Senate - that Republicans lack the votes to end a Democratic filibuster of a Bush appellate court nominee.

However, Specter said, whoever the nominee, he would make certain that the nominee receive a prompt hearing and reach the Senate floor. Beyond that, there would be nothing more that Specter could guarantee.

It's possible that Bush will have the opportunity to fill three or more Supreme Court seats during his second term. Thus, he will have the opportunity to influence the direction of the court possibly for many years.

If he becomes Judiciary Committee chairman - and there has been a swell of conservative opinion urging that he be denied that position - Specter would have considerable latitude in terms of scheduling hearings and calling for votes. In reality, whoever serves in that powerful position could make it easy or difficult for a president seeking to fill appellate positions.

There would be more reason for concern if Specter had proclaimed that he would be a "yes" man for the president and not give the president's nominees the kind of tough scrutiny that all such nominees should receive.

Meanwhile, despite his pro-choice stance on the abortion issue, Specter in the past has supported pro-life nominees.

Some presidents in the past who have been successful in getting Senate confirmation of Supreme Court nominees were surprised later to find that their nominees turned out to be more conservative, liberal or moderate than they envisioned. The same could happen to Bush, regardless of any influence Specter might wield.

In regard to the high court, Bush's second term is likely to be very interesting. But regardless of Specter, Bush will determine his own success rate - and the speed of success - by considering opinions beyond those to which he personally ascribes.

A court tipped too far to the right would not necessarily be the best court. And, Specter made a reasonable observation in his assessment that the current Supreme Court lacks legal heavyweights such as former Justices Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis and Thurgood Marshall.

It would do Bush well and enhance his legacy if he were successful in finding some.

Conservatives' reaction to Specter's comments weren't unexpected, but if those who are most vocal choose not to acknowledge the realities within the Senate, they will over the next four years witness them nonetheless.

Whether conservatives like it or not, Specter is striving to work on behalf of all of the nation's people, and that too is what the Supreme Court, in interpreting the Constitution, should be determined to do.