Sunday, July 29, 2007

Only liberals on the SCOTUS, damnit!

Good ole' liberal Charles (Chuck) Schumer (D- New York) reports that there aren't enough liberals on the Supreme Court. So, he is determined not to allow the President to pick one. I am curious as to what he means by "extraordinary circumstances". I have no doubt you could call that code for "flaming liberal hippie".

Story (in italics):

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Let's interpret: Because a conservative President may bring forth a conservative candidate, we should abandon precedent in Senate confirmations. And remember, there is no given that a candidate for a position on the SCOTUS is a given. The Senate gives plenty of harassment to candidates. And here is a tip for all of you readers: Whenever you read a quote from a Democrat or liberal, imagine what would happen if a Republican or conservative said the same thing and then consider the outcry and teeth gnashing that would result. That is an excellent way to look at a statement credibility from liberals.

Also, consider the statement "dangerously out of balance". By dangerously out of balance, he means at worst, one more Justice who is closer to a conservative point of view than a liberal one. Remember, Sandra Day O'Connor was by all accounts, a moderate, who frequently sided with Conservatives. She was replaced by John Roberts. William Rehnquist, perhaps the most conservative judge on the bench, save for maybe Scalia, was replaced by Alito, who while conservative, is in all likelihood not nearly as conservative as Rehnquist.

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Wait, they expected them to overturn legal precedents anyway, so their complaint is they are doing it faster? What a lame argument.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said. “There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Oooohhh! We are Senate Democrats! We are easily distracted by "charm" and shiny objects! Just like goldfish!

I am curious as to how the Senate was "hoodwinked". A Supreme Court candidate can't exactly hide his prior work in the legal community, and there is NO way for a candidate to know what cases will be set in front of him, so how could he possibly say what answer he will give before the case is presented to the Court. I am also curious as to the implication here. I have yet to hear a charge of perjury.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer’s comments show “a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution” by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.“This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer,” Perino said. “He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days.” Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

Just remember this story when and if a Democrat President sends a candidate to the Senate confirmation hearings. All the sabre-rattling over "delays" and "politics" will be loud and large.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

So, rather than doing your job and making sure the candidate was the best choice, you should have spent your time finding ways to not confirm a conservative candidate. Talk about partisan politics . . .

No comments: