Hamilton, Madison, and Jay

This blog is devoted to a variety of topics including politics, current events, legal issues, and we even take the time to have some occasional fun. After all, blogging is about having a little fun, right?

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Friday, July 27, 2007

Democrats vow to obstruct any further high court nominees

The four liberal members of the US Supreme Court -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens -- have all stated they have no plans or intentions of retiring from the high court any time soon, but that's not stopping Senator Chuckie "Schmuckie" Schumer from flapping his gum about blocking any further appointments to the high court,/li for the remainder of President Bush's term:

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.”

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. 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.

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. “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.”

OK, so twist more arms over allegations that were unfounded? Would Senator Schumer prefer to execute the "witch-hunt" tactic and start demanding that Alito and Roberts shun their moral beliefs? Geez, give me a break. Ms. Perrino is quite correct in the assessment that Senator Schumer obviously doesn't know the Constitution as well as he claims to. Furthermore, where did either man reverse himself?

They said in their hearings that they would abide by stare decisis if it applied. It is obvious from the cases that so many people on the Left are hyperventilating about that such a stance didn't apply. Come on, folks, these people take the race-based admissions case to mean that we're going back to segregated schools. Nothing could be further from the truth, but in the case of the Left, it's commonplace for them to make asinine statements like this. It's no different than Ted Kennedy painting Robert Bork as some sort of racist bigot when that's not even close to what Judge Bork was like. In fact, Judge Bork is considered one of the preeminent constructionist judges to ever sit on the bench.

But ... if that is what happens, then I join Professor Glenn Reynolds in offering up my services for any sort of recess appointment the president would like to make. While I lack the legal credentials of Professor Reynolds (an a number of other notable conservative bloggers), I do have over twenty years private study under my belt with regard to the Constitution, it's relative jurisprudence, and the original meaning of the founding document. Professor Reynolds promises to make his stint on the bench an interesting one.

I promise Chuck Schumer that if he thought the high court was out of balance from this past term, he hasn't seen anything yet. Give me my chance on the bench, and I guarantee I'll give a fair number of liberal senators heart-attacks.

Publius II


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home