An Engraved Invitation
I gotta hand it to Chucky Schumer - what he lacks in intelligence, he make up for in subtlety:
Chucky's definition of "dangerously out of balance" is equally as Orwellian. The current SCOTUS has four constitutionalists (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito), four extreme Left oligarchists (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer), and one philosophically untethered "swing" vote (Kennedy). As I read that lineup, that's a four-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-tie. Looks like perfect balance to me. Indeed, Justice Alito's replacement of Justice O'Connor erased an equivalent one-seat extreme left advantage and restored balance to the High Court.
So, reading not too far between the lines again, Schumer means he doesn't want to see the SCOTUS tip any further towards constitutionalism and the check on government (and therefore, Democrat) power it gives rise to, which really would give the legal forces of freedom and liberty a numerical advantage.
What is beyond the pale of outrage is his presumptuous hauteur in declaring that his party is going to "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and dictate to the President whom he can and cannot appoint. Does the distinguished prick from New York really need a refresher in the relevent portion of Article II, Section II?
Until Hillary is sworn in, anyway. Chucky would never pull such a brazen power play on her - not if he wanted to remain ambulatory.
What Schumer's bloviating is not is remotely surprising. Remember, he was the senator who, during the Democrats' plurality control of the Senate in 2001-2002, held Judiciary subcommittee hearings declaring that ideology and judicial philosophy were reasons for denying not just confirmations but even confirmation votes equally as valid as personal character problems or corruption. This was a direct partisan assault on the Senate's constitutionally-mandated secondary role in the appointment process that assumes a nominee should be confirmed unless a valid reason is found to deny it. This role was mandated because the President, elected by ALL the people, is presumed to be entitled to exercise ALL the constitutional powers of his/her office, including the appointment of Executive Branch officials and federal judges. A Senate under the control of a different party is NOT entitled to deny that exercise to the President out of partisan spite or ideological malice, thus thwarting the electorally expressed will of the people. A fact that phony bastards like Schumer will magically rediscover the next time there's a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Senate.
Chucky undoubtedly meant this to be a shot across the White House bow. Dubya, though, should take it as an opportunity - to take Schumer's smug pontificating and shove it right up his ass by appointing one staunch constitutionalist after another at every level, including the SCOTUS, and urging the GOP to make this as big a campaign issue as it was in 2002 and 2004.
I can't match Brother Hinderaker's confidence that doing so will make the Dems "pay a price" next year, but, as on the war, if we're going to go down anyway, we may as well, to borrow an athletic cliche, "leave everything out on the field." If nothing else, it might plant the seeds of a comeback in 2010 and 2012 after the Democrats run wild and bleep things up beyond recognition.
New York Senator 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.”God, what an arrogant son of a bitch. Note how he takes the terms of the old McCain "memo of understanding" that preserved his party's power to filibuster Bush judicial nominees when it was in the minority - "except in extraordinary circumstances" - and turns it into the standard that the President must reach before the current Senate, controlled by his party, will deign to confirm any potential judge Bush appoints. Which, of course, means appointing hard-left oligarchists who will resume the de-democratization of America and imposition of hard-left one-party rule from the federal bench. Or, at the very least, fill in whatever gaps Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Rodham overlook.
“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.”
Chucky's definition of "dangerously out of balance" is equally as Orwellian. The current SCOTUS has four constitutionalists (Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito), four extreme Left oligarchists (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer), and one philosophically untethered "swing" vote (Kennedy). As I read that lineup, that's a four-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-tie. Looks like perfect balance to me. Indeed, Justice Alito's replacement of Justice O'Connor erased an equivalent one-seat extreme left advantage and restored balance to the High Court.
So, reading not too far between the lines again, Schumer means he doesn't want to see the SCOTUS tip any further towards constitutionalism and the check on government (and therefore, Democrat) power it gives rise to, which really would give the legal forces of freedom and liberty a numerical advantage.
What is beyond the pale of outrage is his presumptuous hauteur in declaring that his party is going to "reverse the presumption of confirmation" and dictate to the President whom he can and cannot appoint. Does the distinguished prick from New York really need a refresher in the relevent portion of Article II, Section II?
[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States....It does not say, "The Senate shall direct the President to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and counsels, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States as it sees fit." Schumer's re-writing of Article II would render the Chief Executive irrelevant to the appointment process. It would drastically subordinate the Executive Branch to the Legislative Branch. It would completely disrupt the separation of powers and create a legislative oligarchy to go with the judicial oligarchy despicable usurpers like Schumer are stopping at nothing to preserve.
Until Hillary is sworn in, anyway. Chucky would never pull such a brazen power play on her - not if he wanted to remain ambulatory.
What Schumer's bloviating is not is remotely surprising. Remember, he was the senator who, during the Democrats' plurality control of the Senate in 2001-2002, held Judiciary subcommittee hearings declaring that ideology and judicial philosophy were reasons for denying not just confirmations but even confirmation votes equally as valid as personal character problems or corruption. This was a direct partisan assault on the Senate's constitutionally-mandated secondary role in the appointment process that assumes a nominee should be confirmed unless a valid reason is found to deny it. This role was mandated because the President, elected by ALL the people, is presumed to be entitled to exercise ALL the constitutional powers of his/her office, including the appointment of Executive Branch officials and federal judges. A Senate under the control of a different party is NOT entitled to deny that exercise to the President out of partisan spite or ideological malice, thus thwarting the electorally expressed will of the people. A fact that phony bastards like Schumer will magically rediscover the next time there's a Democrat in the White House and a Republican Senate.
Chucky undoubtedly meant this to be a shot across the White House bow. Dubya, though, should take it as an opportunity - to take Schumer's smug pontificating and shove it right up his ass by appointing one staunch constitutionalist after another at every level, including the SCOTUS, and urging the GOP to make this as big a campaign issue as it was in 2002 and 2004.
I can't match Brother Hinderaker's confidence that doing so will make the Dems "pay a price" next year, but, as on the war, if we're going to go down anyway, we may as well, to borrow an athletic cliche, "leave everything out on the field." If nothing else, it might plant the seeds of a comeback in 2010 and 2012 after the Democrats run wild and bleep things up beyond recognition.
posted by JASmius at 11:12 PM
<<< Home