Posted on 11/14/2003 6:25:18 PM PST by syriacus
Sen. CHARLES E. SCHUMER ’71, D-N.Y., defended the Senate practice of vetting judicial candidates for ideological extremism in a speech at the JFK Jr. Forum Friday.
Nominees to the Federal bench should be expected to answer questions about their judicial philosophy and their stance on particular issues before they are confirmed, Sen. Charles E. Schumer ’71 told a JFK Jr. Forum crowd Friday.
Schumer, D-N.Y., has exerted great influence over the approval of federal judges nominated by President Bush as a vocal member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—inciting a torrent of virulent partisan debate.
The Left has praised Schumer as an unflagging fighter for moderation in the judiciary, while the Right derides him as a subverter of the Constitution and the democratic process.
On Friday, Schumer echoed and intensified the message of a controversial June 2001 New York Times Op-ed, where he argued that the Senate should consider appointees’ ideology as part of “its responsibility to advise and consent.”
“I really despise ideologues,” Schumer declared before announcing his intent to “prevent hard-right ideologues from taking over the bench.”
Schumer said he considers three criteria when looking at a nominee: legal excellence, ideology and diversity. With respect to ideology, he added that judges should be moderate and aim to interpret rather than make law.
While President Bush’s nominees have exhibited legal excellence and diversity, “it’s on ideology that [Bush] is an abject failure,” Schumer said.
He accused “the hard-hard right” of trying to use the “unelected branch”—the judiciary—to enact its agenda, having failed to do so through Congress and the Presidency.
Schumer praised Democrats for their “amazing courage” in carrying out the controversial filibuster of judicial nominee Miguel Estrada, who was being considered for a position on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Estrada was criticized by the left when he refused to answer the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questions about his position on several issues, arguing that he did not want to discuss topics he would likely face if confirmed to the bench.
Reclining, shoe-less on a couch following his speech, the man introduced as “tenacious, unquenching, tough” declared that he does believe or rely on issue-based litmus tests. Schumer noted earlier that he has approved 148 of the 159 Bush nominees for the Federal bench.
While Schumer has been hailed by liberals, his stance has earned him a firestorm of criticism from the right.
Brian C. Anderson, an editor at the Wall Street Journal, wrote that Schumer has “wrought incalculable damage to our political fabric” through efforts to “subvert the criteria by which the Senate chooses the Judiciary.”
And Harvard Republican Club spokesperson Mark T. Silvestri ’05 accused Schumer of undermining the system of checks and balances, adding that a majority of senators were prepared to confirm Estrada.
“It’s obvious that a solid majority of U.S. senators support the confirmation of these judges that Bush has appointed,” he said.
Silvestri, who did not attend Schumer’s speech, said that senators should consider not ideology but rather the ability to act as “fair arbiters between parties.”
He said he worries that dragging ideology into the confirmation process will lead to an “increased polarization of politics.”
Schumer ended his speech with a warning to President Bush, addressing the possibility that as many as two current Supreme Court justices—Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor—may soon retire.
“If [Bush] nominates someone who is way over and who is hard-right, he should expect the fight of his life,” he said.
Schumer also briefly addressed U.S. policy in Iraq, emphasizing that America’s foreign policy should be proactive and multilateral.
“I’m not so sure that it would’ve been better to do nothing, but we should’ve done it in a multilateral way,” he said of American involvement in Iraq. “The only way we’re going to solve this problem is by going back to the UN.”
He criticized fellow Democrats who refuse to support a proactive foreign policy without offering an alternative source of national security.
“I frankly don’t think Howard Dean can win the presidency unless he says what he will do in response to 9/11, not just criticize President Bush,” he said.
Schumer said he considers three criteria when looking at a nominee: legal excellence, ideology and diversity. With respect to ideology, he added that judges should be moderate and aim to interpret rather than make law. Oh, you mean like the LIBERAL judges that the moderate mainstream DimoWits put on the bench, that "found" separation of church and state for Madeleane O'Hare, or what-ever it was for ROE v Wade, or the Clowns on the 9th Circus finding that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional?
That should read "idealogical differences".
How quickley the NYers forgot 9-11-01.....Well I haven't!...and you majority voters (maybe, leaving out vote fraud) should hide your heads in shame. All my condolences to the freepers and conservatives who must live in the shame of your fellow NY voters.
FMCDH
Ideology is a losing game when it comes from today's liberal democrats.
The term for that is called "projection". Democrats have been "projecting" for many decades.
Excellent post. I agree 100%.
If he can't be a dictator, maybe Schumer will settle for being King.
That a stinking lie. Chuck Schumer will say any lie about judicial appointments he thinks the people will believe. The RATS are in this to keep the judiciary form becoming more conservative due to Bush apportionments. These scum expect GWBush to appoint only liberal and centrist judges although his party controls the Senate and the presidency. I'm sure judges have never been nullified in such great numbers by the minority party. The American way is for the Democrats to win elections so they can appoint the judges they want. Looks like the RATS can't win the crucial elections so they twist and subvert the process of appointing federal judges.
Republicans held up a few of Clinton's judges but they held the Senate majority. Even so Clinton's judges slid through while GWBush's judges get blocked as the Democrats try to prevent a Republican president and Senate from appointing conservative judges.
That should read "idealogical differences".
Schumer gets nervous when Judicial candidates won't promise to keep his patented "one-size-fits-all" mind-control helmets on their heads.
Schumer's life could be so carefree if the candidates would only promise to do as he says.
Someone should demand that Schumer provide the Judicial Committee with a list of the specific decisions he wants judges to make.
Things would run much smoother, if he would just tell us what he wants.
I sometimes think Schumer would love to be on the US Supreme Court.
He peers over his spectacles like a judge character in a movie does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.