Posted on 07/27/2007 4:06:33 PM PDT by Western Civ 4ever
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.”
While no retirements appear imminent, Bush still could have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court. Yet the two oldest members – Justice John Paul Stevens, 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 – are part of the court's liberal bloc and could hold off retirement until Bush leaves office in January, 2009.
Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said he was persuaded by a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who spoke with Specter at the Aspen Institute gathering in Colorado this month, to study the decisions of the Roberts Court. The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.
Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.
“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.
Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”
“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.”
Two days ago, a straight-faced suggestion to, as a nakedly political move, add seats to the SCOTUS to dilute the Roberts majority. Now Schumer brazenly states his intention to shut down part of Senate's constitutional duty to handle judicial nominees. And to do so purely for unapologetic ideological reasons.
Chuckie should learn Reids hard earned lesson on the filibuster,what goes around comes around.
New Yorks real junior Senator speaks!!!!!!
Outrageous
Elections have consequences, folks.
That putz is one to talk about violating stare decisis.
Shut up Shroomer.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond.”
In other words, he’s a bully that needs the crap slapped out of him a time or two.
Breyer worries that traditional strict constructivists are ignoring “stare decisis”, the legal doctrine that courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.
This doctrine serves liberal interests well. They are happy to turn the Constitution upside down and inside out with all manner of penumbral ways to force their royalist whims. But should traditionalists pull back a bit, they are in high dudgeon.
Liberals get to move the goal posts when it fancies them but, once moved, conservatives ought not move them back (usually to where the Framers drew them)! Whoa, Nellie!
So much for “balance or power!”
Oops, “balance-of-power”
That is not a violation of stare decisis.
Unless a decision is 9-0 that decision is not inviolate.
Bad decisions such as mandatory bussing to integrate schools and Roe v Wade should be overturned because they were extra-Constitutional and just plan bad decisions.
You still crying in your beer, or in your case, a glass of Juicy Juice?
FDR called. He wants his plan back.
Schumer=Scummer Bader Ginsberg=Ruth “Buzzie” Ginsberg
“Violating Stare Decisis”
Duuh, that legal safeguard is meant to be violated when compelling evidence that it is incorrect presents itself.
Breyer speaks of Stare as if it were some sort of codified statute, as Breyer knows, perhaps Spector should look into what you promised GHWB when Sununu put you up for Scotus you fink.
Well, if the vacancy comes soon, they’ll have a tough time avoiding an approval.
“ideology matters”
***We’ll keep that in mind if there’s a president (excuse me while I barf) Hillary
Chuck the Scmuck is a danger to the Republic.
The Schmuck is now trying to fold the Executve powers
into the Legistalive`s hand.
There is nothing in the Constitution that says the
Senate “ must vote” on USSC nominees.
When does this new Civil War start, and what uniforms are we going to wear? Does anyone know?
Yeah, Chuckie needs a bitch slap. I volunteer!
Not crying. Just reminding. You have a problem with that?
Folks seem to forget that the SCOTUS issue is what helped Bush win the Presidency. Let’s not forget what slim gains have been made are as a result of the last Pres. election.
Shumer has to know this, so he has just painted himself as a bald-faced liar, as well as being in contempt of the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the constitutional role of the Senate itself. Shumer should be treated as the scum he is. Veto everything he wants, cut off his salary, fire his staff, shut off his phone, shoot his dog and poison his well.
Congressman Billybob
Instead of a president so gung-ho to keep illegals here he could have appointed more & forced more judges in his 1st term. Maybe, just maybe if GW would have enforced more true conservatives issues rather than Teddy's ED bill & Sr RXs we would have had a pubbie majority. Or maybe we all should have shut up & had Harriet Meires as SCJ. Bush was the fault of losing CONgress.
As the scumbags have cried their way to Blue, I suggest we wear Red!
Where in the constitution does it say the court has to be “balanced”?
Only because your agendas aren't being met. It's the turn of the constructionists
this time around Scroomer.
Bush manifest.
Of course the brilliant and ruthless Dim pols like Chuckie never have to worry about losing, his voters know how important chairmanships and majorities are.
Does anyone really think they would leave the court at a 5-3 advantage? They’re just shilling for a justice friendly to them from a President who seems unwilling to rock the boat.
” 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. “
Chuck the Schmuck, dumb as F**K.
Sure Schmuck, let`s stick to precedents, like Dred Scott,
Korematsu, Plessy, etc, etc.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Yes, all those 5-4 decisions represent a huge 'imbalance' in the Court's makeup. Must have more 7-2, 8-1, and 9-0 decisions favoring the left in order for Schmuckie to consider the Court as "in-balance"
/sarc
Hey Chucky, what are you going to do if Ginsburg retires, Stevens dies and Bush doesn’t appoint ANYBODY?
I’m sure then justice Breyer was very opposed to the change in stare decisis brought about by Brown vs. Board of Education.
I wonder if a vacancy would be an extraordinary circumstance.
I get it now. Stare decisis should apply to conservatives, but not the liberals.
Arrogance is who liberals are and tyranny is their goal. Why else is gun control so central to Liberalism.
Civil War II: When, not if.
Which is either total bs or Schmucky Cheese is as stupid as a box of rocks. Just like you were duped into believing there were WMDs in Iraq, right Schmucky?
Why can't you liberals ever accept responsibility for your own decisions? Why must you be children about every friggin' thing?
Yes, and those of us with any sense pointed how how awful it would be to have the ‘RATs chairing all the committees, harassing the admin. with hundreds of hearings and ‘investigations’.... enjoying majority votes, being led by SCUM like Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, Leahy, et al. We sure did punish the GOP, didn’t we? Yeah, and the whole country has to suffer the results. The Senate’s 60-vote tradition provides some restraint but with the SPECTRE and all the other RINOs it’s often a thin reed of hope. The only hope is for a reversal in 2008, but that’s very far from assured with all the MSM propaganda and the Demagogues in full hot-house bloom over anti-war and similar depraved onslaughts against America. We will be very fortunate indeed if we can somehow put Congress on a better track after 2008, but it’s far from assured. Good heavens, I sure hate to think of 2009 if we should have the Hildebeast in the WH and the ‘RATs still in charge of both houses of Congress!!
Nodding in agreement my FReeper friend.
I'm with you, but the dog shouldn't be shot, just taken away and boarded...
.
.
.
.
...at MICHAEL VICK'S HOUSE!
YEEEEEAAAArrrgh!
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.