Posted on 07/19/2005 8:36:00 PM PDT by Founding Father
The Incredible Chuck Schumer
By: Leon H
I generally try to avoid posts that poke fun at either Teddy Kennedy or Chuck Schumer on the basis that they're such easy targets, it takes all the fun out of the sport. It's about like hunting cows in Southwest Oklahoma. However, Schumer's response to the Roberts nomination is just too juicy for even me to resist.
After the announcement of Roberts as Bush's first SCOTUS nominee, Schumer wasted no time letting everyone know that he was going to be the one to carry the water for the moonbats this go-round. What was particularly stunning to me was the audacity Schumer displayed in the tactic he is apparently going to use during the upcoming character assass... I mean, confirmation hearings. It appears that Schumer will attempt to beat Roberts around the head for refusing to answer questions:
I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions fully and openly when he appeared before the committee. I hope Judge Roberts, understanding how important this nomination is — particularly when replacing a swing vote on the court — will decide to answer questions about his views. I hope, for the sake of the country, that Judge Roberts understands this and opens questions — sorry, and answers questions — openly, honestly and thoroughly. Gee, what a thorough guy that Chuck Schumer is. Why, he's so goshdarn concerned that the nominee for a position as important as Associate Justice of the SCOTUS would answer each and every single question that he just couldn't allow a nominee who refused to answer "important questions about their views" through. What a stand up guy.
For instance, I'm sure that Schumer led the fight against Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose confirmation hearings were the gold-standard for question refusal in confirmation hearings (Much thanks to our good friends at the Federalist Society). For a bit of important historical background, Democrat committee chair Joe Biden kicked off the hearings by announcing thus:
[T]he public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog.” (all emphasis mine) Ginsburg decided this advice was swell, and took it one step further:
In answering questions before the Judiciary Committee, Justice Ginsburg added her own twist to Senator Biden’s standard for nominees. While Senator Biden had said that a nominee should decline to answer questions about how she would decide a specific case, which suggests that only prospective cases are off-limits, Justice Ginsburg declined to answer questions about her views on both prospective and many historical Supreme Court cases. She also declined to answer questions (or gave non-responsive answers to questions) involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert.
Justice Ginsburg emphasized that judges decide cases based upon real-world facts and that appellate judges are presented with a developed factual record in each case. Justice Ginsburg cited this as a reason to decline to answer questions that were either completely hypothetical or that were vague in their factual underpinnings. Examples, anyone?
Senator Thurmond. … [B]ased upon your understanding of the U.S. Constitution, do communities, cities, counties and States have sufficient flexibility to experiment with and provide for diverse educational environments aided by public funding and geared to the particular needs of individual students of their particular area of jurisdiction?
Judge Ginsburg. Senator Thurmond, that is the kind of question that a judge cannot answer at-large. The judge will consider a specific program in a specific school situation, together with the legal arguments for or against that program, but it cannot be answered in the abstract. As you well know, judges work from the particular case, not from the general proposition.
Ginsburg also refused to answer questions on very controversial issues, claiming that she was ignorant of the subject matter at hand:
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to try to pursue that a little bit further, Judge Ginsburg , could you talk at all about the methodology you might apply, what factors you might look at in discussing Second Amendment cases should Congress, say, pass a ban on assault weapons?
Judge Ginsburg. I wish I could, Senator, but all I can tell you is that this is an amendment that has not been looked at by the Supreme Court since 1939. And apart from the specific context, I really can't expound on it. It is on area in which my court has had no business, and one I had no acquaintance as a law teacher. So I really feel that I am not equipped beyond what I already told you, that it isn't an incorporated amendment. The Supreme Court has not dealt with it since 1939, and I would proceed with the care that I give to any serious constitutional question.
Ginsburg also flatly refused to answer questions on any case (or even any broad issue) that might conceivably come before the SCOTUS during her tenure:
Senator Thurmond. What are your views on the constitutionality of some form of voucher system, so that working and middle-class parents can receive more choice in selecting the best education available for their children?
Judge Ginsburg. Senator Thurmond, aid to schools is a question that comes up again and again before the Supreme Court. This is the very kind of question that I ruled out.
Senator Thurmond. Would you prefer not to answer?
Judge Ginsburg. Yes.
Senator Brown. I wanted to cover one last area, and it may be an area you would prefer not to explore. If you do, I would certainly understand. I believe earlier on Senator Cohen and others had brought up a question with regard to homosexual rights.
Judge Ginsburg. Senator Brown, I am so glad you prefaced this by saying you would understand if I resisted a response, because this is an area where I sense that anything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before a court, and ultimately the Supreme Court. So I think it is best that I not do anything that could be seen, be used as a prediction of how I might vote with regard to that classification.
Ginsburg also (and this is of quintissential importance) declined to give anything that might be construed as a personal view, even if it had nothing to do with law:
Senator Pressler. Are you uncomfortable that the Constitution's Bill of Rights does not extend to Native Americans?
Judge Ginsburg. I can't express my personal view on that subject.
*********
Senator Simon. [I]f I can ask, not in commenting on the substance of the Alvarez case--incidentally, he was tried in the United States and not found guilty--but were you at all startled, when you heard about the results of the Alvarez case?
Judge Ginsburg. If I may, Senator, I would not like to comment on my personal reactions to that case. I think I told you what my view is on how U.S. officials should behave, and I would like to leave it at that. This was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that you have cited, and I have religiously tried to refrain from commenting on a number of Court decisions that have been raised in these last couple of days.
***************
Senator Specter. Let me ask you a question articulated the way we ask jurors, whether you have any conscientious scruple against the imposition of the death penalty?
Judge Ginsburg. My own view on the death penalty I think is not relevant to any question I would be asked to decide as a judge.
So, let's review. Ginsburg, during the course of her hearings, for one reason or another, refused to answer questions about Second Amendment rights, homosexual rights, school vouchers, property rights, the death penalty, her personal views on anything, or upon any case or issue that might conceivably come before the court during her tenure.
I'll bet that Chuckie Schumer was looking out for us, though! I'll just bet he didn't let her slide by without answering those questions! I'll bet he demanded to see documents! I'll bet he placed a hold on her nomination! I'll bet he at least voted "No!"
Oh wait, nevermind. He voted yes with 95 other Senators.
Like I said, it's too easy.
His first name isn't Chuck, it just rhymes with Chuck.
MOre of the same from the left, I'm really getting Fu%$&@(*
sick and tired of their Anti-American Socialist Crap!!
Schumer wasn't a senator when Ginsburg was nominated. Other than that wee error, the blogger has a good point.
Before I read past the title... why isn't there a barf alert attached?
ping
Great job. It might have been a "hangin' curve", but it is one which needed to be whacked in this manner. Thanks again.
I figured Chuckie would go into cardiac arrest no matter who got the nod from President Bush. Usually when Chuckie opposes someone it means that the person he is opposing has a strong pro-Second Amendment stance. Is this the case with Judge Roberts?
Puck Schumer?
Schmuck Schumer?
Cluck?
Oh,wait a minute!
I know what it is...
Al Scum-auto had Up-Chuck Schumer's current Senate seat when Ginsburg was appointed.
If Hillary Clinton wasn't in the Senate, I think Schumer would without a doubt run for President. Not even McCain loves exposure more than he does.
>>It's about like hunting cows in Southwest Oklahoma.<<
Lol!
Sort of reminds me of a spelling test one of my friends gave her class...She teaches special education. It was suggested that all words were spelled similar to one that the students already knew.....The list was Duck, Luck, Cluck, Tuck, etc. etc.
100% of her students (even the lowest) got 100% correct.
Next week she used: Hit, sit, bit, etc. They didn't do as well.
Praying that Boxer joins Schumer right out front where she can inflict immeasurable damage to the democrat's own positions.
Schmuck Chewmer
What Roberts needs to do is study every answer that Ruth Ginsburg gave as she avoided giving answers on controversial subjects, and do exactly the same thing when it comes his turn. He should use her words as exactly as possible without actually parroting her, and then the Pubs, when the Dems attack him for not answering, should pull out the Ginsburg responses and say, hey, these answers were fine when you voted Ginsburg through, and Roberts is answering no differently than Ginsburg did, so you have no room to argue in this instance.
ping
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.