The Underminer
Posted on 07/27/2005 9:22:57 AM PDT by smoothsailing
Schumer Confesses to Not Understanding Constitution
By Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 27, 2005
United States Senator "Chuck" Schumer's broke his own stupidity record the other day following President Bush's announcement of John Roberts nomination to the Supreme Court.
In a tag-team appearance with Senator Pat Leahy (D. Vt.), ranking minority member of the Judiciary Committee, Schumer confessed to the Nation that neither he, Leahy, nor the Democrat party for whom he spoke, understands a fundamental principle of American constitutionalism: separation of powers. Indeed, ever since Schumer confessed, his echo has been heard as Democrat functionaries (e.g., Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Pelosi) have made the same confession that they, too, do not understand one of the three basic pillars upon which our Republic stands.
All of them, and for that matter most of the media, have been demanding that judicial nominee Roberts "answer questions." That Roberts explain his position on abortion, that he reveal where he stands on affirmative action, that he disclose how he would rule on capital punishment, that he divulge his stand on eminent domain—that, in effect, he make known the platform on which he is running for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States.
From the perspective of the Democrats, this is entirely understandable, even defensible—because they do not understand Separation of Powers, and thus the Constitution's mandated role for a judge in the American system of government, believing instead that the judiciary is simply another political branch. The Democrats see judges—Warren, Brennan, Douglas, Blackmun, Stevens, Ginsburg—as legislators, promulgating from the bench their own social, economic, and even moral, programs, not interpreting the Constitution and laws passed by the politically accountable actual legislature, i.e., Congress.
John Roberts is not a candidate for the Nowhereville Town Council, where the voters would want to know (and would have a right to know) where he stands on building a new senior citizen center, or whether Walmart can open a superstore. He is not even running for a senate seat in Vermont, where voters have questions about dairy subsidies, or in New York, where Long Islanders want to know about shore erosion.
He is a nominee to a judgeship where his task is not to legislate (Article I of the Constitution), but rather to serve under Article III: "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court . . . ." That "judicial power" is the power to interpret and apply the Constitution and laws promulgated not by judges, but by legislators.
It is bad enough that the Democrats don't—or won't—understand this, but apparently they've succeeded in selling their bogus view of American constitutionalism to the American people. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that "Just over half of all Americans—and a solid majority of women—want to know John Roberts' position on abortion . . . ." Not just the "pro-choice" side, but also those who oppose abortion.
The fact is that no one is entitled to know what John Roberts thinks about abortion—or gay marriage, capital punishment, gun control, self-incrimination, free speech, warrantless searches, compulsory process, the commerce clause—or the price of tea in China.
The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate are entitled to know from President Bush's nominee for an Associate Justiceship on the Supreme Court of the United States basically one thing: what does John Roberts believe is the constitutional function of courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular—and of the judges who sit on those courts.
Until the Republicans extricate themselves from the judges-as-legislators mindset the Democrats have engineered—and in the process educate the American people about Separation of Powers, as the doctrine applies to John Roberts—they are playing the Democrats' game, and perhaps holding a losing hand.
The Underminer
All of the Clinton appointees to various courts have been liberal judges who have always legislated from the bench, ignoring both U.S. and state Constitutional Law. Harry Reid has maligned Justice Thomas as being "stupid" because Justice Thomas follows the Constitution. The Dems also call all conservative judges, activist or radical judges because they follow the Constitution.
It is Ms. Clinton we can thank for Justice Ginsberg, a true radical thinker who ignores all law based on the United States Constitution. Ms. Ginsberg is usually outside of the law as it is written and forms her own opinions as to how the law should read.
As for Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi etc. no one should be elected to office who cannot recite the U.S. Constitution, have a clear working knowledge of that instrument and that goes for both sides, Republican, Democrat, and Independent.
This article is trash. Believe me, Schumer and Leahy both know, probably as well as anyone on this forum about separation of powers. Whether they care or not should be the focus of the article.
Not a chance. We'd have better luck getting the Island of Manhattan to secede from the Union (yea!).
You have a wonderful way with words!
This No,No,No,caterwalling has got to be sinking in with the electorate.
Also sinking in should be the fact that the Republican's are calmly going about the business of "moving forward" with the Bush agenda.
I know that sounds like trite political jargon but it's probably the impression alot of folks are getting,at least IMHO.
I think it is very clear that the democrats like schumer and lehey have zero regard for the constitution. Even if they did understand it, it would be irrelevant to their objective of maximizing political power.
this is the same group that sought the creation of the homeland security czar as a congress approved prime minister. (recycled from the Carter years which sought to divide up the presidency after carter's pathetic performance)
They want power, the constitution is only an obstacle to that goal.
"Maybe it's ignorance as well as arrogance."
Actually, it's a Democrat specialty called arrogant ignorance. They are agressively dumb, and proud of it.
I must admit, I'm in the same boat. There certainly must be something I'm missing that the Supreme Court can see.
I'd be willing to bet about 90% of our representatives don't understand the constitution no matter what side of the aisle.
Unnnngh...the sad fact is that they are right. The SC has MADE LAW. That they ought not to is the problem, and what judges should be asked and tested on.
Based on the reported actions and statements of our elected officials over the past 20-30 years -- from Smalltown, USA to Washington DC -- I'm willing to bet that 9 out of 10 people in government know very little about the constitution, or American History in general. This thread is only a reminder that American taxpayers are not represented by the brightest crayons in the box.
That sentence in the article pretty much backs you up.
"Putzhead" received 78% of the vote in 2004.
Show me where the Constitution gives SCOTUS the power to "interpret" anything.
He, and the other Democrats listed, undoubtedly understand separation of powers, they just don't value it enough to live by its dictates. I guess it's just more effective to call him stupid than is it is to to try and point out his duplicity.
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.