This Erwin Chemerinsky is a witness?
The Rehnquist Court & Justice: An Oxymoron?
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:b7Dy-fYcHjEJ:law.wustl.edu/journal/1/p37chemerinsky.pdf+Erwin+Chemerinsky&hl=en
Erwin Chemerinsky: Hypocritical Partisan Hack
http://patterico.com/2005/11/03/3900/erwin-chemerinsky-hypocritical-partisan-hack/
Why is Erwin going to be a witness? The man will put them to sleep.
This guy is a complete political hack and moron. The Filibuster has NOT existed all thru American History. It has NO legal standing, it is a RULE of the Senate that should be flushed as an 18th Century anachronism. You can respect Minority rights ONLY as long the Minority ACTS responsible. There is NO justification for it. Chemerinsky is the worst sort of pseudo intellectual. One who makes up his principals based on his politics THEN try to find a intellectually valid reason to justify it. He is scum.
one and the same
11/3/2005
Erwin Chemerinsky: Hypocritical Partisan Hack
Filed under: Scum, Judiciary, Law — Patterico @ 6:47 am
Erwin Chemerinsky had an online chat on the Washington Post website yesterday. Most everybody sucked up to him, and he proved himself once again to be a hypocritical partisan hack who will say anything to advance his political agenda. Here are the highlights:
Fairfax, Va.: I have always thought that the Gang of 14 “Compromise” was really a total cave-in by the Democrats wherein they agreed to eviscerate the filibuster rather than fight for it. What is your opinion about that agreement?
Erwin Chemerinsky: The filibuster has existed throughout American history. The effort by Republican Senators to eliminate it was power politics pure and simple. I am not sure why Democrats went along with the compromise unless they felt that they did not have the votes to keep the filibuster and it was the best they could do.
(All emphasis in this post is mine.)
Hey Erwin! That’s not what you said in 1997! As I have previously told you, Chemerinsky has co-authored a law review article that argued exactly the opposite:
The modern filibuster . . . has little to do with deliberation and even less to do with debate. The modern filibuster is simply a minority veto, and a powerful one at that. It is not part of a long Senate tradition and history alone cannot justify it. (p. 184)
. . . .
[E]ntrenchment of the filibuster violates a fundamental constitutional principle: One legislature cannot bind subsequent legislatures. (p. 247.)
. . . .
Therefore, Senate Rule XXII is unconstitutional in requiring a two-thirds vote in order to change the Senate’s rules. Declaring this rule unconstitutional would mean that a majority of the Senate could abolish or reform the filibuster. Ideally, the Senate would recognize this violation and revise its own rules to eliminate the requirement for a supermajority. (p. 253.)
Of course, this article was written back in 1997, when a Democrat was president.
I know it’s not news that Chemerinsky is a hypocrite, but sometimes you have to report these things even if they’re not news.