No more confirmations of Bush high court nominees

The Politico ^ | 7/27/07 | Carrie Budoff

[Western Civ 4ever]

The breathtaking arrogance of these people on matters judicial knows no bounds.

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.

[linn37]

Chuckie should learn Reids hard earned lesson on the filibuster,what goes around comes around.

[b4its2late]

New Yorks real junior Senator speaks!!!!!!

[etradervic]

Outrageous

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Elections have consequences, folks.

[pnh102]

Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis...

That putz is one to talk about violating stare decisis.

[struggle]

Shut up Shroomer.

[goldstategop]

Liberals have made it clear they consider the SCOTUS their country club preserve. Conservatives are the waiters and should stay out of the cigar room and not be seen or heard.

"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

[vetsvette]

“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.

[dodger]

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!

[LiteKeeper]

So much for “balance or power!”

[LiteKeeper]

Oops, “balance-of-power”

[Pontiac]

“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.

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.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Elections have consequences, folks.

You still crying in your beer, or in your case, a glass of Juicy Juice?

[Constantine XIII]

FDR called. He wants his plan back.

[brivette]

Schumer=Scummer Bader Ginsberg=Ruth “Buzzie” Ginsberg

[padre35]

“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.

[DoughtyOne]

Well, if the vacancy comes soon, they’ll have a tough time avoiding an approval.

[Kevmo]

“ideology matters”
***We’ll keep that in mind if there’s a president (excuse me while I barf) Hillary

[Red_Devil 232]

Is there any real chance that Bush would have another SCOTUS nomination, other than a sudden death of a Judge? If not then Schumer is just struttin’ n’ pimpin’ for the moveon.ogres!