Chuck Schumer's defeat

Townhall.com ^ | September 19, 2005 | Robert Novak

[Keith in Iowa]

More like Roberts was not giving them the answers they wanted from him...

[txrangerette]

Yeah, Biden was ranting and raving to the Judge that he wasn't telling them anything really about what kind of a Justice he would be. According to Plagarist Joe, that was something horrible. LOL Duh. Can anybody say "three separate but equal branches of government?"

[Shazbot29]

More like Roberts was not giving them the answers they wanted from him...

"Mistah Robets -- whould you be kahnd enough to take this here noose and put yowah head in it?"

[ncountylee]

Charles Schumer is the gutter snipe of the Senate and a very small despicable man.

[FReethesheeples]

BUMP!

[Sgt_Schultze]

...Schumer may be the Senate Judiciary Committee's best lawyer ambulance-chasing weasel...

There, that's corrected.

[dennisw]

Best part is Roberts has flummoxed these devious Donks thus laying the groundwork for GW's next nominee to do the same. GW will nominate a solid conservative (more conservative than Roberts) if he has the gumption and Roberts will have already smoothed the way

[Cougar66]

Oh it shows!

[gpapa]

Novak is making a very key point in this article.

Both Biden and Schumer would have turned judicial nominees into political candidates, who would then gain overwhelming support for confirmation by endorsing a liberal laundry list. Roberts responded to Biden that judges "decide cases according to the judicial process, not on the basis of promises made earlier to get elected or promises made earlier to get confirmed."

Roberts has won the argument.

Judge Roberts has thus set the standard for any future nominee who appears before the judiciary committee. None will answer questions posed to force them to reveal how they would rule in future cases. Whether that is good or bad is open to debate.

[onyx]

Correct.

[Pirogue Captain]

"Yeah, Biden was ranting and raving to the Judge that he wasn't telling them anything really about what kind of a Justice he would be. According to Plagarist Joe, that was something horrible. LOL Duh. Can anybody say "three separate but equal branches of government?"



On top of that, I saw a commercial ran by a conservative group, that played a clip of Biden saying that RBG? shouldn't answer any questions about how she would vote on a case. Typical double standard.

[NutCrackerBoy]

If Democrats ever succeed in forcing nominees to detail their views, it will not only corrupt the integrity and independence of new justices. It will also, perhaps, open the way for presidents to pack the court with people who have virtually pledged their votes on a long list of issues. -Law writer Stuart Taylor Jr.

Taylor cited the position by Laurence Silberman, a senior judge on the District of Columbia Circuit Court, that every case must be tried on its merits and weighed against the Constitution rather than decided on broad considerations of social philosophy. -Robert Novak

It would be damned tempting (for either side) if you could make them pledge their votes.

[Lancey Howard]

Schumer may be the Senate Judiciary Committee's best lawyer....

No, that would be Arlen Specter, hands down.

[txrangerette]

I don't like Specter personally or politically, but Schumer the best lawyer??? That one had me rolling on the floor laughing...

[onyx]

I'll go with Sessions.

[Cougar66]

I think there have been a few that had chose not to answer q's on some issues. Roberts isnt the first.

[Lancey Howard]

Is Roberts more of an ideologue than Justice Antonin Scalia, who was confirmed with 98 votes? Is Roberts more of an ideologue than former American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) general counsel Ginsburg, who got 96 votes? Chuck Schumer did not make his case.

What really makes me sick is that the Republicans folded like a cheap suit in the confirmation hearings for that nightmare Ginsburg even AFTER the scumbag Democrats had invented and applied their disgraceful smear tactic (now know colloquially as "Borking") against Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. The Republicans also let Breyer off easy.

Of course, those confirmation hearings took place in the olden days when the dying, socialist, "mainstream" newsrooms still had clout. Never again.

[Loud Mime]

I get the feeling that Roberts will be confirmed in a near-unanimous vote. He has no paper trail that identifies him as a true conservative and has out-foxed all the liberals. They really can't vote against him and be seen as reasonable after the hearings.

I believe that they will contest the next nominee while saying that the newbie is "no Roberts," what do you think?

[fire_eye]

WhaaaAAAT???

This, from the esteemed Senaturd for whom the verb "to schume" was coined by its colleagues - meaning, "to waffle publicly in an attempt to appear to be on both sides of an issue"?

Why, I am absolutely dumbfounded...