Posted on 09/27/2005 11:41:10 PM PDT by Fun Bob
Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California had tried to hide their frustration while questioning Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the second time last week. But once the confirmation hearing ended, they betrayed their emotions in the confines of a Russell Senate Office Building elevator, oblivious to who was overhearing them. The two senators bitterly complained that Roberts simply was not answering their questions.
Feinstein sounded like a sympathetic sidekick, but this was more serious for Schumer -- a crushing defeat in his campaign to establish a new standard for confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. Ever since President Bush's election, Schumer has been planning how to force nominees to take broad policy positions. In his elevator conversation with Feinstein, Schumer grumbled that Roberts was getting away with incorrectly claiming he was following precedent set by liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her confirmation hearing (though in private conversation last week, Ginsburg disagreed with Schumer).
Schumer may be the Senate Judiciary Committee's best lawyer, but Roberts is an even better one. "If this were a fight, the referee would have stopped it," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told me in assessing the Schumer vs. Roberts confrontation. Beyond their legal duel, the outcome should set a new standard for Supreme Court confirmations. It is unlikely any future nominee can be drawn into an inquest of their policy positions.
A relatively junior senator just beginning his second term, Schumer has been out front seeking to determine who will serve on the court. Four years ago, he propounded an issues test and has not deviated in assessing nominees for lower federal courts. He has been against confirmation of every Bush appointee with any significant opposition. He opposed cloture on all 16 nominees blocked by filibuster, and said "no" on all eight brought to a vote.
Sen. Edward Kennedy, who restrained himself from unleashing the invective hurled at Robert Bork two decades ago, was ineffective as he questioned Roberts on civil rights. Sen. Joseph Biden blustered into incoherence, railing against the nominee's calm. Schumer, in contrast, reflected years of planning as he told Roberts "the American people ... need to understand that your first-class education and your advantaged life will not blind you to the plight of those who need help." Schumer wanted Roberts to pledge support from the bench for "the environment, Americans' health and workers' civil rights."
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. Law writer Stuart Taylor Jr., in an Aug. 1 Legal Times article, indicated he had changed his mind and now felt that 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." 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. That is the standard put forth repeatedly by Roberts.
The Democrats have so hardened their posture that a unanimous Judiciary Committee vote by them against Roberts is probable. In the full Senate, the most that Roberts can hope for is probably eight Democrats, or 63 total votes.
Schumer said at the beginning of the hearing he would accept Roberts as a "mainstream conservative" but not an "ideologue." 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 counsel Ginsburg, who got 96 votes? Chuck Schumer did not make his case.
Sorry, couldn't resist. Your screen name made me think of one of SNL's classic commercials "Happy Fun Ball".
Might make a good profile for you - lol!
Like the rest of the Democrat minions,
Chuck wanted to know John's opinions.
Chuck hurled out an insult,
Got a boomerang result,
And now we're all sure Chuck's the dim one.
******
Gotta love that.
In my opinion, not only Schummer was no match for Judge Roberts, there was no one on that committee could match his intellect.
He handled, not only the attacks but the effusive praise with the demeanor of a man confident in himself and his knowledge and love of the law.
Send a thankyou note to the Senator from Utah, Mr. Orrin Hatch.
"gotta love that"......(Lindsey Graham's comment)
Yes, that was a very clever analogy in which he said much without sticking his nose out too far!
I think the Republicans thought, "you can't have this Communist because he is too young but you can have this old one who will be gone in ten years when a Republican is President." I hope we are that smart and think that far ahead.
Great eye-opening comparison!!
Shows how much more timid the republicans are than the 'rats. Can you imagine the pubbies ever having the balls to pull such a stunt, and even more unimaginable, to succeed!!
The other side is so much more brazen than we are. Let's hope the next nominee is an "in your face", proud conservative, ala Scalia.
Way to go, Novak.
I thought this had a very nice ring to it...
"Sen. Joseph Biden blustered into incoherence"
Chuckie can thank Biden for the answers he got from Roberts (NONE)
Roberts just followed the advice Biden gave to Troll Ginsberg. (What bridge does she live under anyway - Scary)
Schumer graduated law school and never took a single bar exam.
Arlen Specter made the comment that all eighteen on the committee equalled one Judge Roberts......
Oh, they mean Judge Roberts... I thought that they meant that Chuckie Schumer was no match for Julia Roberts... She's certainly a lot cuter that he is, though not much smarter.
Mark
My super-lib lawyer daughter-in-law regards Ginsburg as a beloved hero. She was highly dismayed when I told her about Ginsburg's vote on the Kelo decision of which my d-i-law disagreed. But I doubt that caused her to throw over her support for RBG. I guess she also doesn't know about RBG's support for prostitution and a few other social issues that my d-i-l disapproves of.
Bush-gal, I learned many years ago that steadfast liberals do not use logic but argue with emotion. You will not win this argument in 100 years. Let it lie. If they try and drag you into a discussion or argument, just say that conservatives are winning in the USA by all accounts (Congress is predictably Republican for the next 20 years; surveys show that liberal/conservative/moderate breakouts of voters in the US are 25:35:40; Fox News is the leading cable news network) and that all the whining in the world will not change this fact, that conservatism is in the ascendancy and NOT liberalism.
Liberals like your friend I'm sure believe in that "living constitution"... a meaningless phrase if there ever was one. A constitution that is not strictly adhered to is not anything at all. Under liberal judges like RBG and others it would just be an advisory sheet, something like the dietary RDA. In other words to libs the constitution is irrelevant. There's a liberal social order to be constructed, so damn the constitution if it contradicts and denies them that super lib social order.
"Chuckie got his wish, then. A new standard has been established."
What makes it worse for Chuckie is that the next Bush nominee is going to follow the same guidelines as Roberts. Then Justice Stevens will be replaced before 08. That will be 6-3.
Any bets that if this plays out the RATS will say that the bench cannot create laws?
Can there be any doubt about that?
Democrats see it as there right to change the rules in the middle of the game to whatever is to their advantage at the moment. The amazing thing is the way they always manage to act as if it's the most reasonable thing in the world. Of course, they know they have the cover of their tools at the NYT and the rest of the MSM to sell it to the public that way.
What can we expect from a party that keeps someone known to be guilty of manslaughter as senator-for-life and someone known to be a rapist as president and emperor-for-life?
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.