Replies

Both my column this month on the Net on constitutional law, and major sections of my seventh book which I am now writing, deal with the precise question of the proper role of federal judges. This is not a logical argument about how much judges (and potential Justices) should say about legal issues they might confront on the bench.
This is a straight-out power play. Chuck Schumer will keep grilling every single Bush appointee, as far as he can get away with, seeking some hint or suggestion on which he can hang his predetermined negative vote. The article treats the subject as a matter of propriety in judicial conduct. It is no such thing. It is merely a political power play by Schumer and his Constitution-shredding friends.
There is only one solution to this dilemma. It is to defeat enough Democratic Senators and candidates in November so Li'l Tommy Daschle loses his post of Bolshevik (excuse me, Majority) Leader. Then the views of Schumer and his colleague in Constitution-shredding, Hillary!, will become irrelevant. They will then continue to speak against and vote against the Bush nominees, but the nominees will be approved by the Committee and confirmed by the Senate, and that will be that.
We need more judges and Justices who will read and obey the Constitution, rather than just refer to it and then do whatever they damned well choose. The only way to get from here to there is to defeat a sufficient number of Democratic Senators so Schumer and his cohorts become irrelevant to the math, and therefore their "questions" become irrelevant as well.

Congressman Billybob

Click for: "Talking without Speaking -- Hearing without Listening."

bump

A great deal of our nation's problems, I have recently come to believe, stems from the Supreme Court ruling that corporations are people, individuals. There's no logic to such a decision.

We need to legally force the Court to review that decision.

"The only way to get from here to there..."

Actually, there is another way.