Is Chuck Schumer really this stupid? From the Politico: "Schumer to fight new Bush high court picks"
New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush "except in extraordinary circumstances."Whew, where to start? First of all, let's start with that inconvenient Constitution, the one that invests the executive branch with the right to choose justices for the Supreme Court. Second, like freedom of speech, it's not up to the discretion of a Senator to decide if the Court is tilted "too far" one way or another. Finally, I wonder if the Democrats really want to change the rules when by all accounts they have an excellent chance to capture the White House in 2008. As far as I know, the Constitution doesn't require that the Supreme Court hold nine justices (FDR tried to pack the Court in 1937) and maybe Republican senators will decide that a Democratic president isn't entitled to name new justices and filibuster accordingly.
"We should reverse the presumption of confirmation," Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. "The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito."
John Paul Stevens is 87.
Extra - Powerline: "The Democrats' unconstitutional usurpation of power continues."
9 comments:
"The Democrats' unconstitutional usurpation of power continues."
This would be hilarious, if there was the slightest indication that the writer was cognizant of their own irony.
Schumer must be stopped from his unconstitutional... talking!
Agreed that it is politically stupid.
But it is hardly unconstitutional.
And a Senator most certainly has the right to decide, for himself, that the Court is too far left, or too far right, or that he doenst like the number nine or whatever.
He has the power to vote up or down or to follow any Senate rule, and he has the absolute right to cast his vote on any basis he chooses.
What the anonymous commenters said. This is clearly within the Senate's vested powers. Bush's right to nominate no more entails an obligation by the Senate to confirm than does the Congress's right to pass legislation entail an obligation by the President to sign it into law.
That's not complicated at all.
Charles Schumer's Supreme Court vote serves at Charles Schumer's pleasure.
Archive these comments for the day, if and when Hillary or Obama should try to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, and Senate Republicans dare threaten to refuse confirmation.
Then you'll hear the howls of "Unconstitutional!" "Elections have consequences!" "Usurpation of Executive authority!"
The first problem with your hypothetical is that the Senate Republicans will be in no position to block a Democratic nominee for at least the next two political cycles.
But if the Future Democrats suggest that such grandstanding is "unconstitutional"? Then yes, Hesiod, you tenderhearted soothsayer, yes. Yes, they will be just as hypocritical, asinine and pansified as the Powerline writer and any Republicans who agree with him.
Actually Wuss, they only need 40 to block a nominee.
No, they need 51. It's a simple majority vote. For example, Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42.
It doesn't appear that Chuck judges people on their merits since he has already made his mind up and there isn't even a vacant seat on the bench, much less, a nomination.
Post a Comment