Viking Pundit |
|
|
The only conservative in Western Massachusetts -
Email Eric Lindholm: ealindholm -at- msn -dot- com
Archives
Link  Home Arts and Letters American Mind Ace of Spades HQ Althouse Anchoress Atlantic Crossings Axis of Right Tim Blair Balloon Juice Betsy's Page Blue Crab Blvd Brainster Melissa Clouthier The Corner Conserv Grapevine Contentions Country Store Election Projection Fark Flopping Aces Fox News Freedom Phile Gateway Pundit Gay Patriot Hedgehog Report Hugh Hewitt Hit and Run Hot Air Hoystory Informed Speculation Instapundit Jawa Report Jaws Blog Legal Insurrection Maggie's Farm Mass Backwards Macs Mind Greg Mankiw Marginal Revolution Megan Mcardle Michelle Malkin Memeorandum MinuteMan Mises Economics NE Republican Pajamas Media Patterico Political Wire PoliBlog Politico Poor & Stupid PoliPundit Power Line Protein Wisdom Q and O Radio Equalizer Real Clear Politics RCP Blog Red State Right as Usual Right Wing News Rightwing Nuthouse Scrivener Sister Toldjah Stolen Thunder Stop the ACLU Strata-Sphere Don Surber Truth about Cars Volokh Conspiracy Willisms Wizbang Window Manager RSS Feed 
|
Friday, July 27, 2007
Eight is enough 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. John Paul Stevens is 87. Extra - Powerline: "The Democrats' unconstitutional usurpation of power continues."
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! # posted by
 : 11:30 PM
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. # posted by
: 5:07 AM
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. # posted by
: 11:10 AM
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!" # posted by
: 11:07 PM
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. # posted by
: 2:19 AM
No, they need 51. It's a simple majority vote. For example, Samuel Alito was confirmed 58-42.
# posted by
: 7:05 PM
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
# posted by
: 4:28 PM |