Schumer - No More Judges Confirmed For Bush

[red states rule]

It seems Chucky Schumer has a another hair up his ass, as is syaing for the next 2 yeqars Dems will not do their job when it comes to Judges

No matter how many openings their are on the Courts, Dems will refuse to do their duty and vote on Pres Bush's nominees


'No more confirmations of Bush high court nominees'

By: Carrie Budoff
Jul 27, 2007 05:33 PM EST

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.”

“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.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, said Schumer's comments show "a tremendous disrespect for the Constitution" by suggesting that the Senate not confirm nominees.

"This is the kind of blind obstruction that people have come to expect from Sen. Schumer," Perino said. "He has an alarming habit of attacking people whose character and position make them unwilling or unable to respond. That is the sign of a bully. If the past is any indication, I would bet that we would see a Democratic senatorial fundraising appeal in the next few days."

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

While no retirements appear imminent, Bush still could have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court. Yet the two oldest members – Justice John Paul Stevens, 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 – are part of the court's liberal bloc and could hold off retirement until Bush leaves office in January, 2009.

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said he was persuaded by a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who spoke with Specter at the Aspen Institute gathering in Colorado this month, to study the decisions of the Roberts Court. The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.

Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”

“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html

[stephanie]

I love it how the Democrats keep saying they are IDIOTS...

They were duped about the war in Iraq..
Now, they were duped about the judges...

And this is the Party that I want running our country.............NOT...They can not be trusted that they are SMART ENOUGH...


Friggin Idiots....

:lame2:

[red states rule]

I love it how the Democrats keep saying they are IDIOTS...

They were duped about the war in Iraq..
Now, they were duped about the judges...

And this is the Party that I want running our country.............They can not be trusted that they are SMART ENOUGH...


Friggin Idiots....

:lame2:

It is funny

Here are the Intellectually superior liberals who brag how they are so much smater then the rest of us - whiing how a man they have called an idiot for 6 years - pulled the wool over thier eyes

[glockmail]

......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.”

“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.”

That's right Chuck: screw the Constitution. Your liberal agenda is much more important.

A neighbor of mine was sitting a couple seats awy from this guy on a flight from New York about 5 years ago. I honestly don't know if I would have been able to be that close without strangling the guy. He's such a gawddam phoney and liar. :fu:

[red states rule]

That's right Chuck: screw the Constitution. Your liberal agenda is much more important.

A neighbor of mine was sitting a couple seats awy from this guy on a flight from New York about 5 years ago. I honestly don't know if I would have been able to be that close without strangling the guy. He's such a gawddam phoney and liar. :fu:

To liberals party comes before anything else

Only liberal Judges who make law from the bench should sit on the courts according to Chucky

[glockmail]

I love it how the Democrats keep saying they are IDIOTS...

They were duped about the war in Iraq..
Now, they were duped about the judges...

And this is the Party that I want running our country.............NOT...They can not be trusted that they are SMART ENOUGH...


Friggin Idiots....

:lame2: Good point. "Bush is an idiot", followed by "Bush duped us". Well what does that make them? :laugh2:

[red states rule]

Good point. "Bush is an idiot", followed by "Bush duped us". Well what does that make them? :laugh2:

Libs said the same thing how Kerry was so much smarter then Bush

Yet Bush had a higher GPA in college then John Boy

[glockmail]

Libs said the same thing how Kerry was so much smarter then Bush

Yet Bush had a higher GPA in college then John Boy That's nothing compared to the "brilliant" Algore. He flunked out of seminary school. The man flunked God.
Then he "attended" grad school- no degree. No shit it was on his official prez candidate website resume written like that. What a gawddam fool. :pee:

[red states rule]

That's nothing compared to the "brilliant" Algore. He flunked out of seminary school. The man flunked God.
Then he "attended" grad school- no degree. No shit it was on his official prez candidate website resume written like that. What a gawddam fool. :pee:

The funny thing is, there are alot of libs who would love to see him run in 08

[glockmail]

The funny thing is, there are alot of libs who would love to see him run in 08 That's because he's the High Priest of their Church. Apparently while he was flunking God School he picked up something about hoodwinking the parishioners.

[red states rule]

That's because he's the High Priest of their Church. Apparently while he was flunking God School he picked up something about hoodwinking the parishioners.

and that many libs still believe Gore won in 2000

I pity the poor bastards

[glockmail]

and that many libs still believe Gore won in 2000

I pity the poor bastards

I don't. After being bombarded with facts they hide, then come back the next day spouting the same bullshit. If they were drowning I'd toss them an anchor.

[red states rule]

I don't. After being bombarded with facts they hide, then come back the next day spouting the same bullshit. If they were drowning I'd toss them an anchor.

I'd probably offer them a glass of water

[glockmail]

I'd probably offer them a glass of water
Make it salt water.

[red states rule]

Make it salt water.

Can I piss in it first?

[glockmail]

:lol:

:pee:

Sorry I beat you to it.

And I like you dude but not enough to watch you whip it out in front of me.

[red states rule]

:lol:

:pee:

Sorry I beat you to it.

And I like you dude but not enough to watch you whip it out in front of me.

I would hope not :laugh2:

[stephanie]

SEN. BYRD: THE PEOPLE WERE APPALLED (VIDEO)
By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2006 07:00 PM Sen. Robert Byrd took to the Senate floor earlier today to criticize the manner in which the Alito hearings were conducted. Watch this and file it under “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”



Download the video (.wmv file)

(Hat tip: The Political Teen.)

Regardless of any Senator’s particular view of Judge Alito, I think we can all agree that there is room for improvement in the way in which the Senate and indeed the nation have undertaken the examination of this nominee.

Let me be clear. I mean no criticism of the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee or any particular member of that ccommittee. I feel compelled to address this issue. Not to point fingers. Not to scold. Not to assign blame. But only to address specific, sincere, heartfelt concerns that have been brought to my attention by the people of West Virginia in particular.

The people of West Virginia in no uncertain terms were, frankly, appalled by the Alito hearings. I don’t want to say it, but I must. They were appalled. In the reams of correspondence that I received during the Alito hearings, West Virginians–the people I represent–West Virginians who wrote to criticize the way in which the hearings were conducted used the same two words. People with no connection to one another. People of different faiths. Different views. Different opinions. [They] independently and respectively used the same two words to describe the hearings. They called them called an outrage and a disgrace.

And these were not form letters ginned up by special interest groups on either the right or the left. These were hand-written, contemplative, old-fashioned letters written on lined paper and personal stationary. They were the sort of letters that people write while watching television in the comfort of their living rooms or sitting at the kitchen table. It is especially telling that many who objected to the way in which the Alito hearings were conducted do not support Judge Alito. In fact, it is sorely apparent that many who opposed Judge Alito’s nomination also opposed the seemingly made-for-TV antics that accompanied the hearings…
http://michellemalkin.com/2006/01/26/sen-byrd-the-people-were-appalled-video/

Democrats should be absolutely appalled at their party..as I am of my Republican party in some of shit they have pulled.....But, as usual, not a peep from them.....:poke:

[red states rule]

Republicans have some house cleaning to do - and more need to be stepping up to the plate

Dems are opening the door wide open for us right now

[avatar4321]

That's nothing compared to the "brilliant" Algore. He flunked out of seminary school. The man flunked God.
Then he "attended" grad school- no degree. No shit it was on his official prez candidate website resume written like that. What a gawddam fool. :pee:

How do you flunk out of seminary school? Religion is one of the easiest subjects to understand. How can anyone possibly fail it???

[red states rule]

How do you flunk out of seminary school? Religion is one of the easiest subjects to understand. How can anyone possibly fail it???

Kniowing what a lib Al is - does he believe in God?

Or is God to him 100 Pennsylvania Ave? (when a Dem is living there of course - it is Hell when a Republican is there)

[glockmail]

How do you flunk out of seminary school? Religion is one of the easiest subjects to understand. How can anyone possibly fail it???Musta bin all that chanting about global warming. Perhaps the profs figgered it was the wrong gig for him.

[red states rule]

Musta bin all that chanting about global warming. Perhaps the profs figgered it was the wrong gig for him.


Actually it was Bush's fault he had to drop out of seminary school

How? I don;t know

But libs blame Bush for eveything anyway - why not this one?

[red states rule]

Back to the topic at hand

Poor Chucky Schumer! Wonder if he can convince Nancy and Harry to STOP all of the Congressional Vacation periods until Bush is out of office?

Schumer just had to go and open is BIG Mouth, didn't he?

August is coming, and since Chucky has made such a statement so soon.

Anyone want to make any bets on the number of Recess Appointements that take place????

Where are all the libs? I thought sure at leat one would step up and defend Chucky and the kook left on this one

[PostmodernProphet]

It seems Chucky Schumer has a another hair up his ass, as is syaing for the next 2 yeqars Dems will not do their job when it comes to Judges


I am confused about the date on this article.....didn't this actually happen in 2005?............

[CockySOB]

One thing Chuck Schumer ought to consider: GWB has no problem with recess appointments. And considering the fact that recess appointments to SCOTUS are not at all unheard of, Chuck ought not throw out a gauntlet as he did.

[JohnDoe]

Good point. "Bush is an idiot", followed by "Bush duped us". Well what does that make them? :laugh2:

The Duped. (never believing what we were being told about Saddam's threat to us, by the administration, I was livid that they just "went along" with the whole bull shit instead of questioning it at the time, including giving up THEIR DUTY to declare war)

But they allowed themselves to be duped because they sold their souls to a reelection, they were typical politicians looking out for their own asses instead of doing their job....and abdicated their own Constitutional Duty, which is declaring war, calling up a national army to go to war, funding an army to go to war, oversight of continued war funding, and ending war....the President's only constitutional duty for war is to be the Commander in Chief for the Military....as far as I remember the constitution says...

And quite frankly, the republicans in office did the very same and many now are trying to "backtrack" also...Hagel, Lugar, Snow, etc.

And what does this tell us?

We probably truely need to send them all packing imo...They all are part of this mistake, in my humble opinion, because they did not take their oath of office seriously.

[glockmail]

One thing Chuck Schumer ought to consider: GWB has no problem with recess appointments. And considering the fact that recess appointments to SCOTUS are not at all unheard of, Chuck ought not throw out a gauntlet as he did. Good point. It appears that Schumer duped himself. By declaring publically that he would make a game of the Senate evaluation of appoinments, Bush now has the right to deny him the ability to play that game. :laugh2:

[glockmail]

The Duped. (never believing what we were being told about Saddam's threat to us, by the administration, I was livid that they just "went along" with the whole bull shit instead of questioning it at the time, including giving up THEIR DUTY to declare war).....

I do agree that a lot of them should be sent packing, but they all had the exact same information that Bush had when they made their decision.

[red states rule]

The Duped. (never believing what we were being told about Saddam's threat to us, by the administration, I was livid that they just "went along" with the whole bull shit instead of questioning it at the time, including giving up THEIR DUTY to declare war)

But they allowed themselves to be duped because they sold their souls to a reelection, they were typical politicians looking out for their own asses instead of doing their job....and abdicated their own Constitutional Duty, which is declaring war, calling up a national army to go to war, funding an army to go to war, oversight of continued war funding, and ending war....the President's only constitutional duty for war is to be the Commander in Chief for the Military....as far as I remember the constitution says...

And quite frankly, the republicans in office did the very same and many now are trying to "backtrack" also...Hagel, Lugar, Snow, etc.

And what does this tell us?

We probably truely need to send them all packing imo...They all are part of this mistake, in my humble opinion, because they did not take their oath of office seriously.

Np, the Dems also believed Saddam had WMD's and was trying to get nukes. When the war had a few bumps in the road, they ran for cover

Now the kook left has taken over the Dem party, and the candidates need to appease them to win the primaries

[red states rule]

I do agree that a lot of them should be sent packing, but they all had the exact same information that Bush had when they made their decision.

You mean like this?


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002

"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

[JohnDoe]

One thing Chuck Schumer ought to consider: GWB has no problem with recess appointments. And considering the fact that recess appointments to SCOTUS are not at all unheard of, Chuck ought not throw out a gauntlet as he did.


Nahhhh, I don't think Schumer needs to worry about that because a recess appointment is only temporary, usually until the next session or sometimes, for the length of the President's term....

That would be only a year this recessed appt would be in the position.

And the Supreme court has run on 8 before, while one Justice was sick, so they probably could run for a little bit, short handed, while the Senate can confirm a new Justice, no?

Also, haven't read the whole thread...but do you think ginsburg or Stephens would retire before President Bush is done with his term?

[red states rule]

Nahhhh, I don't think Schumer needs to worry about that because a recess appointment is only temporary, usually until the next session or sometimes, for the length of the President's term....

That would be only a year this recessed appt would be in the position.

And the Supreme court has run on 8 before, while one Justice was sick, so they probably could run for a little bit, short handed, while the Senate can confirm a new Justice, no?

Also, haven't read the whole thread...but do you think ginsburg or Stephens would retire before President Bush is done with his term?

Didn't Chucky want a Congressional investagation into cereal prices awhile back?

This guy is a total wacko

[red states rule]

Shortsighted on Judges
By Stuart Taylor Jr., National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Monday, July 30, 2007

Imagine that two years hence, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, or Sen. Barack Obama, or former Sen. John Edwards is president. She or he will be trying to fill dozens (eventually) of vacancies on federal Courts of Appeals with liberal-leaning nominees. And perhaps one or two Supreme Court vacancies as well.

If and when those nominees face Republican filibusters or other tactics to deny them floor votes, what standing will the new Democratic president have to protest? How, for example, could Obama show his own nominees to be more deserving of confirmation than former Mississippi Judge Leslie Southwick, who is under attack by Obama and other Senate Democrats simply because liberal interest groups consider him too conservative?

Southwick, who is a professionally well-qualified and personally admirable Bush nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit (covering Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas), is the latest victim of a judicial confirmation process that has steadily become more degraded by partisan warfare in recent decades.

Senate Democrats' treatment of Southwick will show whether they are so shortsighted as to provide their Republican adversaries with new precedents and excuses for a campaign to obstruct the next Democratic president's liberal nominees, no matter how well qualified.

If "too conservative" is reason enough for Democratic senators to block a floor vote on Southwick, who is no right-wing culture warrior, then "too liberal" will be reason enough for Senate Republicans to do the same when the shoe is on the other foot.

The long-term cost to the country is that bit by bit, almost imperceptibly, more and more of the people who would make the best judges -- liberal and conservative alike -- are less and less willing to put themselves through the ever-longer, ever-more-harrowing gantlet that the confirmation process has become.

Of course, liberal groups and Senate Democrats don't admit to opposing Southwick simply for being conservative. But their detailed complaints boil down to just that, as do scurrilous insinuations that Southwick is a bigot -- insinuations denounced by, among others, his former law clerk La'Verne Edney, an African-American. "It is unfortunate," she has written, that "there are some that have made him the chosen sacrifice to promote their agenda." Some astute Democratic thinkers privately agree.

The far-from-conservative American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously found Southwick, 57, to be "well qualified" (the highest rating) for the 5th Circuit. He served on Mississippi's intermediate appellate court from 1995 to 2006, was an adjunct professor at the Mississippi College School of Law for a decade, was in private law practice for 12 years, served in the Justice Department from 1989 to 1993 under the first President Bush, and has done volunteer work for Habitat for Humanity. The Mississippi State Bar chose Southwick in 2004 for its annual Judicial Excellence Award, as "a leader in advancing the quality and efficiency of justice, and a person of high ideals, character, and integrity." He wins high praise from Democrats, African-Americans, and others who know him.

Southwick also wears a distinctive badge of courageous service to his country. After joining the Army Reserve in 1992, at age 42, he volunteered in 2003 to transfer into a Mississippi National Guard combat unit that would soon be sent overseas.

He was on active duty in Iraq (and on leave from his judgeship) from August 2004 to January 2006.

So it was not surprising that Southwick's nomination to a federal District Court seat won unanimous, bipartisan Senate Judiciary Committee approval late last year. After the 109th Congress ended without a floor vote on his nomination, President Bush named Southwick to fill a vacancy on the 5th Circuit. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy told Republican colleagues that they expected committee approval and a floor vote within a few months.

Then began the attacks by liberal interest groups, and the same Judiciary Committee Democrats who had voted to confirm Southwick last year got cold feet. People for the American Way and the Human Rights Campaign led the charge. Their joint May 8 letter [PDF] to the Judiciary Committee accused Southwick of "highly disturbing" votes and "a problematic record on civil rights" lacking the requisite "commitment to social justice progress." The Congressional Black Caucus objected especially to the nominee's whiteness, as to that of Bush's nine other judicial nominees in 37 percent black Mississippi. The New York Times (subscription) denounced Southwick for "a disturbing history of insensitivity to blacks and other minority groups."

Southwick's critics could find very little in any of his 985 judicial opinions to justify these assessments. So the May 8 letter focused on two opinions by other judges that Southwick joined. But while those decisions "might have been articulated differently, might have been more sensitive, [they] certainly are not disqualifiers." So said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican. The moderate Specter has often bucked his party in the judicial wars. But he angrily deplores what Democrats are doing to Southwick.

The first case [PDF] was a 5-4 ruling in 1998 that a state administrative board had acted within its broad discretion when it reinstated without discipline a white state social worker named Bonnie Richmond, who had been fired for calling a black co-worker (who was not present) "a good ol' nigger" at an employment-related conference.

The opinion that Southwick joined deplored Richmond's use of an "inflammatory or derogatory term when referring to or directly addressing a co-worker." But it also noted that Richmond had been apologetic, and that the black co-worker, although angry about the slur, testified that the remark had not caused "any real big problem." The majority concluded that for Richmond, whose years of service had been "satisfactory in all other respects," this single use of an ugly racial slur was not a firing offense.

The Mississippi Supreme Court agreed, but unanimously sent the case back to the administrative board to consider imposing a lesser penalty. Richmond ended up with a written reprimand.

The second case [PDF] was an 8-2 ruling in 2001 upholding a chancellor's decision to take custody of an 8-year-old girl from her bisexual mother and award custody to her father. Among the grounds cited by the court were that the mother planned to move to another city and that the heterosexual father's "average American home" was preferable to the mother's "lesbian home." Southwick also joined a concurrence stressing that the Mississippi Legislature had disfavored "homosexuals in domestic situations."

Liberal groups complained that the opinions Southwick joined had used "troubling" words such as "homosexuals" and "homosexual lifestyle" instead of "gay." Never mind that "homosexual lifestyle" was used both by President Clinton (in 1993) and by the Supreme Court (in 2003) in its biggest pro-gay-rights opinion, which all of the four more liberal justices joined.

It's fair to infer from the 2001 decision that Southwick seems less committed to equal rights for gay people than many (including me) would like. But it hardly shows him to be a homophobe. Indeed, he was deferring to a state legislative policy that was consistent with existing Supreme Court precedent.

These were the most troubling things that the two liberal groups could find after combing through the 6,000-odd judicial decisions in which Southwick has participated. Other groups have stressed that the judge's votes in a relatively high percentage of cases favored "business and insurance interests, at the expense of workers, consumers, and other victims." So said the Alliance for Justice's detailed assessment -- one with more than a passing resemblance to the group's criticisms of countless conservative nominees.

Yes, Virginia, Republican judicial nominees tend to side with businesses and other defendants in personal injury and employment lawsuits, just as Democratic nominees tend to be pro-plaintiff and pro-trial-lawyer. But that hardly puts Southwick outside the mainstream of legal thought. Rather, he is a target of opportunity for Democrats who hope to keep the 5th Circuit seat open until a Democratic president can appoint a liberal.

It remains to be seen whether this presages a broader Democratic effort to stall Appeals Court nominees (with three confirmed so far this year) that would be even more blatant than the Republican effort during President Clinton's last two years (when 15 were confirmed).

But as Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has said, "It's important for our friends on the other side of the aisle to remember that against the best efforts of people like me, they might be appointing judges 18 months from now. And these lessons tend to be remembered, particularly in the short term.... It's not too late to keep the Circuit judge situation from spiraling downward. And, I think, confirming Judge Southwick would be a good place to start."

Otherwise, Republican senators will take their revenge on well-qualified liberal nominees during the next Democratic administration. The confirmation process will continue to become an ever-uglier ordeal. And sooner or later, the best and brightest lawyers just won't put themselves through it.


-- Stuart Taylor Jr. is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal magazine, where "Opening Argument" appears. His e-mail address is staylor@nationaljournal.com.

http://nationaljournal.com/taylor.htm

[JohnDoe]

good morning rsr..

They could always claim the same thing the repubs did, and say they are obstructing, and then pull the nuclear option the repubs threatened the dems with... ;) j/k u

[red states rule]

good morning rsr..

They could always claim the same thing the repubs did, and say they are obstructing, and then pull the nuclear option the repubs threatened the dems with... ;) j/k u

Good morning

You mean how Clintons choice of Rugh Giensburg was confirmed without any problems?

Dems cannot allow any Judge to be confirmed that does not make law from the bench - that is the way they impose liberalism on Amercia

[red states rule]

BTW - the "nuclear option" was really the Constitutional option

[red states rule]

Nahhhh, I don't think Schumer needs to worry about that because a recess appointment is only temporary, usually until the next session or sometimes, for the length of the President's term....

That would be only a year this recessed appt would be in the position.

And the Supreme court has run on 8 before, while one Justice was sick, so they probably could run for a little bit, short handed, while the Senate can confirm a new Justice, no?

Also, haven't read the whole thread...but do you think ginsburg or Stephens would retire before President Bush is done with his term?

The real reason why libs like Chucky want to block any Judges is the Juges Pres Bush will appoint will actually uphold the US Constitution

Liberal Judges approach to the US Constitution. And they do it every chance they get

[red states rule]

Assault on the Judiciary
By Ed Lasky

There are preliminary signs of a looming dangerous breach of constitutional safeguards, one that would extend Congressional power into the executive and judicial branches of government. This unprecedented series of threatened actions imperils the checks and balances that have been the bulwark of our system of government.

The Democrats' anger over the Supreme Court decision that led to George Bush's Presidency has mutated into an unseemly rage in response to a series of decisions that Democrats disfavor. The extent of this overreach is revealed when considering this past week's developments: a pattern is developing and future actions deserves strict scrutiny.

The Democrats and their allies in the media have been harping for years that the Bush Administration repeatedly violated the laws of our nation and those of the "international community". Fearing that the Supreme Court - an independent branch of government - will not agree with their views on these issues and others (abortion, for example) the Democrats (sometimes aided by Sen. Specter) seem to be engaging a multi-pronged attack on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Three recent examples:

1) Senator Chuck Schumer - one of the most powerful Democratic Senators - has announced that he will fight any new Supreme Court nominee from George Bush. He apparently would rather have vacancies in the Court until a Democratic President is in place to nominate judges that a presumably Democrat Senate will confirm. This dereliction of duty on the part of the Senator conforms with a pattern of obstruction on the part of a Senate that has repeatedly refused to confirm a series of judges the Bush Administration has nominated to serve in the federal court system. This is preventing the executive branch from fulfilling its role to enforce the law and is a blatant attempt by the legislative branch to assume control of the executive and judiciary branch of the government.

2) Senator Arlen Specter -- a RINO (A Republican in Name Only) -- has announced that he wants to examine previous testimony given by Supreme Court justices during the nomination process to measure how closely they hewed to the positions and principles enunciated during questioning by the Senate Judiciary Panel. As the Wall Street Journal opined in an editorial, "Advise and Repent," Senator Specter apparently believes that Justice confirmed by the Judiciary Committee (and then the Senate) made "promises" regarding how they would decide on issues brought before the Court. As the Journal eloquently puts it:

"...it would be unseemly and improper for a nominee to seek confirmation to the nation's highest Court by promising Senators how he or she would rule on a given issue on the bench."
Each Court decision is uniquely dependent on the facts of the individual cases brought before it for review. Again, the Journal,
"This is the reason why judicial nominees refuse to predict how they would rule on topics-to prevent politicians from usurping the role of the judiciary and turning judges into Senators with robes".
Specter and Company are outraged, apparently, that recent Court decisions seem to break with precedents. A Senator who does not realize and appreciate that this is precisely one of the roles of the Court does not belong on the Judiciary Committee.

Apparently, Senator Specter and his colleagues have no problem breaking precedent when it suites their political purposes. But a Senator, as a lawmaker, should at least acknowledge the basic principles behind the nomination of judges.

3) The New York Times ran an editorial a few days ago by Professor Jean Edward Smith ("Stacking the Court") advocating that a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President expand the size of the Supreme Court. Smith writes,

"If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two. Chief Justice John Roberts and his conservative colleagues might do well to bear in mind that the roll call of presidents who have used this option includes not just Roosevelt but also Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln and Grant."
Smith clearly finds the recent decisions of the Supreme Court not to his political taste and states that there is nothing "sacrosanct" about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. This may be true. But what is sacrosanct is that the judiciary is an independent branch of government, the selection of judges is within the purview of the elected President of the United States, and it is merely the responsibility of the Senate to advise and consent regarding their appointment. The role of the legislators is to draft the laws, not to invade an independent branch of the government and arrogate their duties and responsibilities to themselves to accomplish partisan goals.

The Democrats could expand the size of the Court, and, with the presidency and congress (particularly the Senate) under their control, appoint very young Justices who would outlast administrations yet to come. A liberal, activist Supreme Court - with actuarial tables as an ally - could prolong Democratic control past Administrations and Congresses yet to come.

The congress is not limiting its imperial overstretch to the Supreme Court of the United States. As the kerfuffle over the selection of US attorneys reveals, the Democrats are intent to take away the unfettered power of a President to appoint US attorneys. This is a power long vested in the President, and is a power that the Democrats had no problem seeing exercised when President Bill Clinton unceremoniously fired and replaced US attorneys during the early years of his Presidency - including one who was investigating the Whitewater controversy.

Ed Lasky is News Editor of American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/post_8.html

[red states rule]

good morning rsr..

They could always claim the same thing the repubs did, and say they are obstructing, and then pull the nuclear option the repubs threatened the dems with... ;) j/k u

To bad histroy goes against you

Judiciary Committee Clown Show
By Clarice Feldman


The left is at it again. From Slate to the op ed pages of the New York Times and the People for the American Way (PFAW) handouts, it is clear that the left is ginning up to replay their war against any judicial nominee this President may yet propose for any forthcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court.


People for the American Way, funded by rich lefties George Soros and Peter Lewis, has consistently been the maestro of the left's judicial nominee opposition. In its most recent press release its president, Ralph Neas says:

"Under Chief Justice Roberts, the Court has turned sharply to the right, and far out of the mainstream of American thought. Rights and freedoms Americans take for granted stand in peril, and the progress that we have made in social justice over the past 70 years is at risk.

"In just their first full term together, a new right-wing bloc on the Court has signaled that it is willing to roll back reproductive choice for women, curb free expression, favor corporations over workers in discrimination cases, limit access to the courts for ordinary Americans, and start to tear down the wall between church and state that protects religious liberty for all Americans.

"While Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito gave lip service to respect for the established rulings of the Court in their confirmation hearings, they have not hesitated to tear down or undermine long-held rulings. This Court has shown the same respect for precedent that a wrecking ball shows for a plate glass window.
Senator Schumer, fresh off his outrageous, proven to be unwarranted, suggestions that the Attorney General perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary Committee, has said that he was hoodwinked by the confirmation hearing testimony of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito and, therefore, will block any new nominees to the Court by the Bush Administration.


(I note that this hoodwinking charge seems inexplicable since Schumer voted against the confirmation of both men. How duped is that?)


In other stories an off-hand remark by Senator Specter to the effect that he was going to review the confirmation hearing testimony of Roberts and Alito has been spun to suggest he thinks there's merit in Schumer's claim. But he later indicated this is not the case, and that he was responding to an assertion by Justice Breyer to him at a conference respecting the new justices' fealty to the concept of Stare Decisis, a complex doctrine in application, respecting the appropriate weight to give to prior decisions.


I have reviewed the cases Breyer seems to have referred to and the confirmation testimony of Roberts and Alito and will as soon as time permits detail why I think these charges are unfounded. (Indeed, I think one might say Breyer is projecting, for his dissents in these cases are inconsistent with his views as expressed in his confirmation hearings. In the meantime, here is Justice Breyer's record respecting the judicial deference owed to prior precedent and his own confirmation hearing testimony on the issue.

1) Justice Breyer has authored opinions explicitly overruling precedent:
* United States v. Hatter, 532 U.S. 557 (2001)
* Lapides v. Board of Regents, 535 U.S. 613 (2002)

2) On several other occasions he has helped form a majority to overrule precedent. E.g.:
* Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002)
* Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
* Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004)
* Roper v. Simmons, 125 S. Ct. 1183 (2005)

3) He has joined at least one dissent advocating overruling precedent:
* City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) (O'Connor, J., joined by Breyer, J.)

4) He has joined a dissent indicating that he (and others) won't hesitate to overrule the decision from which they are dissenting.
* Carhart v. Gonzales (2007) ("A decision so at odds with our jurisprudence should not have staying power.") (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by, inter alia, Breyer, J.)

5) Excerpts from Justice Breyer's Judiciary Committee hearing:

"I think that the law itself provides ways of departing from past law. There are circumstances in which it is appropriate according to the law to depart from the prior decision. Those have been listed by the Supreme Court recently. You look to the earlier decision and you ask how wrong was that decision. You look to see the ways and the extent to which the law has changed in other related ways. You look to see the extent to which facts have changed. You look to see how much difficulty and trouble that old rule of law that seems badly reasoned has created as the courts have tried to apply it. And then, going the other way, you look to see the extent to which there has been reliance on that old past law." (Hearing Tr. p. 234)

"My view is that stare decisis is very important to the law. Obviously, you can't have a legal system that doesn't operate with a lot of weight given to stare decisis, because people build their lives, they build their lives on what they believe to be the law. And insofar as you begin to start overturning things, you upset the lives of men, women, children, people all over the country. So be careful, because people can adjust, and even when something is wrong, they can adjust to it. And once they have adjusted, be careful of fooling with their expectation. Now, that is the most general forum....


"When I become a little bit more specific, it seems to me that there are identifiable factors that are pretty well established. If you, as a judge, are thinking of overturning or voting to overturn a preexisting case, what you do is ask a number of fairly specific questions. How wrong do you think that prior precedent really was as a matter of law, that is, how badly reasoned was it?
You ask yourself how the law has changed since, all the adjacent laws, all the adjacent rules and regulations, does it no longer fit. You ask yourself how have the facts changed, has the world changed in very important ways. You ask yourself, insofar, irrespective of how wrong that prior decision was as a matter of reasoning, how has it worked out in practice, has it proved impossible or very difficult to administer, has it really confused matters. Finally, you look to the degree of reliance that people have had in their ordinary lives on that previous precedent.

"Those are the kinds of questions you ask. I think you ask those questions in relation to statutes. I think you ask those questions in relation to the Constitution. The real difference between the two areas is that Congress can correct a constitutional court, if it is a statutory question, but it can't make a correction, if it is a constitutional matter. So be pretty careful."
(Hearing Tr. p. 291)