red states rule
08-08-2007, 05:56 AM
Will the Dems do their job if pres Bush needs to fill a slot on the SC?
Of course not!
snip
August 08, 2007
Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and the Senate
By Clarice Feldman
snip
Having failed to block the last two most intellectually and personally formidable nominees to the Court, Senator Schumer has indicated that he will block from Senate consideration any further Administration appointments to the Court, claiming that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito "hoodwinked" the Committee and, in particular have, once confirmed, undone the work of earlier courts in violation of the doctrine of stare decisis.
Justice Breyer, too, has reportedly claimed in a private conversation with Senator Specter that Roberts and Alito are not giving the doctrine adequate weight.
Senator Leahy has joined in with a criticism which reveals his own utter ignorance of the law:
Leahy also said that though he voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, Leahy now regrets that Roberts was ever nominated.
"I think in his actions and the actions in which he has joined, he has made the court an arm of the Republican Party," Leahy said.
think it worthwhile to compare their testimony at their hearings on this issue with Justice Breyer's. Here is what Justice said on the issue of stare decisis during his confirmation hearings:
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 that decision was. 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)
As did Chief Justice Roberts before him (and Judge Breyer before Roberts) all three nominees correctly noted the limitations of the doctrine. As I will show in the next article in the series, the attacks on Roberts and Alito are baseless. Each man acted in the disputed 8 cases on the basis of sound law on the deference to be paid to prior cases, law as to which they clearly stated their views during these lengthy and contentious confirmation hearings.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/supreme_court_confirmation_hea.html
Of course not!
snip
August 08, 2007
Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings and the Senate
By Clarice Feldman
snip
Having failed to block the last two most intellectually and personally formidable nominees to the Court, Senator Schumer has indicated that he will block from Senate consideration any further Administration appointments to the Court, claiming that Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito "hoodwinked" the Committee and, in particular have, once confirmed, undone the work of earlier courts in violation of the doctrine of stare decisis.
Justice Breyer, too, has reportedly claimed in a private conversation with Senator Specter that Roberts and Alito are not giving the doctrine adequate weight.
Senator Leahy has joined in with a criticism which reveals his own utter ignorance of the law:
Leahy also said that though he voted to confirm Chief Justice Roberts, Leahy now regrets that Roberts was ever nominated.
"I think in his actions and the actions in which he has joined, he has made the court an arm of the Republican Party," Leahy said.
think it worthwhile to compare their testimony at their hearings on this issue with Justice Breyer's. Here is what Justice said on the issue of stare decisis during his confirmation hearings:
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 that decision was. 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)
As did Chief Justice Roberts before him (and Judge Breyer before Roberts) all three nominees correctly noted the limitations of the doctrine. As I will show in the next article in the series, the attacks on Roberts and Alito are baseless. Each man acted in the disputed 8 cases on the basis of sound law on the deference to be paid to prior cases, law as to which they clearly stated their views during these lengthy and contentious confirmation hearings.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/supreme_court_confirmation_hea.html