Senator Chuck Schumer, the high-ranking Democrat who sits on the judiciary committee, cannot believe how easily President Bush was able to fool him not once but twice with his two stellar picks for the Supreme Court: John Roberts and Sam Alito, and vows not to be fooled a third time.
Speaking to the American Constitution Society, Schumer all but promised that President Bush is done picking Supreme Court justices, telling the group he and his colleagues were “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito.”
Says Schumer, “I will recommend to my colleagues that we should not confirm a Supreme Court nominee EXCEPT in extraordinary circumstances.”
Like when there’s a retirement? I don’t think the American public would pleased with a Senate that refused to act if presented with a vacancy more than a year before the next election.
ABC correspondent Jan Crawford certainly put it mildly when she wrote, “some of the liberal commentary on the Court since the justices packed up and left town has been almost breathtaking in its over-the-top hysteria.”
It also doesn’t help when the media is consistently wrong in its analysis of the last Supreme Court term. Just yesterday on his blog at the Washington Post, Paul Kane wrote about Schumer’s childish plan to give Bush the silent treatment should another retirement take place with erroneous information on what the Roberts court has done, saying, “The Roberts court overturned previous rulings on partial birth abortion and campaign finance reform.”
An all too familiar pattern. Certainly the Left has little to cheer about in regards to the recent Supreme Court decisions that didn’t turn out their way, but their predictable “sky is falling” rhetoric goes beyond the pale. Contrary to what you’re being told by the media and even respectable law professors, the Supreme Court did not reverse a bunch of precedents and send the country back 200 years.
The Court did not overturn any previous rulings on partial-birth abortion. Everyone swears it did but the Nebraska state law that banned the nasty procedure was scratched by the Supreme Court in 2000 and is still dead.
This year the Court simply upheld a federal law passed by Congress – you know, the branch that’s popularly elected by the people to write laws – outlawing partial-birth abortion in 2003. And it wasn’t exactly an ideological piece of legislation. The House passed it by a vote of 281-142 and the Senate by a comfortable margin of 64-34.
When it reached the Supreme Court on appeal, the nine justices had to decide whether to invalidate or uphold a fairly new and popular law supported by 345 members of Congress plus the president, to 176 members who opposed it.
For all the screaming liberals do about respecting precedent and not enacting it’s own ideological agenda, they come off mighty contradictory for assaulting the Court for upholding a four-year-old congressional law.
Campaign Finance is also alive, albeit weakened, but when the Supreme Court found it a violation of the Constitution to prohibit an advocacy group from running a televised campaign ad less than 60 days before an election, liberals went nuts.
It was a blow to students’ free speech rights, liberals argued, when the Supreme Court sided against a high school student who refused to take down a “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” banner at a school-sponsored event because the principal thought it violated the school’s policy against advocating drug use.
It would have been interesting, had the Court recognized such free speech rights that trample school policy, to see what else students could get away with. At least now we know a student who shows up at school with a swastika on his t-shirt probably wouldn’t get the support of the Supreme Court.
So Chucky has spoken. Will we witness the greatest showdown ever to take place in the Senate? It’s a fight in which at least one senator from New York is willing to participate.