« Republican's Shine In Capitol Hill "Hot 50" List | Main | Canadian Doctor Describes the Nightmare of Canada's Health Care System »

Democrat Senator Charles Schumer Says There Will Be No More Confirmations of Bush Judicial Nominees

He announces that he and his fellow Democrats will obstruct every single future Bush Supreme Court nominee. Schumer's announcement illustrates that the Democrats are disregarding the Constitution: they have completely over stepped their advice and consent boundaries:

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."

In other words, if another Supreme Court position opens up, the Democrats are going to hold the high court hostage until the Democrats can get the nominee they want. Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice; instead, he is telling the entire country that the only nominees that are acceptable are those that the Democrats want.

The White House fired back quickly:

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."

The Democrats have proven themselves to be of no use to the American people. Instead, they exist for one reason: to obstruct President Bush.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/22951.

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrat Senator Charles Schumer Says There Will Be No More Confirmations of Bush Judicial Nominees:

» bRight & Early linked with First Cup 07.27.07

» Maggie's Farm linked with Saturday Morning Links

Comments (80)

Good for Schumer. I actuall... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Good for Schumer. I actually like this stand of his.

If he keeps his word, we can expect the Dems to be voted out in 2008.

Why is it that the Democrat... (Below threshold)

Why is it that the Democrats' first reaction to anything they don't like is "I am taking my ball and going home?"

Wah.

America hates whiners.

Well, let's not forget Bush... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Well, let's not forget Bush's preemptive declaration that Justice will not prosecute any Republican charged with contempt of Congress, even though the law requires them to.

With Bush vetoing bipartisa... (Below threshold)
Lee Ward:

With Bush vetoing bipartisan-supported legislation like the SCHIP refunding and expansion, consider this a Democratic congressional "veto" in return.

This is a really bad idea i... (Below threshold)
MunDane:

This is a really bad idea in a congress that is loaded with bad ideas.

Not because people will even notice because, face it, most don't know what is going on in the courts. But rather because this is nothing more than a total pander to small group of people.

Hey Lee, a VETO is the President's prerogative, and due Constitutional power. It isn't a parliamentarian game. If Schumer doesn't like the nominee vote against him/her. Campaign against the nominee, even get the whole Judiciary Committee to vote against their confirmation. But to say, "I will not do my job", that is really stupid.

With Bush vetoing bip... (Below threshold)

With Bush vetoing bipartisan-supported legislation like the SCHIP refunding and expansion, consider this a Democratic congressional "veto" in return.

No Lee, consider this a partisan refusal to allow appointments to come to a vote.

Ahh, I am in good company w... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Ahh, I am in good company with Brian and Leeward in supporting Sen. Schumer's attempt to make the Senate a blockade.

[/sarc]

I think there is a good cha... (Below threshold)
Mike:

I think there is a good chance that Schumer would actually try this. I also think that it could seriously backfire, so bad that even trying to spin the fallout as all Bush's fault won't work anymore.

It's too bad the Republicans are a bit too cowardly to declare such a move as precedent and then use it on every nominee submitted by a Democrat president. Because if Schumer knew that these kind of stunts would seriously damage the Democrats in the future, then he probably would be less likely to try them himself.

Mike, I hope Schumer does t... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Mike, I hope Schumer does try it. Really.

It's almost certain to backfire. And far be it from me to stand in the way of Democrats shooting themselves in the foot.

Besides, me supporting Schumer has Brian and Leeward totally confused. They dunno whether to denounce me or applaud me!

It's always been about the ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

It's always been about the courts.

I love the way the anti-ame... (Below threshold)
scrapiron Author Profile Page:

I love the way the anti-american, terrorists supporting democrats have set the next democrat president up for failure. Over three hundred investigations, one minor, unnecessary bill passed in seven months. All the future democrat presidents will be able to do is sit in their office with one thumb in their mouth and the other up their butt waiting for the republicans in congress to say 'switch'. Payback will be he**, but it will be fun watching idiots like Chuckie slit their own throats, literally. The real cause of the democrat insanity has now been proven. They are/were all heavy Pot smokers and pot drives you crazy.

to say that Schumer is full... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

to say that Schumer is full of shit, is to denigrate constipated people everywhere...and I just won't do that!

for all the Leftist trolls on this blog, let's fast forward...

2011...President Kucinich nominates Ward Churchill to fill the vacancy created when Clarence Thomas died of a heart-attack. The Republican contolled Congress refuses to allow a vote on Mr. Churchill.

Well, Lefties...what do ya think should happen?

Brian writes: W... (Below threshold)

Brian writes:

Well, let's not forget Bush's preemptive declaration that Justice will not prosecute any Republican charged with contempt of Congress, even though the law requires them to.

This is a complete falsehood of course. Bush has said no such thing. What has been pointed out is that, in accordance with a quarter century old precedent followed by administrations since both Democrat and Republican, Justice will not prosecute a criminal contempt of congress referral where a claim of executive priviledge has been made by the White House.

Not any Republican, as falsely claimed by Brian.

Robin Roberts, please refra... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Robin Roberts, please refrain from providing facts to our trolls...they tend become unruly, and even incontinent, and the resulting damage to the furnishings is very costly.

thank you!

I don't get the problem her... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

I don't get the problem here. The constitution allows for the president to choose an appointee, and then the Senate has to confirm the appointee. How is Schumer disregarding the Constitution by saying: "Read my lips: no more nutjobs"

"Schumer isn't even a... (Below threshold)
FreedomFries:

"Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice; instead, he is telling the entire country that the only nominees that are acceptable are those that the Democrats want."

His constitutional right? Bwahahahahahaha girl; you have a comprehension disability.

Kim, you need to improve on your basic reading skills or at least get beyond the monarchy of Bush.

The Constitution specifically states: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, ...; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ..., Judges of the supreme Court,"

Unless your familiarity w/ English is, perhaps as a second language, there is no basis for your claim above as to Bush's right to his nominee. So far, the Bush Monarchy, while well underway, has not been officially proclaimed. Your cart is in front of your horse.

2011...President Kuci... (Below threshold)

2011...President Kucinich nominates Ward Churchill to fill the vacancy created when Clarence Thomas died of a heart-attack. The Republican contolled Congress refuses to allow a vote on Mr. Churchill.

Well, Lefties...what do ya think should happen?

Make him play middle linebacker for Vanderbilt. He keeps a college scholarship and meets some of America's finest.

I agree, FreedomFries.... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I agree, FreedomFries.

Let the Senate Democrats vote and show the American people that they believe in what's really important... stonewalling the White House!

There's an accomplishment worth running for re-election on: "We stopped the President from putting replacement Justices on the Supreme Court!"

FrenchFryIs your p... (Below threshold)

FrenchFry

Is your problem with this?
"Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice;

I think this is your reading comprehension problem: to wit, the difference between "choice" and "Advice and Consent of the Senate", or rather, Executive choice and Senate Advice and Consent.

And for this...Unless your familiarity w/ English is, perhaps as a second language, there is no basis for your claim above as to Bush's right to his nominee. ...the English as a second language problem appears to be yours, in that the word nominee has specific meaning.
Another lib hoist on their own petard....it's beginning to look like Paris in 1798 over at Lib HQ.


Round them Commie basturd... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Round them Commie basturds up and hang them. They are not AMERICANS they are the enemy.

Wow, Rob, what a thoughtful... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Wow, Rob, what a thoughtful, profund, concise post. Jackass.

Ryan, for one thing, Presid... (Below threshold)

Ryan, for one thing, President Bush's judicial nominees have been of a very high quality. There have not been any "nutjobs" nominated so your insult is ill directed. CJ Roberts and J. Alito are high quality jurists.

The practice of the Democrats of smearing people nominated for office or the bench by a Republican for absolutely no good reason at all got old long ago.

Schumer isn't even... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice

Bush will retain his right to nominate. It's just that his nominees will get shot down. No constitutional problem there.

The epithet "Bush Appointee... (Below threshold)
Authority Figure:

The epithet "Bush Appointee" will be as welcomed as the n-word is now.

Remind me to donate to Schu... (Below threshold)
George:

Remind me to donate to Schumer's opponent next time he is up for election.

I donated to Thune just to get rid of that other idiot. It was money well spent.

FF is an example of liberal... (Below threshold)
LoveAmerica Immigrant:

FF is an example of liberal sewage and he is here to spout that garbage.

The Dem's "100 investigatio... (Below threshold)

The Dem's "100 investigations in 100 days" plan shows how serious they are about governing. Then there's Chucky Schumer, a laughingstock in the Harry Reid and Teddy K mold. Lighten up everyone, the Dems are digging a hole for themselves -- just stay out of the way and let them do it.

Are you attempting... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Are you attempting to suggest that the use of the word "nominee" w/ its "specific meaning" implies the right to one's choice?

That seems to be what they're saying. Pretty stupid, even by righty standards.

When a letter is sent to... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

When a letter is sent to air head Harry Reid from Bagdad stating "to be brief , your words are killing us"

What don't you understand RYAN?

You want the most criminal and corrupt party of democrats in the White House and any other position of POWER. Screw you idiots.

What an ass. And exac... (Below threshold)

What an ass. And exactly what is that "specific meaning" you suckyphant? Are you attempting to suggest that the use of the word "nominee" w/ its "specific meaning" implies the right to one's choice? If that be the case, then once the GOP convention nominates its latest would-be monarch, we just cut the waste of time, allow SCOTUS once again the power to appoint and go straight to innaugaration...er, coronation.

The petard you reference is about as apparent as your king's new clothes

FrenchFry
The specific meaning refers directly and specifically to the term "nominee". Any questions?

The President has the Constitutional right to serve up nominees for specific positions in the Federal Government. It is the President's right and exclusively his choice. What is it about this that you do not understand? Are you confused about advice and consent, or are you delusional?

If that be the case, then once the GOP convention nominates its latest would-be monarch, we just cut the waste of time, allow SCOTUS once again the power to appoint and go straight to innaugaration...er, coronation.

You're Jim aren't you? Soque pupetting at this late hour.

The President has ... (Below threshold)
jpe:
The President has the Constitutional right to serve up nominees for specific positions in the Federal Government.

And Schumer's not trying to take that right away. So where's the problem?

Democrats can't win by me... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Democrats can't win by merit and they know it. That's why they engage in election/voting fraud , vote buying smear campaigns and cry baby obstruction. Quite you damn whining Schmucky Schumer.

jpeAnd Schum... (Below threshold)

jpe

And Schumer's not trying to take that right away. So where's the problem?

Agreed, Schumer's just complaing. But FF Super Size doesn't understand the concept. We're in remedial class now. Come back when the thread is elevated to previously accepted levels.

Agreed, Schumer's ... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Agreed, Schumer's just complaing.

He's threatening to have the Senate use its right to advice and consent by withholding consent. And if the Senate does exactly that, it doesn't impinge on the President's distinct right to nominate.

What was suggested in the initial post is that the president's right to nominate entails some obligation by the Senate to consent, which is plain horse shit. The Senate can categorically refuse to consent on any nominee for any reason it chooses, just as the President can nominate any idiot - or not nominate anybody - s/he wants for any reason whatsoever.

If one of the left leaning ... (Below threshold)
peter the bellhop:

If one of the left leaning Justices dies or retires and leaves the seat. No new justice, go ahead and decide things with 8. A 5 to 3 decision will go as far as a 5 to 4. We might get a 6 to 2 out of this. Go ahead Schumer, make my day.

True, JPE, and I support Sc... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

True, JPE, and I support Schumer's right to dissent.

Like I said, what a great accomplishment to run on... stonewalling judicial nominations. That's sure to get people out to the polls to vote for you, isn't it?

CCG has the right idea. If... (Below threshold)
jpe:

CCG has the right idea. If there's any criticism, it's political. It's something that can easily backfire. But to try to make it a pseudo-Constitutional problem is just retarded. ("they have completely over stepped their advice and consent boundaries")

C-C-G:There's ... (Below threshold)
marc:

C-C-G:

There's an accomplishment worth running for re-election on: "We stopped the President from putting replacement Justices on the Supreme Court!"

You forgot the other part of their "campaign ad:"

"We killed the Patriot Act." - Sen, Reid.

Good point, Marc.O... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Good point, Marc.

Oh, don't forget another campaign ad: "We investigated every rumor and hint of a scandal in the Bush Administration and found nothing, so now we need to raise taxes to pay for it!"

FF:At the leas... (Below threshold)
marc:

FF:

At the least, the Mexicans are of a far higher caliber than the lemmings that wash up on the Pacific coast.

Lets get specific here. Just who are these "lemmings?" What color, race and nationality?

Just so we can pin down just where your racial bias is you understand, nothing more, nothing less.

And BTW, weren't you banned from posting around these parts at one time?

Not at all Hugh. I ne... (Below threshold)

Not at all Hugh. I never questioned his "enumerated power"

Yes you did:


What an ass. And exactly what is that "specific meaning" you suckyphant? Are you attempting to suggest that the use of the word "nominee" w/ its "specific meaning" implies the right to one's choice? If that be the case, then once the GOP convention nominates its latest would-be monarch, we just cut the waste of time, allow SCOTUS once again the power to appoint and go straight to innaugaration...er, coronation.

Rubber satmping...?

not the rubber-stamping to which you have becaome accustomed in the first 6 years of the reign of the Chimp.

The backlog of judicial appointees by the President (learn his title, FrenchFry, and practice it because even when a Democrat holds the office you should show proper respect)is at record levels and has been since he controlled both houses.

C-C-G - and "cold blooded k... (Below threshold)
marc:

C-C-G - and "cold blooded killers" Murtha. Should be a "great ad!"

Really, I don't know why we... (Below threshold)
Herman:

Really, I don't know why we're having this discussion. It's looking like both Ginsburg and Stevens will hang on until the end of Chimpy's term. They both know what's at stake.

And then later, Hillary or Giuliani can replace them both with pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-gun-control justices.

Chucky "hooknose" Slimmer i... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

Chucky "hooknose" Slimmer is all mouth just like Old "strechface" Pelooser. Case in point:
1--drain the swamp---deeper than ever with demos plugging the drains.
2--100 days---Zzzzzzerooooo (oh they did name a few bridges)
3--Not one BILL has been passed that has an appropriation in it. (min. wage affected about 3 people)
4--You are now looking at the Democratic controlled DNC (Do Nothing Congress)
5--frig'frie-old "chimpy" has kicked your whimpy ass for the last 6 years and you have 2 more to go. Read and weep.
6-- When did they let weewardie out? He seems so subdued!!! Not one "he is a lair".

Bush will retain h... (Below threshold)
George:
Bush will retain his right to nominate. It's just that his nominees will get shot down. No constitutional problem there.

If Schumer said he would not confirm any black nominees, there would be no Constitutional problem there, either. Would there?

Schumer's action is pure prejudiced. And idiotic.

Marc, and how about Hillary... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Marc, and how about Hillary and "I didn't know the Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq gave the President authorization to use military force in Iraq!"

Shillary - We KNOW what's g... (Below threshold)
marc:

Shillary - We KNOW what's good for you so we'll take it from YOU and give it to someone ELSE...

or some such drivel. I'm not in the mood to look up the exact quote.

I think it was "We're going... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I think it was "We're going to take things away from you for your own good."

Looks like we've successfully chased the lefties off this thread, at least for the moment.

If Schumer said he... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
If Schumer said he would not confirm any black nominees, there would be no Constitutional problem there, either.

Heh... maybe Dubya can send up another conservative black judge and watch the lefties have conniption fits all over again about whether or not to confirm.

Schumer isn't even ackn... (Below threshold)
tas:

Schumer isn't even acknowledging Bush's constitutional right to the nominee of his choice; instead, he is telling the entire country that the only nominees that are acceptable are those that the Democrats want.

Bush's constitutional what? Last time I checked the constitution, the president chooses a Supreme Court nominee who is subject to approval by the Senate. Both parties are involved. Go ahead, check the constitution, that's what it says.

And guess what? Democrats control the Senate, and they were voted in by the American people. So it's Bush's constitutional right to choose a court nominee who is acceptable to both the executive and legislative branches of the goverment.

Don't like it? Move to China.

This is great news! Now if ... (Below threshold)
Cowardly Republicans:

This is great news! Now if only the democrats had this much spine during the Alito nomination we could have kept that fool off the bench

Chuckie Schumer was a dickh... (Below threshold)
BillyBob:

Chuckie Schumer was a dickhead yesterday and he'll be a dickhead tomorrow.

Nothing will change about Chuckie "Dickhead" Schumer.

TAS:And Schumer sa... (Below threshold)
marc:

TAS:

And Schumer said, "the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush "except in extraordinary circumstances."

Which is his and the Senate's duty as per the Constitution.

However, by tossing out the "except in extraordinary circumstances" caveat leads to an obvious conclusion he plans on advocating blocking ANY nominee no matter what.

Perhaps you can shed some light on what he meant by "extraordinary circumstances."

I suspect it would require a Michael Moore or Cindy Shehag type with a law degree to get past ole Schmie.

But I could be wrong.

BTW TAS, while scrambling a... (Below threshold)
marc:

BTW TAS, while scrambling around trying to define "extraordinary circumstances," you can also instruct us on what he means by the present court being "dangerously out of balance," when it generally falls along a 5-4 margin.

Oh wait, I get it now it's 5-4 against his wishes!

What a cantankerous old twit! And a poster child for a two term limit on all the congressional asshats.

"Were we duped?"<... (Below threshold)
Neo:

"Were we duped?"

Schumer is so stupid that he duped himself. He didn't vote for Roberts or Alito.

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of New Jersey, to be an Associate Justice )
Schumer (D-NY), Nay

Question: On the Nomination (Confirmation John G. Roberts, Jr., of Maryland, to be Chief Justice of the United States )
Schumer (D-NY), Nay

If Schumer said he... (Below threshold)
jpe:
If Schumer said he would not confirm any black nominees, there would be no Constitutional problem there, either. Would there?

Nope.

Time for our imperial court... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Time for our imperial court jester CHUCKY SCHUMER to lose his spot and king of the senatorial clowns

What about the 14th, jpe?<b... (Below threshold)
kim:

What about the 14th, jpe?
===============

Wha a gas bag. We don't n... (Below threshold)
RobLACal.:

Wha a gas bag. We don't need any dickhead democrat dictators. Apparently stupid democrats can't live without them. Somebody give the baby rats a pacifier, they'll need it the rest of their lives.

What about the 14t... (Below threshold)
jpe:
What about the 14th, jpe?

First, let's note that "Bush's nominees" aren't a protected class for 14th amendment purposes. So your initial analogy to race was defective and not a little stupid.

On to the academic question of whether the 14th Amendment prevents a branch of government from using race as a consideration in discharging its enumerated Constitutional powers. As far as I know, there's exactly zero case law on point, so we have to look at general holdings. We know for a fact that the President's appointment power for cabinet members is "inviolable." That strongly suggests that the President could opt not to appoint a given candidate solely based on race. That, in turn, suggests the general rule that the enumerated powers are immune from generally applicable anti-discrimination provisions. The "advice and consent" power is enumerated, so my best guess is that it is similarly inviolable, and would be immune from any 14th Amendment lawsuits.

The handwriting has been on... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

The handwriting has been on the wall for some time now. The corrupt Democrats intend to use the judicial system to stage a permanent coup d'état. Jefferson didn't call it the "despotic branch" for nothing.

Maybe it is time for vigile... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Maybe it is time for vigilence committees to form. After having formed, late night visits to C. Schumer, H. Reid, N. Pelosi and J. Murtha to offer friendly advice about proper conduct would be in order. Failing that, offers of transportation out of town (on a rail)would be in order along with a fresh coat of tar and feathers. I would like to point out to the lair, Freedom Flies, if Bush was the dictator you say he is, why are you still alive? Told ya he is a liar.

Freedom Flies, if ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
Freedom Flies, if Bush was the dictator you say he is, why are you still alive?

Cause he has his tinfoil hat on, which fools the sensors in the black helicopters, of course!

But CCG, wouldn't Bushnazi ... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

But CCG, wouldn't Bushnazi children have reported their evil liberal parents to the loyal secret police? I guess not, considering the educational system is in the hands of the communists.

Doesn't matter, Zeldorf, th... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Doesn't matter, Zeldorf, the tinfoil hat keeps the black helicopters away.

Thanks, jpe. Have you seen... (Below threshold)
kim:

Thanks, jpe. Have you seen what Patrick Leahy wrote eight years ago about Executive Privilege?
===========================

Have you seen what... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:
Have you seen what Patrick Leahy wrote eight years ago about Executive Privilege?

Now, now, Kim, you know it's against the lefty rules to mention anything that happened prior to Dubya taking office.

judiciary.senate.gov/oldsit... (Below threshold)
kim:

judiciary.senate.gov/oldsite/92399pl2.htm

Exercise that techie head. h/t the Captain.
============================

I agree with you, Kim, but ... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

I agree with you, Kim, but you know that for lefties, history started 21 January 2001.

jpe,"Bush nominees... (Below threshold)

jpe,

"Bush nominees" would not be the "protected class."

First, the 14th only applies to the states -- so we're looking at the 5th, not the 14th.

And if a President declared that he would not consider an otherwise qualified nominee "solely because he is black," that person, being a member of a protected class, would (I hope) feel free to avail himself to the courts. (Of course this dialogue is entirely hypothetical, because no politician would be so stupid. Heh)

Similarly, if Schumer were to refuse to schedule confirmation hearings on a nominee solely because he was black (or white) -- or perhaps not black enough -- then that spurned nominee would also have some recourse.

The "government" does not achieve immunity from the 5th or 14th amendment simply by virtue of the "political" nature of the participants' battlefield.

I suspect there is no case law on point because not even Schumer is that stupid. Hard to believe, but it is so.

BTW TAS, while scramblin... (Below threshold)
tas:

BTW TAS, while scrambling around trying to define "extraordinary circumstances...

There's absolutely no need to define "extraordinary circumstances" because the Constitution mandates that eh executive and legislative branches each confirm that a Supreme Court nominee is right for them. The reason from the Senate for rejecting a nominee could be anything they want. The dude could be too ugly -- too bad, he's not on the Spureme Court. Next!

...you can also instruct us on what he means by the present court being "dangerously out of balance," when it generally falls along a 5-4 margin.

Oh wait, I get it now it's 5-4 against his wishes!

Yeah, and...? Last time I checked, the extreme branch of the GOP didn't have a stranglehold on the US government. The Senate is a Democratic majority per the wishes of the American people. If the Senate decides that they don't like the make up of the Supreme Court and, should there be a vacancy on the bench, they have a chance to participate in the ascension of a new justice, then that's their constitutional right. Period. End of story. None of the excuses you make serve a bit of difference. And if you don't like it, move to China.

test... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

test

Chucky Schumer his I.Q. is ... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

Chucky Schumer his I.Q. is below ants or fleas meaning these little bugs are more intellegent then he ever will be meaning ATOM ANT and THE MIGHTY ANGALO are more intellegent

if Schumer were to... (Below threshold)
jpe:
if Schumer were to refuse to schedule confirmation hearings on a nominee solely because he was black (or white) -- or perhaps not black enough -- then that spurned nominee would also have some recourse.

Given the dearth of the case law, this is probably an obvious point, but I'll say it anyways: your comment is conclusory, an assertion rather than argument. I take it for granted that Bush's "inviolable" right to nominate means precisely that: that he can nominate anyone for any reason other than the sun. And the case law on the removal power tells us that, in the absence of legislation, Bush can remove for good cause, no cause, or bad cause. Since racial animus is a quintessential bad cause, it seems reasonable to conclude that Bush could remove for racial animus, just as the Senate could fail to approve for the same reason.

Have you seen what... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Have you seen what Patrick Leahy wrote eight years ago about Executive Privilege?

No. Have you ever seen a film in Cinerama? See, we can both ask questions irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You're a bit like Wizbang's crazy cat lady - kinda cracked up and senile, but always interesting.

jpe, if you haven't read Le... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

jpe, if you haven't read Leahy's statement, how do you know it's irrelevant?

Leahy's statement is about ... (Below threshold)
jpe:

Leahy's statement is about exec privilege. Unless Kim went back in time and made the original post about that rather than about the advice and consent clause, it's irrelevant.

It's not so complicated to figure out that executive privilege isn't the same thing as the advice and consent clause.

Ahh, so you have rea... (Below threshold)
C-C-G Author Profile Page:

Ahh, so you have read it, in order to determine that is is solely about executive privilege.

Tell me, did you read it before you said you hadn't, thus making you a liar, or afterwards?

SPURWING PLOVERS are more i... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

SPURWING PLOVERS are more intellegent then CHUCKY SHUMER. SQUAWK SQUAWK

Ahh, so you have r... (Below threshold)
jpe:
Ahh, so you have read it, in order to determine that is is solely about executive privilege.

Kim said it was about executive privilege. I assumed she wasn't lying.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy