A LITTLE BIT OF HUMOR
Appeals Court Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President George BushÂ’s most recent Supreme Court nominee, is hopelessly overqualified for the nation s highest court, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY.
“While average Americans had urged the president to appoint someone in the Harriet Miers tradition,said Sen. Schumer, Bush disappoints them by picking a Princeton and Yale graduate whs a veteran jurist with a sharp intellect and rich legal experience. All of that ability and wisdom will be wasted at the Supreme Court, where his main job is simply to update the Constitution.
The New York Democrat joined many of his colleagues in noting that the Supreme Court is the peoples court and should not be ruled by an elite class of scholars far removed from the real world.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said, The president acknowledges that his nominee is probably too brilliant for this court.
Judge Alito would be a better candidate for the Senate, where he could help restore intellectual balance on Capitol Hill, said Mr. McClellan. But when your starter gets knocked out of the game, you have to go to the bench.
Friday, November 04, 2005
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Schmuck Flashes the Race Card
Schmuck Flashes the Race card
With his increasingly intemperate public remarks, New York Senator Charles Schumer risks becoming permanently identified with the nutcake wing of the Democratic party, enshrined among such luminaries as Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and Edward Kennedy.Ideologically, Schumer’s always been one of the more liberal politicos on Capitol Hill, but for the longest time he’s managed to convey an image of reasonableness and civility, if not necessarily of restrained ego. (The most dangerous place to be in Washington, goes an adage popular with politicians and reporters, is between Schumer and a camera).
Responding Monday to President Bush’s nomination to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, Schumer played that old liberal standby, the race card, in a manner so blatant it probably had the late Johnnie Cochran kvelling in the Great Beyond.It was only a couple of hours after the Alito announcement that Schumer went on the attack, using, as New York Post columnist John Podhoretz put it, “the late Rosa Parks’s corpse as a weapon.”Since her death last week, Parks, who became the face of the nascent civil rights movement when she refused to move to the back of a Montgomery, Alabama bus in December 1955, had been the recipient of non-stop, well-deserved praise from Americans of all political persuasions. Politics took a back seat to near universal admiration for a beloved and historic figure.Enter Chuck Schumer.“The real question today,” Schumer declared, “is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place
.”Podhoretz called Schumer’s cheap political ploy “a lousy and rotten thing to do” and suggested it was a sin for which the senator would need to atone next Yom Kippur. Podhoretz also compared it to Senator Kennedy’s notorious statement about Robert Bork shortly after the latter’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 by President Reagan. But Podhoretz chose to quote only a portion of Kennedy’s unhinged rhetoric. Here is the salient portion of the diatribe in its entirety:“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”Schumer — or his speechwriters — have a way to go to match Kennedy’s unrestrained viciousness, but the Rosa Parks comment serves to move New York’s senior senator farther away from the higher ground he used to claim and deeper into the territory staked out by the Kennedys and the Sharptons of his party.
Back in July, by the way, Schumer announced that one of his problems with President Bush’s choice of John Roberts for the Supreme Court was Roberts’s lack of a long record. “He’s only had two years as a judge,” Schumer complained.In a stinging editorial titled “Schumer’s Chutzpah,” the Washington Times noted the reason for that lack of a long record: “Mr. Schumer and his Democratic colleagues tried to spike Judge Roberts’s chances of becoming a judge long before he finally reached the bench. In January 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Roberts to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat who then was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, refused to grant even a hearing,“In May 2001, President Bush nominated Judge Roberts to the same court. Despite receiving what the Democrats considered to be the gold-standard endorsement — a unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar association — Mr. Schumer and his fellow Democrats refused to give Judge Roberts a hearing over the next 19 months. A Republican-controlled Senate finally confirmed Judge Roberts in May 2003 when he was nominated a third time.”Chutzpah — and hypocrisy
With his increasingly intemperate public remarks, New York Senator Charles Schumer risks becoming permanently identified with the nutcake wing of the Democratic party, enshrined among such luminaries as Howard Dean, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters and Edward Kennedy.Ideologically, Schumer’s always been one of the more liberal politicos on Capitol Hill, but for the longest time he’s managed to convey an image of reasonableness and civility, if not necessarily of restrained ego. (The most dangerous place to be in Washington, goes an adage popular with politicians and reporters, is between Schumer and a camera).
Responding Monday to President Bush’s nomination to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, Schumer played that old liberal standby, the race card, in a manner so blatant it probably had the late Johnnie Cochran kvelling in the Great Beyond.It was only a couple of hours after the Alito announcement that Schumer went on the attack, using, as New York Post columnist John Podhoretz put it, “the late Rosa Parks’s corpse as a weapon.”Since her death last week, Parks, who became the face of the nascent civil rights movement when she refused to move to the back of a Montgomery, Alabama bus in December 1955, had been the recipient of non-stop, well-deserved praise from Americans of all political persuasions. Politics took a back seat to near universal admiration for a beloved and historic figure.Enter Chuck Schumer.“The real question today,” Schumer declared, “is whether Judge Alito would use his seat on the bench, just as Rosa parks used her seat on the bus, to change history for the better or whether he would use that seat to reverse much of what Rosa Parks and so many others fought so hard and for so long to put in place
.”Podhoretz called Schumer’s cheap political ploy “a lousy and rotten thing to do” and suggested it was a sin for which the senator would need to atone next Yom Kippur. Podhoretz also compared it to Senator Kennedy’s notorious statement about Robert Bork shortly after the latter’s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1987 by President Reagan. But Podhoretz chose to quote only a portion of Kennedy’s unhinged rhetoric. Here is the salient portion of the diatribe in its entirety:“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.”Schumer — or his speechwriters — have a way to go to match Kennedy’s unrestrained viciousness, but the Rosa Parks comment serves to move New York’s senior senator farther away from the higher ground he used to claim and deeper into the territory staked out by the Kennedys and the Sharptons of his party.
Back in July, by the way, Schumer announced that one of his problems with President Bush’s choice of John Roberts for the Supreme Court was Roberts’s lack of a long record. “He’s only had two years as a judge,” Schumer complained.In a stinging editorial titled “Schumer’s Chutzpah,” the Washington Times noted the reason for that lack of a long record: “Mr. Schumer and his Democratic colleagues tried to spike Judge Roberts’s chances of becoming a judge long before he finally reached the bench. In January 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated Judge Roberts to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Sen. Joe Biden, a Democrat who then was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, refused to grant even a hearing,“In May 2001, President Bush nominated Judge Roberts to the same court. Despite receiving what the Democrats considered to be the gold-standard endorsement — a unanimous, well qualified rating from the American Bar association — Mr. Schumer and his fellow Democrats refused to give Judge Roberts a hearing over the next 19 months. A Republican-controlled Senate finally confirmed Judge Roberts in May 2003 when he was nominated a third time.”Chutzpah — and hypocrisy
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Schumer irrelevant
Listening to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi lecture the President (and us extremists) to select a conservative judge nominee that represents “the mainstream” and will treat the Constitution as a living document, shows how dumb they think we are and how dumb they really are.First of all, Schumer and Pelosi know that no real conservative judge would ever consider the Constitution as flimsy as their spines at a NOW fundraiser, so their talking points are a set-up. It would be nice if ultra-liberals would mind their business and not tell us how to conduct our agenda. Like we’d listen to them anyway?
The other day, I heard Senator Charles Schumer (spit) talking about the Alito nomination. Among his other frothings and rants, he said George W. Bush "wants to radically change the balance of the Supreme Court."
Even a blind pig occaionally finds a truffle, and Senator Schmuck triggered a thought in my head:
With all that in mind, what's Bush up to with the Supreme Court? It looks like he's simply looking for the best candidates he can find, those whose judicial philosophy seems to be compatible with his own, and puts them forward. (I dunno how the Miers nomination fits in, so I'm gonna call it an aberration.) And if that happens to mean that the Court ends up moving in a more conservative direction, I think that's only fair -- it's been drifting leftward for decades, as more and more Republican nominees get caught up in the DC cesspool and find themselves making more and more decisions that please their new neighbors and social circles.
So, Senator Schmuck doesn't like the idea of Bush "upsetting the balance" of the Supreme Court, replacing the squishy Justice O'Connor with someone who appears to have firm Constitutional principles. I dunno how he gets off acting so "shocked" by this -- it's just the latest manifestation of Bush's radical progressivism.
But then again, Senator Schmuck has never impressed me with his intellect
The other day, I heard Senator Charles Schumer (spit) talking about the Alito nomination. Among his other frothings and rants, he said George W. Bush "wants to radically change the balance of the Supreme Court."
Even a blind pig occaionally finds a truffle, and Senator Schmuck triggered a thought in my head:
With all that in mind, what's Bush up to with the Supreme Court? It looks like he's simply looking for the best candidates he can find, those whose judicial philosophy seems to be compatible with his own, and puts them forward. (I dunno how the Miers nomination fits in, so I'm gonna call it an aberration.) And if that happens to mean that the Court ends up moving in a more conservative direction, I think that's only fair -- it's been drifting leftward for decades, as more and more Republican nominees get caught up in the DC cesspool and find themselves making more and more decisions that please their new neighbors and social circles.
So, Senator Schmuck doesn't like the idea of Bush "upsetting the balance" of the Supreme Court, replacing the squishy Justice O'Connor with someone who appears to have firm Constitutional principles. I dunno how he gets off acting so "shocked" by this -- it's just the latest manifestation of Bush's radical progressivism.
But then again, Senator Schmuck has never impressed me with his intellect
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)