He'd better ban weepy spouses from the hearing room.

Master of timing? more like a day late and a dollar short. They have their 5-4 majority on overturning the constitution.

Well, how should we really define "to the right" in real use? Does it mean, strict construction and all that, or does it mean, favoring the usual suspect of religion, wealth, Republican party needs, nativism, etc?

Too little: too late. I like Schumer, but, like so many other Dems in the Senate he has his head where the sun doesn't shine and didn't listen when he could have made a difference. Many of us saw this coming but the Dem leadership just rolled over and allowed confirmation on lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. We'll be living with this injustice for decades to come.

The framers of the constitution, in their wisdom, ensured that the judiciary is independant of fickle public opinion. For now, the American public is ambivalent about some court decisions, but in the long run they will thank the court for its wisdom, and thank President Bush for appointing men like Roberts and Alito.

A bit late, isn't he? Where was this principled stand two years ago when these mendacious ideologues were confirmed by a Senate he held a seat in?

This is the sort of thing that, at this point, just pisses me off.

Al,

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Go suck somewhere else.

I will lay aside the point that it is too late in the day for Schumer's point to matter. He should have said this before Roberts and not after Alito.

Rather, the bulk of all cases are handled at the district and the appellate court level. That is where the rubber hits the road. If Schumer is serious, he should oppose Bush appointments to lower courts also.

But then that wouldn't be "bipartisan" and "responsible," now, would it?

Ah, Kevin.

So the liberal fringe thinks the SC is too liberal? Wake me when something note worthy happen.

scrambled egbert,

Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

Go suck somewhere else.

First, any time -- and every time -- is the right time to say no to a Bush appointee.

Having said that, I agree with Tommy Harper. I doubly agree with BGRS. The framers of the Constitution, in their wisdom, ensured that we have three coequal branches of government, but that doesn't prevent Republican troglodytes from arguing theories like unitary executive & other such horseshit.

Al & his ilk are boils that need to be lanced.

Thirty-one percent think the SC is too conservative? Wow. That's 3 out of 10 people approximately. Bad news.

Documents on Roberts mysteriously vanished, disappeared, during his confirmation. They somehow disappeared into thin air after being reviewed by two attorneys, one working for Harriet Miers and one working for Alberto Gonzales. It was at this point that the Dems should have just said no.

BGRS,

I think Egbert just about had this one right. The liberal fringe plus a few other alert Dems.

Considering that the approval rating of Congress is in the high 20s to low 30s, I would suggest that 47% thinking that it is generally balanced probably isn't such a big deal.

Thirty-one percent think the SC is too conservative? Wow. That's 3 out of 10 people approximately. Bad news.

Nepeta, the problem with the SC is how it votes. So it's not like having 3 out of 10 people in the general population be conservative. Let me explain:

Let's say you took the ten most conservative people out of a sample of a hundred. So it's like one-out-of-ten instead of 3-out-of-ten. And then you put those ten people on a board of 19 people that made sweeping decisions that became binding law on the land. Thing is, the board only needs 10 votes to make a decision- that's its rule. The 10 people will always get to vote together as a bloc, and even if a more moderate member- one of the other 9- goes along with them on a particular decision, as long as it's an important decision, the 10 people (who get to pick out who writes the decision) pick one of their own to write it, and the rationale it is based on (which is binding guidance for more minor boards across the land).

What you end up having is, by merely getting one more guy on the board than the other side can get, a group that writes the rules for everybody but that only really represents 10% of the population.

I hope this hypothetical helps explain the situation for anyone who was confused by Nepeta's comment, and thinks the SC in some way represents a random sampling of the U.S. public, when basically 4 ultra-conservatives are making all its decisions now. It's a bad situation, indeed.

This is exactly the kind of 'obstruction' that America needs. Keep up the good work, Chuck Schumer!

Stop the neo-cons (formerly known as fascists).
Resident trolls will, no doubt, point out the differences that they perceive.

Oops, ignore that 5:13 comment by me. I didn't understand Nepeta's comment.

Anyway, yeah, if 31% of the public thinks the court is too conservative, that's bad, because not a lot of people even notice the court. If 31% are not only noticing it, but think something's wrong with it, and think what's wrong with it is that it's too conservative, the court has a problem. It's become the conservative version of the Warren court. They are the political-decision-by-judicial-fiat court they always bitch and whine and worry about- they're hypocrites, at leatm and they prove all the populist, anti-elitist rationales for being concerned about the power of courts, by their own actions.

Whoops, it is 'Swan' and not 'Swam,' of course.

For some reason the "Remember personal info" button is no longer working for me, and I'm typing in my handle again each time I comment...

they're hypocrites, at leatm

That should have been "hypocrites, at least." I'm going to spell-check from now on.

Schumer's plan is dangerous. Sure, the Dems can block Bush's appointments, but, when the Dems take the White House, the pubbies could retaliate and copy the practice.

What happens when few, if any, judges can be confirmed? The President could fill the judiciary with recess appointments. They would all be temporary. That would be a very different system from the one the Constitution envisioned.

There is no number of justices mandated by the Constitution. Personally, I believe that 11 justices is a better number than 9. Over the years of our republic, the number has fluctuated.

It's time to move from 9 to 11. We need to balance fascism with decent American liberal values.

When Hillary becomes president, we will raise the number of justices from 9 to 11, appoint liberals, and jail all conservatives in Libya.

Kevin: "Looks like Chuck Schumer picked a good time to announce his new 'Just Say No' policy on Bush Supreme Court nominees ..."

Well, Amen and Halle--fuckin'--luyah.

But unfortunately -- as seems to repeatedly be the case for the perpetually grandstanding Mr. Schumer -- the good senator's recent statements are akin to those of a derelict ranch hand complaining about the broken corral and barn door, after he once again allowed the horses to run off in every direction into a wide-open prairie.

Further, when it comes to lower federal courts like the 9th Circuit in the western U.S., I bet George Bush could nominate Tim Donaghy and still have a reasonable shot at gaining Senate approval for his choice.

POed Lib: "... and jail all conservatives in Libya."

I'm sorry, POed Lib, but I must vehemently disagree with your proposed punishment of GOP neocons (and of course, I'll assume that you would also include Joe Lieberman and Zell Miller).

Poetic justice simply demands that the locale of any such incarceration be the second floor copy room of the Italian embassy building in Niamey, Niger -- the prisoners chained en masse to an old Xerox machine that's bolted to the middle of the floor.

I hope the next (Democratic) president of the United States will use the nuclear option and pack the courts (and then throw in a Constitutional amendment a dozen years later to keep the number at 11 or 15). The neo-fascist corruption of the court system is almost complete. The least damaging way to salvage the problem is to make the current Supreme Court truly irrelevant for a generation.

I'm amazed but not amused by all the flapping and jibbering you folks are displaying. The Supremes have a sudden outbreak of common sense [if only 5-4] and you guys want to paralyze the process. As Bill Clinton would say; bring her on!!! Of all the issues that push swing voters to the Republicans, number one has to be the Dem special interest groups running to our robed masters to force their will. Last week's spiking of the Pennsylvania town's ordinance on illegal aliens is a good example... I'm glad you're happy about 31% support, and if that tempts you into walking into another sucker punch by Borking our next appointee nothing will rehabilitate the natural Republican majority in this country faster.

Here is a quick question I wish someone would tackle. At what point will Bush pretty much be unable to appoint a new Supreme Court justice because the argument that the next president should get to pick him/her will be so powerful that the seat will stay vacant until after the new president is elected. (Republicans have in the past made this argument though I'm sure they'll make the opposite argument this go-around.) January 1 2008? January 19 2009? Are we already soon approaching that date?

Donald from Hawaii,

"Poetic justice simply demands that the locale of any such incarceration be the second floor copy room of the Italian embassy building in Niamey, Niger -- "

I love it!!!!!!! And, oh so true... Unless we want to go back further still.

minion: "... and you guys want to paralyze the process."

The only process that's obviously paralyzed, sweet cheeks, is that which involves and controls your cognitive ability to reason, both clearly and for yourself.

Now, be a good minion, and go get Daddy a beer, and then maybe he'll let you wash his truck.

What's this? -- HEINEKEN?!!?? Fuck that shit!!! PABST BLUE RIBBON!!!

nepeta: "I love it!!!!!!!"

And I, of course, being the shameless attention whore that I am, just love it that you love it.

Guscat,

About the only plausible pick Bush could put up from here to the end of his term would be John Cornyn, former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Senate crony to enough Dems to get him the votes.

mhr, The biggest bit of made up law was made up by conservatives. It had nothing to do with original intent and has served to enrich the few and powerful. It was the granting of "personhood" to rapacious corporations against all logic and having nothing to do with the founders' intents.

mhr: "The US public has been bambozzled before by liberals and it has again. They have bought the view that the US Consitution and the laws of the United States should be interpreted 'liberally,' believing that the word means they will ..."

"I wouldn't pay any attention to that. You know how bitchy fags can be!" -- Sharon Tate (as Jennifer North), Valley of the Dolls (1967)

minion: "About the only plausible pick Bush could put up from here to the end of his term would be John Cornyn, former Texas Supreme Court Justice and Senate crony to enough Dems to get him the votes."

"You told me Gramp's been sick, Mother, and I know about the oil burner. Okay, I'll pawn the mink. He'll give me a couple hundred for it. Mother, I know I don't have any talent, and I know I all I have is a body, and I am doing my bust exercise. Goodbye, Mother. I'll wire you the money first thing in the morning. Goodbye." (Hangs up, then looks down to her chest.) "Oh, to hell with them! Let 'em droop!" -- Sharon Tate (as Jennifer North), Valley of the Dolls (1967)

Let's stop wasting time. Impeach Alito and Roberts. They lied to get their jobs; thus, they shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs. They need to be summarily fired.

Mazurka: "Let's stop wasting time. Impeach Alito and Roberts. They lied to get their jobs; thus, they shouldn't be allowed to keep their jobs. They need to be summarily fired.">/i>

"Now, get outta my way - I got a man waitin' for me." -- Susan Hayward (as Helen Lawson), Valley of the Dolls (1967)

The media should stop focusing on the shift of the Court and start focusing on whether or not the decisions are well-reasoned and correct.

Sadly, we see none of that. Here's my take.

What's the controversy over Schumer's statement? Supreme Court Justices need Senate confirmation. The President and the Senate need to concur. There you go. This isn't new, this isn't "dangerous", it's how it is, has been, and (hopefully) will be. Nothing about a confirmation, any confirmation, should be assumed. It's ridiculous that anyone would simply expect the Senate to rubber stamp a Presidential appointee. If that's how it was supposed to be, then why would the Constitution even bother specifying Senate confirmation? These appointees, to the courts and to the cabinet, are expected to be vetted! Schumer should set up a difficult hearings process, and so should have pervious chairmen, and so should future chairmen. The SCOTUS is serious shit.

Devil's Advocate:

Here is one SCOTUS decision that was not well-reasoned or "correct" (noting that correct is a normative term) - Bush v. Gore in December of 2000. Wherein the conservative Supremes ruled that Bush, who lost the election, should be made president just cuz they say so, no one has a right to vote and it would make some people uncomfortable to have all the votes counted.

By the way, your blog sucks.

TCD

I don't know that public opinion polls should be given much weight with respect to the supreme court.

I don't see how any responsible senator could declare a No vote before he/she knows the nominee.

The politics of supreme court confirmation is ugly and no way to appoint justices, but in this case, it might produce a highly qualified non-ideological judge, which would be a good thing.

I think the knee jerk liberalism of Ginsburg, Bryer et al is worse than the knee jerk conservatism of Scalia, Thomas because liberal justices tend to substitute their views for the vies of the Congress and the people and for the need to allow the political process sort out issues.

Devil's Advocate: "The media should stop focusing on the shift of the Court and start focusing on whether or not the decisions are well-reasoned and correct."

Are you seriously implying that the majority's ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools to ignore almost five decades of stare decisis, i.e. legal precedents, and thus render moot any practical application of the 1954 per curium Brown v. Board of Education decision, was in fact -- and in your own words -- "well-reasoned and correct"?

I must respectfully beg to vociferously differ, having read the resultant majority opinion in meredith v. Jefferson and subsequently found said opinion to be little more than a thinly-veiled prior concurrence to a pre-ordained political agenda -- or, in layman's terms, a bunch of fucking bullshit.

brian: "I think the knee jerk liberalism of Ginsburg, Bryer et al is worse than the knee jerk conservatism of Scalia, Thomas because liberal justices tend to substitute their views for the vies of the Congress and the people and for the need to allow the political process sort out issues."

I think that right-wing tools like you are all meringue and no filling, because you always make broad and sweeping statements just like the one cited above -- full of vague generalities and / or unverifiable anecdotes -- and then never support your suppositions with any facts, citations or other such specifics.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Sure, the Dems can block Bush's appointments, but, when the Dems take the White House, the pubbies could retaliate and copy the practice.

Yeah, and the Republicans were so diligent at confirming Clinton's appointees, too.

You really do get a sick thrill out of posting the most disingenuous bullshit you can think of, don't you?

Donald from Hawaii--
I've never known anyone else who can cite Valley of the Dolls chapter and verse! Wow.

"They drummed you outta Hollywood, so you came crawlin' back to Broadway. Well, lemme tell ya somethin', Broadway doesn't go for booze and pills." -- Susan Hayward, as "Helen Lawson"

"Boobies, boobies, boobies--I never needed 'em" -- Patty Duke, as "Meely O'Hara"

Darn...of course, that's "NEELY O'Hara" damn typos

Don, are you seriously implying that the majority's ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, holding that racial discrimination in school assignment is unconstitutional, "rendered moot" the 1954 per curium Brown v. Board of Education decision which held that racial discrimination in school assignment was unconstitutional?

Yeah, and the Republicans were so diligent at confirming Clinton's appointees, too.

Posted by: Gregory on July 28, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Gregory, Clinton was second only to Reagan, by like 4 or 5 if I remember correctly, in the number of judges placed on the federal courts during their terms.

I find it hard to believe how short sighted you guys are on this issue. It is highly unlikely that either party is going to get 60 votes to control the Senate like the House. If push comes to shove, then nobody but the blankest of the blank slates will get confirmed. Hillary has already stated that the Senate should be able to filibuster nominees, which means that she has given her blessing to one Senator having potential veto power over her nominees. Try getting a liberal Scalia through the Senate if a highly determined minority is prepared to go to the mattresses to block the nominee. Sorry the Godfather was on earlier. lol

Look the GOP Senate approved Clinton's choice of the lead counsel of the ACLU because Ginsburg was clearly qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. Should a vacancy on the Supreme Court occur, Bush will in all likelihood pick someone who will be just as clearly qualified as Ginsburg to be a justice. So Schumer will be leading the fight to block a qualified nominee for purely political reasons. Since the American people will reject such opposition because it's unfair to the nominee, they will not support the effort to block the Senate from voting for nominees who have majority support. Schumer's position is an ultimate political loser.

The Constitution gives the President the ability to shape the judiciary by vesting him with the power to nominate the judges. If the Right can live with that state of affairs, why can't the Left?

I wonder. I wonder if the Framers actually intended three "co-equal" branches of government? It is pretty obvious that they put more faith in the Congress and the State legislatures then they did in the executive, especially when it came to making Amendments to the Constitution. In fact, they limited the national executives to less lengthy terms of office than the Senate and neglected to include them in the Amendment process directly. The same goes for the Judiciary...they get to decide on what the words mean but don't actually get to write the laws, nor the Constitution themselves. And if they try to do so, the Congress can impeach them.

The President is supposed to be the errand boy of the Congress, not the Congress the errand boy of President. That is the purpose of the Executive as set up by the Framers. Of course, the Executive has lots of power...but the most of the Framers feared the consolidation of power and tried to defuse power as much as possible while retaining the ability to make decisions and carry out coherent leadership in times of need for forceful action...while it all being checked.

Later on, a Constitutional amendment was passed to limit the number of terms a President can serve to two. Thus, the People only get to pick an errand boy for a total of eight years now. That too seems to have been a good idea I think, to limit the power of the modern Executive. It is not too unlikely that there may be another Amendment coming out of the latest debacle, possibly even more than one...if all goes well those Amendments may make sense and be more explicit about precisely what the Executive can and cannot say and do with regard to the law and the Constitution...possibly how he can and cannot interpret it and the laws passed by Congress. For what we see now is an administration bent on bending the law til it breaks, rather than following through on the spirit of the laws as the Executive is Constitutionally charged to do.

Here's an outstanding overview of the damage already done by Alito and Roberts--at americanprogress.org.

It was like the Senate had blinders when so many of us researching prior to those confirmation hearings knew there were very clear indications this duo intended to politicize the supreme court.

//www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.html

I think most of the rhetoric about the current SC is overheated and ill-considered. I would like to point out one of the ramifications of Schumer's pronouncement. Say, God forbid, that Stevens or Ginsburg were to pass away tomorrow. Under the accepted argument here that the current Court is slanted to the Conservatives, Schumer's Decree would result in a 5-3 conservative majority on the Court. Oh, please don't throw us in the briar patch!! Just for the record, I do not like or trust the judgment of Justice Ginsburg, but it would be intellectually dishonest for me to argue she wasn't qualified to be on the Court. Any such arguments about Alito and Roberts are equally unfounded in fact.

You can't be too rich, too thin, or too conservative.

David M. Nieporent: "Don, are you seriously implying that the majority's ruling in Meredith v. Jefferson County Public Schools, holding that racial discrimination in school assignment is unconstitutional, 'rendered moot' the 1954 per curium Brown v. Board of Education decision which held that racial discrimination in school assignment was unconstitutional?"

Yes, I am.

And if you had actually read the majority opinion -- instead of relying on the likes of FOX News to provide you with a bitchy yet amusingly witty rejoinder to my repartee -- you'd know exactly what I said, and thus understand that when it comes to writing and intepreting the law, "the devil's in the details."

...If the Right can live with that state of affairs, why can't the Left? Chicounsel at 2:33 AM

Do you love the smell of your own B/s so much that you think everyone else will believe it?
The Republicans blocked over 60 Clinton nominees
Orin Hatch specifically changed the rules on judicial nominees for Republican's partisan agenda.

When Republicans hate the 'state of affairs' they simply change the rules.

...Any such arguments about Alito and Roberts are equally unfounded in fact. Billy Bob Shranzburg at 12:32 PM

...Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, January 10, 2006; Page A01
Samuel A. Alito Jr. sought to reassure senators yesterday that divisive policies he once advocated as a government lawyer do not necessarily signal how he would rule if confirmed to the Supreme Court, saying a judge "can't have any preferred outcome in any particular case."
"Good judges are always open to the possibility of changing their minds based on the next brief that they read, or the next argument that's made by an attorney who's appearing before them, or a comment that is made by a colleague during the conference on the case," Alito said during an 11-minute opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will begin questioning him today.
"The role of a practicing attorney is to achieve a desirable result for the client in the particular case at hand," said Alito, who wrote two controversial memos as a Reagan administration lawyer in 1985. "But a judge can't think that way. A judge can't have any agenda . . . and a judge certainly doesn't have a client. The judge's only obligation -- and it's a solemn obligation -- is to the rule of law."...
In his Supreme Court rulings, he is ignoring stare decisis, logic and law to issue political decisions.

John Roberts claimed at his hearing that he came with no agenda. In fact he has a typical Federalist Society, Opus Dei agenda like Alito.

This kind of polling does nothing to evaluate the performance of the court. You have to realize that at least half of the people polled are completely ignorant and simply have no idea what they are talking about. 25% of the informed sample probably haven't reviewed the actual case that was before the court and simply saw the broad issues and made their choice according to how they felt about that issue. That leaves only a quarter of credible information. This supreme court has been true to the constitution in their decisions. Though affirmative action seems like a nice idea, there is no constitutional support for such a policy. If people disagree with that decision, they shouldn't complain about "conservative" courts, they should work towards ammending the constituion.

Opus dei agenda? haha I haven't heard that one before, I wonder what that entails? You are ridiculous.

On a related note, Chief Justice Roberts was taken to a hospital in Maine on Monday (7/30) after a fall. Perhaps an attack of conscience caused him to lose his balance? Or maybe vice versa.