Senator Schumer and Supreme Court Judges-And THEY Say WE'RE Obstructionist!

This is word for word from Fidelis:

I posted this article while I was on my way to class tonight; there is a companion article in my email.

Lately, since the Republicans in Congress and the grass roots new media have BOTH stood up to the thugs, communists and do-nothings masquerading as respectable members of Congress (i.e., the Democrats), the Democrats have been whining the rest of us are--GASP-- "OBSTRUCTIONISTS".

They say this because we refuse to allow smoky back room deals being shoved down our throats (Immigration). They say this because the President continues to veto their surrender bills--even with the publicity stunt slumber party (in which they knew they didn't have enough votes to override the impending veto). They say this because we have had ENOUGH of their do-nothing, time wasting, tax-payer insulting, feel they can do what they want with OUR tax dollars worthless carcasses. They say this because we DEMAND they listen to the troops on the ground rather than the polls that stroke their already over-inflated egos (Just today one of the farthest left of the dinosaur media actually had to eat crow and acknowledge the truth in Iraq--the surge is WORKING and Iraqis are STEPPING UP to take over their own country and THEY SIMPLY CANNOT HANDLE THIS).

They say this because they are LOSING, because they are the WORST Congress ever inflicted upon this country and because they are terrified the average American citizen has had enough--and they WILL lose their jobs in the next election.

Their credibility is GONE.

You have the SOH conspiring with known states protecting terrorists, on a trip she was advised not to take--and by thumbing her nose at the American people, she screwed up a vitally important message entrusted to her by our ALLY, Israel.

You have a presidential candidate with no experience and no substance, one who swings in the wind and his policy changes when the wind does--stating unequivocally he will meet, without conditions, leaders (thugs?) of known terrorist regimes because we "don't talk enough".

You have a thief and liar finally letting her hair down, coming straight out and saying she intends to turn this country into a communistic, totalitarian state, punishing people for being successful by taking their rightfully earned wealth and plunging this country into the class of a third world country by doing so.

THESE are the people calling US obstructionist.

Now, you have this. A bunch of children saying they're going to blatantly ignore the Constitution in appointing judges because THEY'RE ineffective in running this country. But WE'RE the obstructionists. A bunch of bleating sheep who will NOT be happy until each body bag ever manufactured is filled--hopefully, in their eyes, with one of our troops. Holding funding for those troops (and therefore vitally needed armor, transportation and supplies) in their childish temper tantrums. Withholding funds that WILL lead to more troop deaths because THEY didn't get their way.

But WE'RE the obstructionists.

And, I GUARANTEE the moonbat brigade is going to go stark raving bonkers the more they get "Mitch-slapped"--hopefully, bonkers enough people will turn out in DROVES at election time to GET THESE OBSTRUCTIONISTS OUT OF WASHINGTON.

********************

Schumer to fight any new Bush High Court pick

Carrie Budoff
Politico.com
07-30-2007

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.”

Schumer’s assertion comes as Democrats and liberal advocacy groups are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court with Bush’s nominees – Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito – has moved quicker than expected to overturn legal precedents.

Um...perhaps because, rather than follow the principle of stare decisis required of all United States court actions, these previous "precedents" were either actual legislation from the bench or were truly unconstitutional. The reversal should NOT have been necessary because they never should have been legislated from the bench to begin with. The justices job is to INTERPRET the Constitution, not add to it the way Dr. Frankenstein added to his monster--a leg here, an arm there and oh, wait a minute, let's add a second head over there because that's what the "public" (communists aka democrats/liberals) wants.

Senators were too quick to accept the nominees’ word that they would respect legal precedents, and “too easily impressed with the charm of Roberts and the erudition of Alito,” Schumer said.

Once again...the justices causing such an uproar have actually been DOING THE JOB AS DELINEATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. They have begun to overthrow the non-legal "precedents" the better red than dead crowd wanted so badly. Abortion is illegal, not precedent. Nowhere in the Constitution is it acceptable to kill an unborn child and is in fact against the prevailing "law of the land". But then, communists and liberals like to kill helpless things. Further, just as prohibition was an absolute disaster, so was school busing. Prohibition was repealed; now, the ground has been broken for the same treatment to school busing.

“There is no doubt that we were hoodwinked,” said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

This is just too stupid to acknowledge.

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."

From another Fidelis article, here's how they reacted in the past:

“Republicans in the Senate went on to confirm 15 of President Clinton’s nominees. In contrast, the Democrat controlled Senate has only confirmed three of President Bush’s nominees in the first six months of this year. This is barely half the speed of which Senator Leahy considered ‘not acceptable’ seven years ago. Chairman Leahy is perfectly positioned to rectify the injustice of denying qualified nominees an up or down vote,” said Burch.

Schumer voted against confirming Roberts and Alito. In Friday’s speech, he said his “greatest regret” in the last Congress was not doing more to scuttle Alito.

And, why is that, ladies and gentlemen? BECAUSE THE MAN IS TERRIFIED conservative values might actually gain a foothold and be given a chance to grow again--showing him for the red-loving (ever notice how communists like the color red--like blood?) jerk he is.

“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.”

Oh REALLY? "Twisted more arms...?" Doesn't that fall under undue duress? Back room deals? Undue influence? LOBBYING?

While no retirements appear imminent, Bush still could have the opportunity to fill another vacancy on the court. Yet the two oldest members – Justice John Paul Stevens, 87, and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74 – are part of the court's liberal bloc and could hold off retirement until Bush leaves office in January, 2009.

Earlier this week, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee’s ranking Republican, said he was persuaded by a conversation with Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who spoke with Specter at the Aspen Institute gathering in Colorado this month, to study the decisions of the Roberts Court. The term that ended in June was notable for several rulings that reversed or chipped away at several long-standing decisions, delighting conservatives but enraging liberals.

See above--of course they're going to investigate--they KNOW the decisions they call precedents are illegal and they're terrified the American public will finally wake up. Further, Breyer prefers to rely on "global" precedent rather than AMERICAN/CONSTITUTIONAL precedent. GLOBAL precedent has no bearing in the United States jurisdictions--and he is in blatant contempt of violating the Constitution himself.

Breyer has publicly raised concerns that conservative justices were violating stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave precedents undisturbed.

Once again, stare decisis is required for all jurisprudence issues in the United States; however, it is invalid in dealing with global precedent and with illegal legislation from the bench.

“It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much,” Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench in June to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities.

Well, he certainly tried to do a lot more. I think the green-eyed monster of jealousy plagues this idiot because he simply couldn't accomplish what he wanted to, and that was push more communist/democrat/liberal bias on the country through continued illegal activity from the bench.

Schumer said there were four lessons to be learned from Alito and Roberts: Confirmation hearings are meaningless, a nominee’s record should be weighed more heavily than rhetoric, “ideology matters” and “take the president at his word.”

And those are BAD THINGS??? In whose eyes? The unborn children who will live? The kids who won't be forcibly bused to a school they don't belong in, simply to satisfy a "quota"? And the funniest of all--"take the President at his word". Funny, he doesn't seem to understand that anywhere else.

“When a president says he wants to nominate justices in the mold of [Antonin] Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas,” Schumer said, “believe him.".

Yes--believe him. And, believe him when he says he's going to pull out the veto pen while you fritter troops lives away, while you endanger the country's security and while you embolden the enemy.

********************

Further, when it comes to abuses of the Constitution--all of the communist/democrat/liberals need to take a good look at who the TRUE shredders of the Constitution are--and the best place to start is in their own mirrors.

Now, we need to get back to the basics of said Constitution--quit favoring muslims with the religiosity of their fanaticism while slamming Christians and Jews. Quit giving special consideration to a barbaric, murderous political system (although not as bad as communism has proven to be in sheer numbers of corpses stacking up like cordwood--YET) and their "religious propaganda symbols" over and above the same considerations, beliefs and symbols of other religions such as Christianity and Judaism.

When was the last time you heard of your tax dollars being used to install "religiously acceptable" wash facilities and religiously correct cafeterias on a publicly funded campus for Christians and Jews? You haven't--and you won't. But go to the University of Michigan and that's EXACTLY what they're doing on THEIR campus for muslims--again, with YOUR tax dollars.

Doesn't THAT violate the communist/democrat/liberal belief in separation of church and state (which is, by the way, a COMPLETE misinterpretation of "the government shall not interfere with an individual's right to worship as they please" and something else legislated from the bench to trash all Christian and Jewish holidays).

An alleged hate crime consisting of flushing a koran down a toilet occurred over the weekend at Pace University--yet an alleged "artist" standing a crucifix in a bottle of urine and titleing it "Piss Christ" is considered to be that "artist's" First Amendment right to free expression and no Christian group is allowed to stop it. Where were Alito, Thomas and Roberts then? Oh wait...the communists/democrats/liberals held the majority bloc on the Court at the time. It's okay to "hate" Christians and appease muslims. I forgot there for a minute.

If I had a koran---I'd have a killer bonfire. And I'd fight it ANY "charge" of a "hate crime" as high as I could take it, as loud as I could make it because I'd be indulging MY First Amendment right to free expression. I can hate a book and it's NOT a hate crime.

And the communist/democratic/liberal faction in this country needs to look into their mirrors and confront their Dorian Gray souls--conservatives are rising and it's not going to be pretty for them. The more OBSTRUCTIONIST THEY BECOME--the more powerful WE become in Taking Our Country Back (to paraphrase the name of Snooper's site). It's time to Wake Up America (Spree's site), and get back to our heritage of freedom instead of the communist/democrat/liberal agenda to turn us into the Orwellian world envisioned by them.

[UPDATE] Politico has two excellent articles on this issue here and here.

Sphere: Related Content