Schumer: Democrats will not confirm another Bush Supreme Court nominee

If you try brainstorming some of the reasons why a John Kerry presidency would have been good for our country, one item around the top of the list should be the judiciary.  Had Kerry won Ohio, the Supreme Court would be two seats more progressive.  A number of 5-4 court rulings within the last year, including the one on abortion, would have gone the other way.

In an effort to prevent the court from going even more to the right, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is putting his food down:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democraticleadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S.Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinarycircumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told theAmerican Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The SupremeCourt is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see JusticeStevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by anotherAlito.”

Because after all, why should Schumer or any other Democratic Senator be afraid of a President with 25% approval?

Comments

[granny]

I have a general comment I want to contribute, and this seems a perfect opening to the subject, this quote from the above posting:

"after all, why should Schumer or any other Democratic Senator be afraid of a President with 25% approval?"

I have heard an answer to that question now, that we, out here and away from the thrones of power, know very little about, and are hearing virtually nothing about.

This is according to a good source who has recently been in Washington, D.C. and had the opportunity to speak with national news reporters.

This is what I am told:
In Washington, and the circles around that political life, where this is all actually happening, people are VERY afraid.

This "Administration" is viewed in all seriousness as a true fascist regime. A group with unlimited ambitions, enormous power, and all the genuine trappings of fascist regimes: spies, wire tapping, record keeping, watching, and waiting, and using any and all means to prevent opposition. Anyone who gets in the way is looking at the reality of very serious, life altering, consequences.

I imagine the reader looking at this with skepticism. I have a sense of unreality myself as I write it down; But as I heard it, there was no kidding around, no speculation.

The atmosphere in Washington is described as one of "being shut down". Every one trying to stay under the radar.

"No one knows what is going to happen. And a great many have no other thought than to ride it out in quiet anonymity."

The local news is filled with stories of people who are in one way or another paying a price for speaking or acting out (though it may not be described as that) Lost jobs. People moved from good, long held positions, into pointless pencil pushing positions where one can no longer make decisions, (aka "trouble"). Wage cuts. Loss of official status (as in military rank, pension, benefits). Threatening of assets. Loss of ability to travel freely.

Instances of bodily harm and death have occurred which the people in the victim's circle see as highly suspicious and easily connected to actions or statements taken that were detrimental to the "Administration".

So, according to this report, it is indeed what it appears: We are in the throes of a real, full fledged effort to usurp the power of this government and put it into the hands of the few who do not have any form of Democracy or freedom in mind; And more riveting, more relevant, have no notion that their "time is up" when the next election comes along.

The term "having a spine" has taken on a whole new meaning.

The new Executive Order, 1701, is what it seems. It is entirely intentional, and entirely in keeping with such fascist takeovers.

If we choose to address the “real issue” apparently our dialogue will have to change.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

You know, Granny, they are fascist. I've never said that before on this site...I really dislike name-calling. But when you think of it, it's only a definition.

Now that you mention it, here is the dictionary definition of fascism:
"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html

Aside from the dictator part, the rest of it applies -- especially the part about "belligerant nationalism."

[granny]

I think our attentions had better turn to the recent story (July 20,2007 NYT)that the Democrats are "under pressure" to give up on a voting paper trail by the 2008 election.

[NC]

"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism."

Who's fascist? Dems = big government for pet projects. Repubs = limited government for the people. Pretty simple really. Wake up.

Next: what happened to Pelosi's idea of bipartisanship? Schumer's rant that he's going to prematurely block ANY of Bush's nominees is childish and not in the best interest for anyone in this nation. All they care about is power, not what is good for the people. Note:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/party-voters/

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Hmm...let's see here:

"Belligerent nationalism" -- gee, I wonder which side did that. Want some freedom fries?

"social and economic control" -- Patriot Act, warrantless eavesdropping and spying on war protesters covers the social end of it. As far as economic, how about all the subsidies we are giving to oil companies. Gee, those oil companies sure deserve those tax dollars more than the poor!

"Centralized government" -- Unfunded mandates for no-child left behind, unfunded mandates for the Patriot Act, unfunded mandates for disaster prevention. It all drains money out of state budgets. Even GOP governors will tell you that. And also, look at the expansion of the Executive Branch. And I thought we were supposed to respect the constitution.

"a dictator" -- a Vice President that is immune from legislative and executive oversight, and controls what Bush knows and decides each day.

Nice try though.

[George]

NC, I am not a Democrat. I dont trust Bush to nominate anyone for anything. His chances are all used up now. He's a lame duck from head to toe. I would not trust him to hire a gardener for the White House.